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
Steve Dufourny: "Hi dear Don, Interesting for the link between numbers and mass.....it's..." in GRW vs Free Will
James Putnam: "Could we please have physicist responses to Eckard's message? James" in Philosophy vs. Physics
Eckard: "Peter and James, T. Van Flandern explained convincingly that ..." in Philosophy vs. Physics
Lawrence B. Crowell: "Florin, I guess I missed your post on Bell theorem. The case here is how..." in GRW vs Free Will
RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles
Readers' Choice: The Holographic Universe
Take one universe. Turn it into a hologram. Find its quantum wavefunction. Understand the birth of our cosmos.
The Quantum PlayStation
How the PS3 is helping physicists develop a theory of quantum gravity.
The Destiny of the Universe
A radical reformulation of quantum mechanics suggests that the universe has a set destiny and its pre-existing fate reaches back in time to influence the past. It could explain the origin of life, dark energy and solve other cosmic conundrums.
Time and the Multiverse
Could multiple universes explain our arrow of time? Does time run backwards in other universes?
The Black Hole Universe
Is our universe housed in a black hole? Or did it exist before the Big Bang? If so, we could solve the mystery of dark energy—surprisingly, it could all be down to the humble neutrino.
Steve Dufourny: "Hi dear Don, Interesting for the link between numbers and mass.....it's..." in GRW vs Free Will
James Putnam: "Could we please have physicist responses to Eckard's message? James" in Philosophy vs. Physics
Eckard: "Peter and James, T. Van Flandern explained convincingly that ..." in Philosophy vs. Physics
Lawrence B. Crowell: "Florin, I guess I missed your post on Bell theorem. The case here is how..." in GRW vs Free Will
RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles
Readers' Choice: The Holographic Universe
Take one universe. Turn it into a hologram. Find its quantum wavefunction. Understand the birth of our cosmos.
The Quantum PlayStation
How the PS3 is helping physicists develop a theory of quantum gravity.
The Destiny of the Universe
A radical reformulation of quantum mechanics suggests that the universe has a set destiny and its pre-existing fate reaches back in time to influence the past. It could explain the origin of life, dark energy and solve other cosmic conundrums.
Time and the Multiverse
Could multiple universes explain our arrow of time? Does time run backwards in other universes?
The Black Hole Universe
Is our universe housed in a black hole? Or did it exist before the Big Bang? If so, we could solve the mystery of dark energy—surprisingly, it could all be down to the humble neutrino.
FQXi BLOGS
September 2, 2010
As the LHC supposedly gears up, Harvard physicist Kevin Black, based at CERN, investigates rumors that the particle accelerator may, in fact, soon be shut down—by ripples from the future.
From Kevin Black:
I came across a bizarre paper recently suggesting that the LHC might be shut down. Not because of the funding cuts that have been threatening particle physics projects around the world, nor because of law suits accusing the LHC of threatening life on Earth. (Not even because we at the LHC have recently been accused of having far too much fun rapping.)
No, the paper suggested that future effects caused by the production of particles, such as the Higgs, could ripple backwards in time and prevent the LHC from ever operating.
If it hadn't been written by two very well respected and accomplished theoretical physicists, I would have stopped reading at the title alone:"Test of Effect from Future in Large Hadron Collider; A Proposal". To be completely honest, the title reads like titles that occasionally appear in my inbox—“Relativity Principle Untenable," "Quantum Mechanics a Hoax," and other nerdy versions of the emails from the supposed attorney of my long-lost Nigerian uncle who apparently has died and left me millions of dollars, if I can only send him $50,000 so that he can get it to me.
But I didn't stop. I read the article. I read it for another reason other than the somewhat awkwardly sounding title and not just because the authors, Holger Nielsen, of the University of Copenhagen, and Masao Ninomiya, of Kyoto University, are somewhat famous. I read it because when I come across such things it tends to remind me of the first time I learned about quantum mechanics. To be honest, if it hadn't come from a professor at a university and a published text book I would have thought that the whole thing was some sort of a scam as well. I mean, really? Sometimes it acts as a wave and sometimes it acts as a particle? The first time I heard about wave/particle duality I was expecting to be asked to send the authors money (perhaps to Nigeria?).
So what did the article say? Well, it started out with a reasonable enough point. One of the basic assumptions of classical physics is that time flows in one direction and that when describing a physical system one needs to know the equations of motion and the initial conditions in order to predict the future behavior of a classical system.
However, quantum mechanics changes this a bit. Classical mechanics can be formulated in such a way that one sets up an “action” integral. The solution to the physical system can be expressed as the path that minimizes the action integral. It turns out that in quantum mechanics one needs to not simply take one path—but take the sum over all possible paths. For example, if you want to work out how a photon gets from a lightbulb to your eye, you need to take into account not just its straight-line trajectory, but contributions of all possible paths it could have taken, including paths where the photon bounces round the room. It's a bit strange, but it seems to work and 60 years+ of detailed experiments have confirmed this description over and over again to remarkable quantitative precision.
The authors of this paper claim to show that other terms can be added to the quantum mechanical action that are consistent with current theory and experiment. However, some of these possible terms include conditions in the future that need to be taken into account and summed over. That is to say, what happens in the future could (according to this paper) affect what happens in the present.
Why the LHC? The authors argue that these sorts of time-violating interactions could be associated with whatever new particles we create at the LHC. For example, the production of a large number of Higgs particles in the future could have a backwards-in-time causal effect on the machine that produced them, stopping the machine from ever running. As possible “evidence” for such a backwards-in-time effect, the authors cite the now-canceled Superconducting Super Collider (SSC)—a particle accelerator that was meant to hunt the Higgs and was partially constructed in Texas before Congress pulled the plug on the project. As the authors write in their paper: “Such a cancellation after a huge investment is already in itself an unusual event that should not happen too often. We might take this event as experimental evidence for our model in which an accelerator with the luminosity and beam energy of the SSC will not be built.”
It’s as though the Higgs plays the role of the time traveler who goes back to the past and murders his grandfather, thus preventing his own birth.
Now, I must admit that this is where I started to get a bit skeptical. The authors go on to suggest that the LHC is also under threat from a possible “miraculous” shutdown caused by the backward influence of particles like the Higgs, which it may create in the future: “Since the LHC has a performance approaching the SSC, it suggests that also the LHC may be in danger of being closed under mysterious circumstances.”
Visions of the X-Files’ Fox Mulder launching into some hour-long diatribe about future conditions (and of course government conspiracies) started to appear. But I read on nonetheless, becoming a little bit more amused and a lot more confused as I tried to finish the paper.
In order to make it topical they proposed an experiment. Play a game of cards—a kind of particle physics tarot—to determine if future LHC conditions could affect the draw of the cards. The idea being that if the cards were arranged to represent different possible LHC outcomes—discovery of the Higgs particle, discovery of SUSY, failure or cancellation of the LHC, destruction of the world by the creation of mini-black holes, etc—then what actually happens in the future could affect the outcome of the card drawn now.
As crazy as it sounds, it’s at least a novel idea. Certainly, time travel and causality violation are topics that physicists, such as FQXi’s Ken Olum, are seriously investigating (see “Charting the River of Time”); so why not look for backwards causation at the LHC?
As an experimentalist working at CERN, I’m ready to pull cards out of a hat in the name of science, even at the risk of prognosticating the demise of the LHC. However, I can't get my head around one basic thing. How can this possibly prove or disprove the theory? They went through some argument (which I can't say I completely understood) claiming that a concrete test of this idea could be put in place, but I am not convinced. Even if I pull the “shutdown card” and the LHC is indeed shut down, how will I know that this is proof and not just a strange coincidence?
Conventionally, scientific hypotheses are considered “scientific” if and only if they can be falsified by some experiment (at least in principle). That is to say, it may not be technically possible to conduct such an experiment right now but at least in principle such an experiment could be made. That's the part I couldn't get my head around. How could you ever design an experiment that would disprove future causal influence on a current condition? I just can't imagine how one could do that, but I am open to suggestions. Any ideas?
So, for now, I will just put down the paper and get back to the grind of my usual days—debugging software and trying to commission the ATLAS muon spectrometer. I will pass this paper off as quirky, but probably not likely to lead to any major discoveries. But then again, one day I might be teaching this experiment out of a text book to incredulous students who think I am trying to sell them the Brooklyn bridge...
--
Kevin Black is a postdoc at Harvard University. He works with the ATLAS experiment at CERN, and sincerely hopes that LHC isn’t shut down any time soon.
this post has been edited by the forum administrator
post approved
From Kevin Black:
 |
| (Image: CERN) |
No, the paper suggested that future effects caused by the production of particles, such as the Higgs, could ripple backwards in time and prevent the LHC from ever operating.
If it hadn't been written by two very well respected and accomplished theoretical physicists, I would have stopped reading at the title alone:"Test of Effect from Future in Large Hadron Collider; A Proposal". To be completely honest, the title reads like titles that occasionally appear in my inbox—“Relativity Principle Untenable," "Quantum Mechanics a Hoax," and other nerdy versions of the emails from the supposed attorney of my long-lost Nigerian uncle who apparently has died and left me millions of dollars, if I can only send him $50,000 so that he can get it to me.
But I didn't stop. I read the article. I read it for another reason other than the somewhat awkwardly sounding title and not just because the authors, Holger Nielsen, of the University of Copenhagen, and Masao Ninomiya, of Kyoto University, are somewhat famous. I read it because when I come across such things it tends to remind me of the first time I learned about quantum mechanics. To be honest, if it hadn't come from a professor at a university and a published text book I would have thought that the whole thing was some sort of a scam as well. I mean, really? Sometimes it acts as a wave and sometimes it acts as a particle? The first time I heard about wave/particle duality I was expecting to be asked to send the authors money (perhaps to Nigeria?).
So what did the article say? Well, it started out with a reasonable enough point. One of the basic assumptions of classical physics is that time flows in one direction and that when describing a physical system one needs to know the equations of motion and the initial conditions in order to predict the future behavior of a classical system.
However, quantum mechanics changes this a bit. Classical mechanics can be formulated in such a way that one sets up an “action” integral. The solution to the physical system can be expressed as the path that minimizes the action integral. It turns out that in quantum mechanics one needs to not simply take one path—but take the sum over all possible paths. For example, if you want to work out how a photon gets from a lightbulb to your eye, you need to take into account not just its straight-line trajectory, but contributions of all possible paths it could have taken, including paths where the photon bounces round the room. It's a bit strange, but it seems to work and 60 years+ of detailed experiments have confirmed this description over and over again to remarkable quantitative precision.
The authors of this paper claim to show that other terms can be added to the quantum mechanical action that are consistent with current theory and experiment. However, some of these possible terms include conditions in the future that need to be taken into account and summed over. That is to say, what happens in the future could (according to this paper) affect what happens in the present.
Why the LHC? The authors argue that these sorts of time-violating interactions could be associated with whatever new particles we create at the LHC. For example, the production of a large number of Higgs particles in the future could have a backwards-in-time causal effect on the machine that produced them, stopping the machine from ever running. As possible “evidence” for such a backwards-in-time effect, the authors cite the now-canceled Superconducting Super Collider (SSC)—a particle accelerator that was meant to hunt the Higgs and was partially constructed in Texas before Congress pulled the plug on the project. As the authors write in their paper: “Such a cancellation after a huge investment is already in itself an unusual event that should not happen too often. We might take this event as experimental evidence for our model in which an accelerator with the luminosity and beam energy of the SSC will not be built.”
It’s as though the Higgs plays the role of the time traveler who goes back to the past and murders his grandfather, thus preventing his own birth.
Now, I must admit that this is where I started to get a bit skeptical. The authors go on to suggest that the LHC is also under threat from a possible “miraculous” shutdown caused by the backward influence of particles like the Higgs, which it may create in the future: “Since the LHC has a performance approaching the SSC, it suggests that also the LHC may be in danger of being closed under mysterious circumstances.”
Visions of the X-Files’ Fox Mulder launching into some hour-long diatribe about future conditions (and of course government conspiracies) started to appear. But I read on nonetheless, becoming a little bit more amused and a lot more confused as I tried to finish the paper.
 |
| (Image: margot mystic) |
As crazy as it sounds, it’s at least a novel idea. Certainly, time travel and causality violation are topics that physicists, such as FQXi’s Ken Olum, are seriously investigating (see “Charting the River of Time”); so why not look for backwards causation at the LHC?
As an experimentalist working at CERN, I’m ready to pull cards out of a hat in the name of science, even at the risk of prognosticating the demise of the LHC. However, I can't get my head around one basic thing. How can this possibly prove or disprove the theory? They went through some argument (which I can't say I completely understood) claiming that a concrete test of this idea could be put in place, but I am not convinced. Even if I pull the “shutdown card” and the LHC is indeed shut down, how will I know that this is proof and not just a strange coincidence?
Conventionally, scientific hypotheses are considered “scientific” if and only if they can be falsified by some experiment (at least in principle). That is to say, it may not be technically possible to conduct such an experiment right now but at least in principle such an experiment could be made. That's the part I couldn't get my head around. How could you ever design an experiment that would disprove future causal influence on a current condition? I just can't imagine how one could do that, but I am open to suggestions. Any ideas?
So, for now, I will just put down the paper and get back to the grind of my usual days—debugging software and trying to commission the ATLAS muon spectrometer. I will pass this paper off as quirky, but probably not likely to lead to any major discoveries. But then again, one day I might be teaching this experiment out of a text book to incredulous students who think I am trying to sell them the Brooklyn bridge...
--
Kevin Black is a postdoc at Harvard University. He works with the ATLAS experiment at CERN, and sincerely hopes that LHC isn’t shut down any time soon.
this post has been edited by the forum administrator
post approved
"How could you ever design an experiment that would disprove future causal influence on a current condition?"
build more than 1 identical LHC and see if they ALL shut down under mysterious circumstances. 20 would be enough, 100 would be better. you did say "in principle" :)
post approved
build more than 1 identical LHC and see if they ALL shut down under mysterious circumstances. 20 would be enough, 100 would be better. you did say "in principle" :)
post approved
> Even if I pull the “shutdown card” and the LHC is indeed shut down, how will I know that this is proof and not just a strange coincidence?
Well, one way to do it is to conduct the experiment more than once. If there's only one shutdown card and you pull it out of a deck of 52 cards 10 times in a row, that would be a pretty good indication that it's not just random chance.
post approved
Well, one way to do it is to conduct the experiment more than once. If there's only one shutdown card and you pull it out of a deck of 52 cards 10 times in a row, that would be a pretty good indication that it's not just random chance.
post approved
Both interesting ideas - but again I am stuck on the scientific proof issue. I guess the crux of the problem is that the way that I am used to thinking of scientific proof means essentially providing a reproducible causal link between two events. No doubt the experiments that you propose could be reproducible - but do they prove a causal link. I think the heart of the matter is what you define to be causal. Its hard for me to imagine proving that something in the future caused something in the present to occur. To start with - how do you know what did or didn't happen in the future if something that happens then stops it from ever happening??
post approved
post approved
This could never happen - the Microsoft OS that runs the universe doesn't do multi threading.
Seriously though I want to be in the time thread alternate universe where the collider finds does nothing. I feel safer.
www.vivzizi.com
post approved
Seriously though I want to be in the time thread alternate universe where the collider finds does nothing. I feel safer.
www.vivzizi.com
post approved
I am -totally- out of my depth when it comes to considering physics [I'm not even going to say 'higher physics'].
However, the fantastic comes easy to me.
So here's a thought: -if- running the LHC teaches us something wildly spectacular about the way time flows in more than one direction [don't ask me to expand on that, please, have mercy] and this effect can be kinda sorta maybe controlled: would it occur to the scientists working on the -then- machine to design an experiment that flows back in time [don't ask me how, -tell me-] to make the -now- machine behave in a totally unanticipated way which would act as a strong indicator that such a thing was possible?
And if it is: why have we not yet seen any strong evidence of it? Does it require the LHC to be operating at least once, to establish causality that in -this- universe the device actually functions as designed and it can receive a signal? Maybe it requires modifications that have not yet been completed, much less considered?
post approved
However, the fantastic comes easy to me.
So here's a thought: -if- running the LHC teaches us something wildly spectacular about the way time flows in more than one direction [don't ask me to expand on that, please, have mercy] and this effect can be kinda sorta maybe controlled: would it occur to the scientists working on the -then- machine to design an experiment that flows back in time [don't ask me how, -tell me-] to make the -now- machine behave in a totally unanticipated way which would act as a strong indicator that such a thing was possible?
And if it is: why have we not yet seen any strong evidence of it? Does it require the LHC to be operating at least once, to establish causality that in -this- universe the device actually functions as designed and it can receive a signal? Maybe it requires modifications that have not yet been completed, much less considered?
post approved
Just to tweak a little: Doctor Black mentions the paper referring to 'some events that would stop the machine' by dint of the huge amount of Higgs particles it would generate.
I specifically mean: an experiment, by adjusting the way the machine works, that would allow -then- to send an unambiguous message back to -now-. It doesn't have to be the complete works of Shakespeare, it should be an outcome that the machine could not possibly come up with on its own, the first 10 primes pulsing in sequence for instance.
Not eloquence, just a glaring signal: LOOK HERE, SOMETHING'S HAPPENING!!!
post approved
I specifically mean: an experiment, by adjusting the way the machine works, that would allow -then- to send an unambiguous message back to -now-. It doesn't have to be the complete works of Shakespeare, it should be an outcome that the machine could not possibly come up with on its own, the first 10 primes pulsing in sequence for instance.
Not eloquence, just a glaring signal: LOOK HERE, SOMETHING'S HAPPENING!!!
post approved
You should read Thrice Upon A Time:
http://www.amazon.com/Thrice-Upon-Time-James-Hogan...
this post has been edited by the forum administrator
post approved
http://www.amazon.com/Thrice-Upon-Time-James-Hogan...
this post has been edited by the forum administrator
post approved
This sounds to me like someones lame excuse for missing a deadline.
post approved
post approved
Maybe you guys are going about this the wrong way? It's like those illusion drawings where they depict impossible 3d shapes on a 2d bit of paper. There is no problem because the actual illusion is only 2d. The mind invents the third dimension. And that contradicts. But there is no real physical problem.
It sounds crazy to use a time machine to go back in time and prevent the machine from being built. But what happens is that as soon as you go back you go to a version of the "then where you went back". Which is different from the "then where you did not go back". (The then you remember.)The idea that there is a loop is just an illusion. In reality there is a continuous consistent time line for the observer involved.
The other observer, the experimenter experiencing his machine being wrecked apparently by himself from the future is also continuous. No laws are broken by this. Something appears from another place and stops him from building a time machine. Then it leaves again. There is no problem if you consider this two superpositions of the same universe. Which is perfectly acceptable in quantum mechanics. Our normal mode of thinking would have one exclude the other. But there is no actual physical exclusion.
The fact that something appears out of nowhere sounds like a law broken. But quantum mechanics allows for this. The odds against it are astronomic. But its theoretically possible for complete objects to appear out of nowhere. No matter how unlikely the odds. This allows for a time line to cross itself without forcing the whole system into an infinite loop.
There would be a law broken if the experimenter who's machine is destroyed before being finished would later use that machine to go back to the past. That would be impossible since it was broken.He cannot get from that position to the point where he travels back in time in it.
It's a bit complicated because it requires another way to look at the problem. But you can easily do it by just imagining being the experimenter and allowing for multiple possibilities. Don't observe the bigger picture just stick close to the locality of the experimenter and note that there is no contradiction.
This is like Einsteins relativity. Implications of that allow us to theoretically go faster than light seemingly breaking the laws of physics. Unless you look at it locally and realize no laws are actually broken.
I think most problems people have with time travel are directly related to their instinctive response to consider space and time independent of the observer. Which is not accurate as Einstein patiently explained to us :)
post approved
It sounds crazy to use a time machine to go back in time and prevent the machine from being built. But what happens is that as soon as you go back you go to a version of the "then where you went back". Which is different from the "then where you did not go back". (The then you remember.)The idea that there is a loop is just an illusion. In reality there is a continuous consistent time line for the observer involved.
The other observer, the experimenter experiencing his machine being wrecked apparently by himself from the future is also continuous. No laws are broken by this. Something appears from another place and stops him from building a time machine. Then it leaves again. There is no problem if you consider this two superpositions of the same universe. Which is perfectly acceptable in quantum mechanics. Our normal mode of thinking would have one exclude the other. But there is no actual physical exclusion.
The fact that something appears out of nowhere sounds like a law broken. But quantum mechanics allows for this. The odds against it are astronomic. But its theoretically possible for complete objects to appear out of nowhere. No matter how unlikely the odds. This allows for a time line to cross itself without forcing the whole system into an infinite loop.
There would be a law broken if the experimenter who's machine is destroyed before being finished would later use that machine to go back to the past. That would be impossible since it was broken.He cannot get from that position to the point where he travels back in time in it.
It's a bit complicated because it requires another way to look at the problem. But you can easily do it by just imagining being the experimenter and allowing for multiple possibilities. Don't observe the bigger picture just stick close to the locality of the experimenter and note that there is no contradiction.
This is like Einsteins relativity. Implications of that allow us to theoretically go faster than light seemingly breaking the laws of physics. Unless you look at it locally and realize no laws are actually broken.
I think most problems people have with time travel are directly related to their instinctive response to consider space and time independent of the observer. Which is not accurate as Einstein patiently explained to us :)
post approved
ok I made a python program to test this theory, and here is my first result (and only, since i only ran it once)..
'nothing out of the ordinary'
here is my python program:
import random
c = ('nothing out of the ordinary', 'explosion', 'shutdown','black hole', 'time travel', 'anything can happen')
print random.choice(c)
...ok just ran it 4 times more to make sure it was working and my next three results were the same as the first, 'nothing out of the ordinary'. the fourth one was 'explosion'.
based on these results, there is only a 20% chance of explosion, 0% chance of time travel, 0% chance of creating a black hole, 0% chance of something unexpected happening, and 80% chance of it operating as expected.
post approved
'nothing out of the ordinary'
here is my python program:
import random
c = ('nothing out of the ordinary', 'explosion', 'shutdown','black hole', 'time travel', 'anything can happen')
print random.choice(c)
...ok just ran it 4 times more to make sure it was working and my next three results were the same as the first, 'nothing out of the ordinary'. the fourth one was 'explosion'.
based on these results, there is only a 20% chance of explosion, 0% chance of time travel, 0% chance of creating a black hole, 0% chance of something unexpected happening, and 80% chance of it operating as expected.
post approved
The effect they describe reminds me of time loop computation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=27
3822#Time_loop_logic
perhaps this could be used for a proof of causality.
The idea is write a program that waits for some effect sent back from the future. Next, perform a calculation (like solving some np-hard problem) such that not solving it would result in a paradox based on the event or message from the future. Therefore, if the universe is paradox-free, you would always solve the calculation.
post approved
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=27
3822#Time_loop_logic
perhaps this could be used for a proof of causality.
The idea is write a program that waits for some effect sent back from the future. Next, perform a calculation (like solving some np-hard problem) such that not solving it would result in a paradox based on the event or message from the future. Therefore, if the universe is paradox-free, you would always solve the calculation.
post approved
Absintereo: Thanks for the thoughtful post, that sounds a lot like "Benders Big Score" futurama movie to me, thanks for helping make more sense of it's plotline. Futurama also did an episode about universes in boxes which really confused me :)
post approved
post approved
How could you ever design an experiment that would disprove future causal influence on a current condition?
You turn on the machine. That's the experiment.
post approved
You turn on the machine. That's the experiment.
post approved
Here's a more concrete example... say we somehow had a device that could create higgs particles at will (hopefully the LHC =]), and, lets say we know it will only break if we try to use it.
Next, lets say we want to determine once and for all if there are any pair-primes over 10^100 or something.
So, we start calculating, iterating over possible paired primes. When we find one, we immediately use our device to create a higgs particle (thereby breaking our device at some prior time).
Meanwhile, we monitor our device to see if it ever breaks. If it breaks (and we havent used it yet), we know we must have used it at some point in the future. Therefore, we must have found a really large prime-pair.
Those are really tough criterion in the first pp. maybe there is something simpler...
post approved
Next, lets say we want to determine once and for all if there are any pair-primes over 10^100 or something.
So, we start calculating, iterating over possible paired primes. When we find one, we immediately use our device to create a higgs particle (thereby breaking our device at some prior time).
Meanwhile, we monitor our device to see if it ever breaks. If it breaks (and we havent used it yet), we know we must have used it at some point in the future. Therefore, we must have found a really large prime-pair.
Those are really tough criterion in the first pp. maybe there is something simpler...
post approved
Perhaps if you were to set up several kinds of experiments that depend on random events and observe a distance relationship from the core of the experiment it could be taken as reproducible evidence of the influence of the experiment from the future. Such things as radioactive decay rates could be measured for example as a function of distance and orientation from the core as a function of time till the experiment is suppose to take place. If any of these kinds of observations could be made and documented I would like know...
post approved
post approved
Hmmm...wasn't LHC supposed to be running by now? Why the delay? Magnet issues, cooldown rates...what excuse will we see next?
post approved
post approved
I'm not a physicist either, just a programmer reading reddit. So you shouldn't take this seriously, but...
My theory about time travel is that if someone does an experiment that alters things in the past, the new past would slightly change the experiment, because even small things like breaking a twig in a forest, cause exponential growth of perturbations in the resultant future.
Any experiment that changes the past will be altered in the alternate time-line... therefore the alternate experiment will cause a slightly different affect on the past, which in turn alters the experiment more, changing the past again etc... in a loop.
To break out of the loop, the changes to the past will need to stop. What we see in our reality is the final outcome, when the past stops changing.
So I agree with the authors of the paper, that if in the future you do an experiment that alters something in the past, it's likely that machine from the future has already caused a reality for us that prohibits the past-altering machine to exist. Even if you could do a test with a "shut-down card", is it more likely that our reality will change to pick the "shut-down card" instead of being changed to have a faulty component in the machine? I think that the machine is more likely to have a faulty component in our reality, given that it's the closest thing to the past-changing particles created.
So I think the tree in the forest will burn down in our reality, just to stop you from going back in time to break one of its twigs. Since small changes in the past cause many iterations of changing the past (because the machine is changed each time), and since those changes grow exponentially, I like to call my theory the 'Chaos Theory of Time Travel.'
post approved
My theory about time travel is that if someone does an experiment that alters things in the past, the new past would slightly change the experiment, because even small things like breaking a twig in a forest, cause exponential growth of perturbations in the resultant future.
Any experiment that changes the past will be altered in the alternate time-line... therefore the alternate experiment will cause a slightly different affect on the past, which in turn alters the experiment more, changing the past again etc... in a loop.
To break out of the loop, the changes to the past will need to stop. What we see in our reality is the final outcome, when the past stops changing.
So I agree with the authors of the paper, that if in the future you do an experiment that alters something in the past, it's likely that machine from the future has already caused a reality for us that prohibits the past-altering machine to exist. Even if you could do a test with a "shut-down card", is it more likely that our reality will change to pick the "shut-down card" instead of being changed to have a faulty component in the machine? I think that the machine is more likely to have a faulty component in our reality, given that it's the closest thing to the past-changing particles created.
So I think the tree in the forest will burn down in our reality, just to stop you from going back in time to break one of its twigs. Since small changes in the past cause many iterations of changing the past (because the machine is changed each time), and since those changes grow exponentially, I like to call my theory the 'Chaos Theory of Time Travel.'
post approved
I'm Not sure I understand the problem at all. You don't need an experiment to prove causality. You need a theory that makes definite predictions and is falsifiable.
The definite predictions are "you will choose the shut down card." And the falsifying result is: "You will not pull out a shut down card."
If it's not a 1/50 card you're pulling but a whole object pulled out of quantum theory at odds of 1/a lot, you don't need as many expirements.
post approved
The definite predictions are "you will choose the shut down card." And the falsifying result is: "You will not pull out a shut down card."
If it's not a 1/50 card you're pulling but a whole object pulled out of quantum theory at odds of 1/a lot, you don't need as many expirements.
post approved
But what is the connection between the LHC, the Higgs-boson, and the deck of cards? Printing a variety of possible outcomes on otherwise ordinary cards does not make them special. You absolutely need to prove causality, which I just can't see as within the realm of possibility. Otherwise every card game in the world has been running this experiment since the dawn of card games, possibly the largest base of experimental (and, unfortunately, mostly unrecorded) data ever. And if that is the case, then I could use this principle, in theory, to cheat on every card table in Vegas.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
'near-periodicity' springs to mind
and
Turing's (praise be) Halting Machine
and
Zenoan Riddles/Paradoxes.
fwiw: 'mini black holes' ftw.
post approved
and
Turing's (praise be) Halting Machine
and
Zenoan Riddles/Paradoxes.
fwiw: 'mini black holes' ftw.
post approved
Ok, so a single draw of cards is problematic because random chance could make the shutdown card pop up. Another problem is if such a card poped up, no one would seriously even consider shutting down the plant so the backwards causality would work on that anyways. What you have to do first is to come up with a test that will be so convincing as to shut down this many billion dollered investment. One possible way to retain the card idea is to make the option to shut down the plant much much more unlikely. Say, 10 decks and you have to draw all 520 cards in a specific order... TWICE!!! lol Then you would have an order of improbability so high as to be quite impossible for it to be chance, and while it might not lead to the shutdown of the LDC it would certainly freak people out enough to put it on hiatus to figure out the physics behind what the hell just happened. Interestingly if this worked you might be able to harness the improbability to do fantastic things. A la hitchhikers guide to the galaxy's improbability drive. We'll only shut down the LCH if someone invents cold fusion... tomorrow!
post approved
post approved
You come to a fork in the road. One branch leads to success, the other to certain doom.
In the crotch of the Y are two skulls. One only tells the truth, the other only tells lies. You may ask one question.
How do you find the safe path?
post approved
In the crotch of the Y are two skulls. One only tells the truth, the other only tells lies. You may ask one question.
How do you find the safe path?
post approved
What an elementary problem, I don't see the relevance though.
You ask one skull, it doesn't matter which, the following question: "If I asked the other skull which path leads to success, what would be its answer?"
Go down the other path.
Back on topic. I accept that there may be particles that travel backwards in time, but can someone explain to me how it is conceivable that these particles would create a 'miracle' (the example given by the paper seems to be convincing Congress to cut funding of the SSC) many orders beyond simple interaction with other particles?
post approved
You ask one skull, it doesn't matter which, the following question: "If I asked the other skull which path leads to success, what would be its answer?"
Go down the other path.
Back on topic. I accept that there may be particles that travel backwards in time, but can someone explain to me how it is conceivable that these particles would create a 'miracle' (the example given by the paper seems to be convincing Congress to cut funding of the SSC) many orders beyond simple interaction with other particles?
post approved
you ask either skull "which way would the other skull tell me to go to get to success?", and go the opposite wzy
post approved
post approved
I am not a physicist, so am certainly confused about the line that implies a theoretical particle traveled backwards in time and convinced Congress to cut funding for the SSC.
One stretch of an explanation: Higgs-bosons (or whatever theoretical particle) don't "cause" Congress to do anything, let alone cut funding for the SSC.
But generated in sufficient quantities, they flow backwards and erase the universe that created them from existence.
We live in a universe that exists, therefore something will always happen to prevent the generation of higgs-bosons in sufficient quantities.
That's my shot in the dark, I'd love to get a hold of the original paper and see their explanation for how the particle caused Congress to cut funding.
post approved
One stretch of an explanation: Higgs-bosons (or whatever theoretical particle) don't "cause" Congress to do anything, let alone cut funding for the SSC.
But generated in sufficient quantities, they flow backwards and erase the universe that created them from existence.
We live in a universe that exists, therefore something will always happen to prevent the generation of higgs-bosons in sufficient quantities.
That's my shot in the dark, I'd love to get a hold of the original paper and see their explanation for how the particle caused Congress to cut funding.
post approved
"your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true" - Bohr
brilliant people can say stupid things. and they can do it without ceasing to be brilliant people. nothing to see here, move along.
post approved
brilliant people can say stupid things. and they can do it without ceasing to be brilliant people. nothing to see here, move along.
post approved
there is a ligical fallacy in there somewhere we just need to find it
post approved
post approved
build more than 1 identical LHC and see if they ALL shut down under mysterious circumstances. 20 would be enough, 100 would be better. you did say "in principle" :)
---
You can't build identical LHCs. Not to mention they're so huge that there would most likely be some architectural error along the way, if we're talking about quantum effects, the LHCs need to be identical to the atom, which isn't really possible.
post approved
---
You can't build identical LHCs. Not to mention they're so huge that there would most likely be some architectural error along the way, if we're talking about quantum effects, the LHCs need to be identical to the atom, which isn't really possible.
post approved
Testing for this theory would be only marginally less sensible then properly testing for the supposed outcome of the quantum suicide experiment...
post approved
post approved
One issue is that you can't just build a highly improbable shut down test, because something more probable will cause the LHC to fail first (like a broken part). Imagine you create an nearly impossible shut-down-card test, like "someone better invent cold fusion by next week or we're turning it on". But instead, a horrible plague engulfs the earth because that was more probable.
So maybe the right test is something like a 1/100 chance. enough to take seriously, but not totally impossible. Do it more than once and it's still a 1/100 chance each time, since it has no memory, so you should keep getting the same results forever (or until you get sick and don't make it to work that day or something). That should be enough It can't be too improbable or something else will happen first. You're literally pitting all improbable actions against each-other, all with the end result of stopping the LHC!
post approved
So maybe the right test is something like a 1/100 chance. enough to take seriously, but not totally impossible. Do it more than once and it's still a 1/100 chance each time, since it has no memory, so you should keep getting the same results forever (or until you get sick and don't make it to work that day or something). That should be enough It can't be too improbable or something else will happen first. You're literally pitting all improbable actions against each-other, all with the end result of stopping the LHC!
post approved
ok, ok, so the physicist walks into a bar and he says, if I don't get laid tonight, I'm starting the particle accelerator tomorrow!
And.... he doesn't get laid.
post approved
And.... he doesn't get laid.
post approved
I'd believe that there was something to the paper if it indicated that, say, a Higgs particle would somehow annihilate itself before it ever came into existence due to some causality violation or something - i.e. I'd believe the paper had relevance if it was talking about considering various past present and future paths of a SINGLE PARTICLE, not some mystical BS about how the human race is predestined to never see a Higgs. The paper sounds like a good candidate for an Ignobel award.
post approved
post approved
Ok. I’m not in any way qualified to make these arguments, but my intuition tells me that there is a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of the future Higgs influence hypothesizers.
The only part of this theory that I don’t buy is that the generation of a particle could influence the actions of the US congress, or of budget committees, or of any other person. What would make more sense to me is if the production of the Higgs particle sent a different kind of ripple backwards in time- not one that influences history on the top levels of bureaucracy, but one that influences the local physical environment of the past. Meaning, what if the future production of the Higgs created a field of energy/radiation/dark energy/whatever in and around the LHC site here in the past, and this field of whatever in turn created an environment that made the operation of the LHC, as it is intended, impossible?
Personally I find that easier to believe. It’s not that events are being influenced, like a time traveler telling congress to slash a science experiment budget, but that the Higgs particle (or anything created by the LHC for that matter) is in fact a self-deprecating particle. The creation of the particle makes it impossible to create the particle, on a physical level. Is it possible? The only way to disprove it is to run the experiments as planned, and make a Higgs.
post approved
The only part of this theory that I don’t buy is that the generation of a particle could influence the actions of the US congress, or of budget committees, or of any other person. What would make more sense to me is if the production of the Higgs particle sent a different kind of ripple backwards in time- not one that influences history on the top levels of bureaucracy, but one that influences the local physical environment of the past. Meaning, what if the future production of the Higgs created a field of energy/radiation/dark energy/whatever in and around the LHC site here in the past, and this field of whatever in turn created an environment that made the operation of the LHC, as it is intended, impossible?
Personally I find that easier to believe. It’s not that events are being influenced, like a time traveler telling congress to slash a science experiment budget, but that the Higgs particle (or anything created by the LHC for that matter) is in fact a self-deprecating particle. The creation of the particle makes it impossible to create the particle, on a physical level. Is it possible? The only way to disprove it is to run the experiments as planned, and make a Higgs.
post approved
Regarding the cards, I've got the feeling that it could only be relevant if decisions where made directly based on what card comes out. So, in addition to being nearly impossible to test, it wouldn't be reproducible as a final decision can only be made once.
post approved
post approved
Couldn't you make two identical particle collidors, one with the intention of finding Higgs particles, and one with the intention of not running any tests that could produce Higgs particles and if the Higgs one shuts down that would be pretty strong evidence.
post approved
post approved
"Couldn't you make two identical particle collidors, one with the intention of finding Higgs particles, and one with the intention of not running any tests that could produce Higgs particles and if the Higgs one shuts down that would be pretty strong evidence."
--
The problem is that if you build two identical machines, both of them will have the same results, if you intend them to or not. Dropping a glass onto concrete will cause it to break whether you want it to or not.
post approved
--
The problem is that if you build two identical machines, both of them will have the same results, if you intend them to or not. Dropping a glass onto concrete will cause it to break whether you want it to or not.
post approved
You're all forgetting that time does not exist.
'Time' is a means of measuring how things move, change and decay, made by humans, for humans, to help us organize the day.
Nothing can go backward in time, because there is no time to which one can go back. If you somehow rearranged all the particles in the universe to how they once had been at a set moment, you will have gone "back in time" as much as anyone ever could.
post approved
'Time' is a means of measuring how things move, change and decay, made by humans, for humans, to help us organize the day.
Nothing can go backward in time, because there is no time to which one can go back. If you somehow rearranged all the particles in the universe to how they once had been at a set moment, you will have gone "back in time" as much as anyone ever could.
post approved
> You're all forgetting that time does not exist.
Sure it does. It may not be quite the same as the way humans typically visualize is, but many physical systems definitely depend on a time coordinate.
post approved
Sure it does. It may not be quite the same as the way humans typically visualize is, but many physical systems definitely depend on a time coordinate.
post approved
... baby, baby, baby, you’re out of time ...
-jagger/richards "The Rolling Stones"
Hmmm, wasn't this around 1975, and about when the Apollo program was canceled? QED
post approved
-jagger/richards "The Rolling Stones"
Hmmm, wasn't this around 1975, and about when the Apollo program was canceled? QED
post approved
Why not set up a couple of Ronald Mallet's "Time Machine" devices, designate them and a certain particle solely for future communication regarding CERN, and wait for a signal?
post approved
post approved
"How could you ever design an experiment that would disprove future causal influence on a current condition?"
Perhaps the sum of all such experiments have already self-cancelled? ;)
post approved
Perhaps the sum of all such experiments have already self-cancelled? ;)
post approved
The problem with the card test is that it assumes the particles will use the path of least resistance to shut down the LHC. I see no reason to assume the card game might be influenced rather than infinite other events that would have the same effect (broken part, funding, Sun explosion, etc.)
post approved
post approved
Obviously the effect of the LHC will be/was the shutdown of the SSC.
post approved
post approved
I know of no good reason to believe in a linear construction of time. While we have evolved within this system and are accustomed to it, it is nonsnese to think that what is past does not exist, or that what is future has not begun to exist yet. This is saying, basically, that endless entire universes have ceased to exist, and that only the current fleeting state is actuall existant. I don't buy it. All fo the "thens" do not fall into nonexistance just because we can't access them. For that matter, thinking that one past leads to one future is a silly assumption. I put my money on the hypothesis that each possible progression from each given state does, in fact exist. I further contend that it is the limitation of our existance, and not of the real universe, that makes this seem unlikely. All of the thens are still nows within their own frame, and they are still existant. Just not right now.
post approved
post approved
I just read "Einstein's Bridge" by John Cramer which deals with people from the future coming back in time to stop construction of the SSC to prevent a disaster from taking place (disaster not DIRECTLY related to the device by the way).
Very close to this thread of thought.
post approved
Very close to this thread of thought.
post approved
The LHC will be activated, go back in time, kill his own grandfather, then impregnate his own grandmother. This will make his unborn father carry a mind-altering gene that will cause his son (the LHC) to go on a time-traveling rampage against his own grandfather instead of doing what he was supposed to do.
Unfortunately, before he could do that he mistook the SSC budget for his grandfather and killed that. This awful incident, of course, was caused by the Higgs particles, which cleverly deceived him at the precise moment.
post approved
Unfortunately, before he could do that he mistook the SSC budget for his grandfather and killed that. This awful incident, of course, was caused by the Higgs particles, which cleverly deceived him at the precise moment.
post approved
The underlying article sounds like a spoof. Have any of you ever read Isaac Asimov'z "articles" about The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiotimoline
post approved
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiotimoline
post approved
So what I should be getting from all of this is that the LHC won't start because we're going to start it? Urgh...
When we start the LHC, the particles will travel back in time to make sure we don't start it... but then won't the particles be non-existant? but still there...?
post approved
When we start the LHC, the particles will travel back in time to make sure we don't start it... but then won't the particles be non-existant? but still there...?
post approved
Sometimes granners has those cold cold hands and we dont' even know what to do. Pop Pop Charlie comes over and its all over for me and roger... when we sleep in the basement. Today I'm 43 years old and granners basement is so cold and musty like an old doorknow with a gruntfist attached. Oh, the trials of it. As I roll my dice in the darkness and imagine the hammershelf of all of you people.
You think you got it good but you didn't with your haing plan. right? haha. Oh Roger.
post approved
You think you got it good but you didn't with your haing plan. right? haha. Oh Roger.
post approved
Maybe the LHC will both create a quantum black hole AND shut itself down in the past.
post approved
post approved
Kevin -
So, I did major in physics during my undergrad, but I am by no means a physicist (i.e. I wasn't one of those guys who did his physics homework on his napkin at lunch)
But, I do understand the gist of the situation. However, I disagree with the idea that a time-reversed effect from the production of the Higgs or other qualified particle could cause a macro-scale effect like a reactor shutdown. Now that's not to say the Higgs couldn't travel back and prevent itself from being created, because, that's plausible. But, it couldn't lead to a situation where the whole reactor project is cancelled etc. (as the authors claim with the SSC's shutdown). The cancellation of funding for the SSC was the result of electing an individual who despises science. As soon as Bush got into office he dismantled the Congressional Scientific Advisory Board and cut funding for the SSC and a variety of other, non-defense related areas of research.
Anyways, it seems far more likely that the Higgs would come back and cause a relatively small effect, something on it's own size, energy, and time scale. i.e. the Higgs comes back and interferes with itself in such a way that we never see the Higgs at all. This phenomenon is relevant considering that we have expected to have found the Higgs prior to this and have not. The move towards higher energy levels was only felt necessary after the particle wasn't found at the operating levels of fermilabs and CERN. (although this move to higher energy levels is also supported by more recent theory)
So, I would expect that the reactor comes online and works just as expected. But, if the authors are truly on to something, we're more likely to just not find the Higgs. In which case, I would agree with you that there will never be a scientifically testable hypothesis in this regard. It would also indicate that is most likely impossible to actually create a Higgs Boson because the future existence of the particle initiates a reverse causality and interferes with its creation.
Just food for thought
-James
post approved
So, I did major in physics during my undergrad, but I am by no means a physicist (i.e. I wasn't one of those guys who did his physics homework on his napkin at lunch)
But, I do understand the gist of the situation. However, I disagree with the idea that a time-reversed effect from the production of the Higgs or other qualified particle could cause a macro-scale effect like a reactor shutdown. Now that's not to say the Higgs couldn't travel back and prevent itself from being created, because, that's plausible. But, it couldn't lead to a situation where the whole reactor project is cancelled etc. (as the authors claim with the SSC's shutdown). The cancellation of funding for the SSC was the result of electing an individual who despises science. As soon as Bush got into office he dismantled the Congressional Scientific Advisory Board and cut funding for the SSC and a variety of other, non-defense related areas of research.
Anyways, it seems far more likely that the Higgs would come back and cause a relatively small effect, something on it's own size, energy, and time scale. i.e. the Higgs comes back and interferes with itself in such a way that we never see the Higgs at all. This phenomenon is relevant considering that we have expected to have found the Higgs prior to this and have not. The move towards higher energy levels was only felt necessary after the particle wasn't found at the operating levels of fermilabs and CERN. (although this move to higher energy levels is also supported by more recent theory)
So, I would expect that the reactor comes online and works just as expected. But, if the authors are truly on to something, we're more likely to just not find the Higgs. In which case, I would agree with you that there will never be a scientifically testable hypothesis in this regard. It would also indicate that is most likely impossible to actually create a Higgs Boson because the future existence of the particle initiates a reverse causality and interferes with its creation.
Just food for thought
-James
post approved
Hypothesis: The operations/interactions of the Higgs Boson on matter occurs in a state of reverse causality. i.e. it's creation and 'lifetime' (however short) flow in the reverse direction as our perception of time's flow.
Result:
Our flow of time always exhibits increases in entropy.
Think it over, what would the result be if the elementary interaction responsible for the creation of mass was occurring in a time-reversed reference frame...
Thoughts?
post approved
Result:
Our flow of time always exhibits increases in entropy.
Think it over, what would the result be if the elementary interaction responsible for the creation of mass was occurring in a time-reversed reference frame...
Thoughts?
post approved
Hi, this is Kevin from the future.
Wow, we certainly didn't expect THAT to happen. Yes, please, turn it off.
post approved
Wow, we certainly didn't expect THAT to happen. Yes, please, turn it off.
post approved
Maybe the physicists are getting death threats from the religious establishments... considering someone coined the term "God Particle" for Higgs Bosons.
Paranoia concerning whether the LHC has the potential to destroy the earth or to restart the Big Bang or end the Mayan Calender in 2012, etc, is probably spread by specific parties. I agree with what James posted above in this regard.
If a test must be run to see whether running this machine is possible, shouldn't the following experiment stand up?
-Hire a random -uninformed- person to work at the LHC and eventually make him -casually- press "the button" without any clue of his intentions or its purpose. (Possibly making him press many other buttons before and after as to make it even more insignificant.)
-This way the conciousness of the man starting the machine has no influence on its outcome. (This concept already being a stretch for my current understanding of things....)
-If for some reason he cannot complete the task (ie: sudden death) or the LHC fails; then things get interesting.
As for the skull and the fork road mentioned above, I disagree that you can make a safe choice. The liar can say wtf he wants, and the "truth" is different for each case. The honest one cannot determine how the liar will lie, so he must therefore lie himself.
post approved
Paranoia concerning whether the LHC has the potential to destroy the earth or to restart the Big Bang or end the Mayan Calender in 2012, etc, is probably spread by specific parties. I agree with what James posted above in this regard.
If a test must be run to see whether running this machine is possible, shouldn't the following experiment stand up?
-Hire a random -uninformed- person to work at the LHC and eventually make him -casually- press "the button" without any clue of his intentions or its purpose. (Possibly making him press many other buttons before and after as to make it even more insignificant.)
-This way the conciousness of the man starting the machine has no influence on its outcome. (This concept already being a stretch for my current understanding of things....)
-If for some reason he cannot complete the task (ie: sudden death) or the LHC fails; then things get interesting.
As for the skull and the fork road mentioned above, I disagree that you can make a safe choice. The liar can say wtf he wants, and the "truth" is different for each case. The honest one cannot determine how the liar will lie, so he must therefore lie himself.
post approved
And continuing on analysis of the Skulls, you might as well not say anything and walk through it. Either way your odds of success are still 50%. The complexity of this problem can be made ridiculously high by over analysis of the possible outcomes of what the skulls might say.
Stop being pussies and press it. Or I will.
If we all stop existing instantaneously (worst case), who's left to care? They certainly didn't with the nuclear bomb.
post approved
Stop being pussies and press it. Or I will.
If we all stop existing instantaneously (worst case), who's left to care? They certainly didn't with the nuclear bomb.
post approved
What about spacial location?
To my understanding the earth is zipping around inside a galaxy that is zipping around. So, if I created an apple at my current location and moved it backwards in time only even a few seconds, would it not end up frozen in space somewhere along earth's orbit?
And if you grant that a paradox can occur, IE a future event stopping a past event, then why halt that causation in the normal direction?
In other words, if the Higgs particles stop the collider then the collider wouldn't produce Higgs particle to stop itself, would it?
Thats the real reason you can't safe JFK, because if you did, he'd be saved and you'd have no reason to go back in time to save him. Does this work both ways?
QM seems like crap to me, but crap very close to the mark. I just don't like the touchy feely anything is possible feel, given that our existence proves that to be untrue. For example I know that all existence (pluralmultiomnieverything-a-verse) wasn't destroyed 5 minutes ago.
QM: OH but there's also a pluralmultioptimegaversic multidimensional fold-twist-weave where every “thing” was destroyed except us, so naturally we're giant flying purple zombie Lincolns.
QM to me is like this.
Me: Whats 1 + 1?
QM fan: Somewhere between negative infinity and banana.
Headline: “Scientists prove 1 + 1 = 2”
QM fan: “Told ya so. 'nother successful prediction.”
Me: !?!?
And whats with all this bowing and scraping? So you're not a physicist, does that mean you'
re incapable of providing a good question or a new theory? The science establishment is quickly turning into a faith based initiative.
innomen.blogspot.com
post approved
To my understanding the earth is zipping around inside a galaxy that is zipping around. So, if I created an apple at my current location and moved it backwards in time only even a few seconds, would it not end up frozen in space somewhere along earth's orbit?
And if you grant that a paradox can occur, IE a future event stopping a past event, then why halt that causation in the normal direction?
In other words, if the Higgs particles stop the collider then the collider wouldn't produce Higgs particle to stop itself, would it?
Thats the real reason you can't safe JFK, because if you did, he'd be saved and you'd have no reason to go back in time to save him. Does this work both ways?
QM seems like crap to me, but crap very close to the mark. I just don't like the touchy feely anything is possible feel, given that our existence proves that to be untrue. For example I know that all existence (pluralmultiomnieverything-a-verse) wasn't destroyed 5 minutes ago.
QM: OH but there's also a pluralmultioptimegaversic multidimensional fold-twist-weave where every “thing” was destroyed except us, so naturally we're giant flying purple zombie Lincolns.
QM to me is like this.
Me: Whats 1 + 1?
QM fan: Somewhere between negative infinity and banana.
Headline: “Scientists prove 1 + 1 = 2”
QM fan: “Told ya so. 'nother successful prediction.”
Me: !?!?
And whats with all this bowing and scraping? So you're not a physicist, does that mean you'
re incapable of providing a good question or a new theory? The science establishment is quickly turning into a faith based initiative.
innomen.blogspot.com
post approved
The main problem I have with this so-called "hypothesis" is that I do not see any reason to suppose it. What evidence are they basing it on? It seems quasi-religious and mystical. Why would the creation of the Higgs mean that the Higgs would have to go back in time and nullify its own creation? Or is this just a grand justification of why the Higgs has not been found yet?
post approved
post approved
Reminds me of a quote "Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."
--Arthur Eddington
post approved
--Arthur Eddington
post approved
Brandon M. Sergent wrote on Aug. 6, 2008 @ 22:46 GMT
"Headline: “Scientists prove 1 + 1 = 2”"
Wouldn't that read mathematicians?
post approved
"Headline: “Scientists prove 1 + 1 = 2”"
Wouldn't that read mathematicians?
post approved
This would make a great episode of Star Trek. Starfleet discovers that a pre-warp civilization is about to activate some kind of doomsday device thinking it's going to generate a whatever particle. The Enterprise has to decide whether or not to interfere, and if so, how to do so without revealing their existence.
post approved
post approved
"Wouldn't that read mathematicians?"
No, since it was a metaphor for the science of QM and related predictions and discoveries.
post approved
No, since it was a metaphor for the science of QM and related predictions and discoveries.
post approved
This sounds like a journal article for the Journal of Irreproducible Results.
post approved
post approved
I am not quite sure about how all the details would work out, but: It may be possible to make an experiment as follows: Immagine an experiment you would run to test forward causation. Say, unstable atom, when it decays a swich flips over. (This example will not work, of course, we know atoms have forward causation, not backward).
Start it with a decayed atom and a flipped switch.
Just run the whole show backwards.
This will of course require a full prediction, you cannot look for 'any' backward causation.
Leo
post approved
Start it with a decayed atom and a flipped switch.
Just run the whole show backwards.
This will of course require a full prediction, you cannot look for 'any' backward causation.
Leo
post approved
This effect could be useful as a way to determine that there will be a future in existence that could stop the collider from starting.
On a possibly less significant but also cheery note, key people winning the lottery might might cause them to leave the project...
post approved
On a possibly less significant but also cheery note, key people winning the lottery might might cause them to leave the project...
post approved
All the intelligent and knowledgeable people here... this is a perfect place to post my time travel experience!
Well, not so much 'experience', but I did discover a real-world time paradox.
Back in the early 1980s I was helping a friend make a SciFi movie (Google for 'fun 1981 sci-fi home movie') and on the way to his place I stopped at a convience / drugstore for a soda. On display were 'Worlds smallest Trinitron Color TV'. 2.5" or so diagonal CRT. About 10" to 12" long with the screen on the end. Shaped something like a loaf of Italian bread with 20% cut off one end. Garishly colored. Large battery compartment, with detachable stand for tilt/swivel. I thought it would make a nice prop. Two side by side to make electronic binoculars!
I was just a little better than broke at the time and didn't buy any.
Present Day (or so)
I remember the TV I saw years ago and wonder if any are on eBay. No. I go to the Sony site. They say their smallest Trinitron tube ever was 4". I contact a vintage TV collector. He assurres me it never existed.
I know what I saw! No, it wasn't LCD! A similar sized TV from Panasonic appeared in the film 'Tootsie' and I can find information about that one.
So, what is the explanation?
jsl151@pioneeris.net
post approved
Well, not so much 'experience', but I did discover a real-world time paradox.
Back in the early 1980s I was helping a friend make a SciFi movie (Google for 'fun 1981 sci-fi home movie') and on the way to his place I stopped at a convience / drugstore for a soda. On display were 'Worlds smallest Trinitron Color TV'. 2.5" or so diagonal CRT. About 10" to 12" long with the screen on the end. Shaped something like a loaf of Italian bread with 20% cut off one end. Garishly colored. Large battery compartment, with detachable stand for tilt/swivel. I thought it would make a nice prop. Two side by side to make electronic binoculars!
I was just a little better than broke at the time and didn't buy any.
Present Day (or so)
I remember the TV I saw years ago and wonder if any are on eBay. No. I go to the Sony site. They say their smallest Trinitron tube ever was 4". I contact a vintage TV collector. He assurres me it never existed.
I know what I saw! No, it wasn't LCD! A similar sized TV from Panasonic appeared in the film 'Tootsie' and I can find information about that one.
So, what is the explanation?
jsl151@pioneeris.net
post approved
I recall some apochryphal text of G. I. Gurdjieff where he
graphed out backward causality by superimposing the enneagram over the days of the week in such a way as to
actually plot the 'geometry' of the phenonema, determining
which future day's events directly impinged upon any given
day, thus affirding the querant a 'vector' with which to
confirm his observations.
post approved
graphed out backward causality by superimposing the enneagram over the days of the week in such a way as to
actually plot the 'geometry' of the phenonema, determining
which future day's events directly impinged upon any given
day, thus affirding the querant a 'vector' with which to
confirm his observations.
post approved
I bet nothing happens, but maybe the Higg's boson is recognized and other new problems arise.
post approved
post approved
How about you create a 10 card deck of particle physics tarot cards, 1 being the infamous LHC shutdown and the remainder other events.
Purposely removed the shutdown card from the deck, lock it up in a safe, shuffle the deck, draw a card and if the shutdown card is drawn.... look out!
:-)
post approved
Purposely removed the shutdown card from the deck, lock it up in a safe, shuffle the deck, draw a card and if the shutdown card is drawn.... look out!
:-)
post approved
I think that in the "first" loop in the time-line, the LHC works perfectly but then a lot of years later, humanity realize that it was not any good to discover what it was discovered so they use this new knowledge to prevent it from being discovered. Imagine humanity with time travel capabilities, that would be horrible, you will always be afraid that the present could have been changed and you are not living the normal life you were supposed to live. Have you seen Back to the future 2? XD
post approved
post approved
You're forgetting the fact that time does indeed exist. Following your example of 'time as a measurement of movement,' is illogical. Otherwise an object that does not move or has never moved would have a measurement of 0. Such an object would not be able to exist, otherwise it would be a physical 2 Dimensional object. The thing with 2 Dimensional objects is that they cannot exist within a 3 Dimensional universe. A timer would only simply measure how long it takes one to move, but if you altered a non-moving object from it's 0 location, you would be creating a paradox. You cannot create from nothing. You cannot un-create something. Such a theory of these being possible must break the laws that man has set for energy. If these laws can be broken, than how are you judging how the machine will react? If it did indeed alter the timeline, don't you think it would have altered the past already? Thus providing evidence that it did, we would have to activate it for this past event to occur, but it has already occured, therefore it has been activated in the future. This is false, as if you didn't activate it EVER, this time fluctuation would have never existed, yet it has already. If something's position is always at 1,1,1,0 than the object is always at the same spot, and has never changed, but because the 4th measurement is there, it must change eventually, because it's at 0, it cant. All these theories cause paradoxes, and the card idea wouldn't work because it's random chance and has nothing to do with the actual machine running as it would.
post approved
post approved
The shockwave from the future says the LHC will be delayed until December 21st, 2012. They Mayans predicted the "End of Time", not "The End of the World" on this date. I guess we'll see soon enough.
post approved
post approved
How could you ever design an experiment that would disprove future causal influence on a current condition? I just can't imagine how one could do that, but I am open to suggestions. Any ideas?
_____________________________________
Just a thought... If I were a theoretical physicist In order to run an experiment of this nature I would most likely do something simple like send a post card to myself in the past saying that the experiment was a success and to proceed as planed. Of course maybe my past self has no clue what the post card is.
To take this a step further lets say the LHC (1) the one in the future runs a test to see if exotic particles ripple into the past. So as a precautionary measure they try and "float", if we can call it that, a certain particle along the ripple of time distortion (we will call this particle anomaly (1)) in the hope that the particle is detected by the LHC (2) (the LHC in the past).
The LHC (1)'s reasoning is That their past selves should be able to pick up on the idea that anomaly (1) shouldn't be there, when the LHC (2) decides to run a test to check for that sort of thing, and that it was put their puposefuly. Of course how can they know this right away? They can't so LHC (2) runs their own test to check to see if they can float anomaly (1) across a time ripple. Of course when they decide to do this they get smart and decide to add Anomaly (2) in the other direction (future) because now LHC(2) has figured out that the anomaly (1) was purposeful. So LHC (2) runs the new test. So now the LHC (1) and the LHC (2) now are seeing anomaly (1) and anomaly (2) coming at the same time. Infact now all The LHC's (if you believe in the multiple worlds theory) should have all have the same anomalies coming in.
This would indicate the experiment to have a success on past causality. Of course the viewer initially would have no clue to this as they are inside the system and not on the outside looking in, or the anomaly might be misinterpreted as something that maybe considered dangerous when first viewing it. just get to the second experiment as fast as possible so you can figure out that you put it there in the fist place.
Interesting stuff indeed. Can't wait to see what the future holds. Take care!
post approved
_____________________________________
Just a thought... If I were a theoretical physicist In order to run an experiment of this nature I would most likely do something simple like send a post card to myself in the past saying that the experiment was a success and to proceed as planed. Of course maybe my past self has no clue what the post card is.
To take this a step further lets say the LHC (1) the one in the future runs a test to see if exotic particles ripple into the past. So as a precautionary measure they try and "float", if we can call it that, a certain particle along the ripple of time distortion (we will call this particle anomaly (1)) in the hope that the particle is detected by the LHC (2) (the LHC in the past).
The LHC (1)'s reasoning is That their past selves should be able to pick up on the idea that anomaly (1) shouldn't be there, when the LHC (2) decides to run a test to check for that sort of thing, and that it was put their puposefuly. Of course how can they know this right away? They can't so LHC (2) runs their own test to check to see if they can float anomaly (1) across a time ripple. Of course when they decide to do this they get smart and decide to add Anomaly (2) in the other direction (future) because now LHC(2) has figured out that the anomaly (1) was purposeful. So LHC (2) runs the new test. So now the LHC (1) and the LHC (2) now are seeing anomaly (1) and anomaly (2) coming at the same time. Infact now all The LHC's (if you believe in the multiple worlds theory) should have all have the same anomalies coming in.
This would indicate the experiment to have a success on past causality. Of course the viewer initially would have no clue to this as they are inside the system and not on the outside looking in, or the anomaly might be misinterpreted as something that maybe considered dangerous when first viewing it. just get to the second experiment as fast as possible so you can figure out that you put it there in the fist place.
Interesting stuff indeed. Can't wait to see what the future holds. Take care!
post approved
i got so wrapped up if forgot to finish my train of thought. If you don't see anything out of the ordinary that would be more proof that there is no past causality. Of course if this is the case, then it is imperative to run the past causality experiment that the theoretical LHC (1) ran in my above post.
post approved
post approved
Yo momma didnt bring u up rite.. dats wat.. honkey white crackers
post approved
post approved
I would like to put my 2 cents in. What if the LHC doesn't find the Higgs boson? I believe that the gist of the posts above are correct, a singe particle is way the hell to unlikely to cause Congress to cancel some huge project. However, it seems theoretically possible for a particle to have reverse causality that cannot be noticed. As I understand quantum physics, anything is possible but observation itself is a key element of the effect. To continue the above supposition, what if the reverse causality effect of creating a Higgs boson is that we cannot see the Higgs boson that had just been created? If there was a reverse causality such that the Higgs boson was never created, we never would have known. Every time the LHC fired up, it could create any number of the things but because of their very existence we wouldn't be able to see them or their instant annihilation. In my very jumbled up head, this could get around the paradox of time travel. It can happen backwards if no one knows it happens. What causes the paradox is that the backwards traveling whatever has an effect on things other than itself. If the LHC creates a Higgs and the Higgs causes its past self to never have been created, we would never know-- we would never have seen the thing. Perhaps stranger things that quantum physics exist, but we will never know?
post approved
post approved
scientist are emos and want to suicide taking the world with them
i revealed a secret!
post approved
i revealed a secret!
post approved
Even if there are an infinite number of universes, splitting off for every possible event that could occur, you would still not expect to be in a universe inwhich you are in france one second, then a fraction of a second later in Canada. It just doesn't happen (and of course relativity wouldn't allow it- even quantum physics would not allow a whole person to go faster than the speed of light, regardless of what causes it). This effectivly means that no universe inwhich we are in Canada wondering what happened to France exists, atleast in the absence of loss of sanity or use of drugs.
Perhaps the particles travelling backwards in time has an effect such that certain universes they have travelled from can not exist. If they have travelled back in time, then the situation seems distinctly paradoxial. Consequently, it could be that quantum physics does not just suggest that particles can travel backwards in time, but also that the universe these particles came from can no longer exist.
That's what I got from this anyway, and in a mind bending way it makes sense, but is still based on assumptions. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.
post approved
Perhaps the particles travelling backwards in time has an effect such that certain universes they have travelled from can not exist. If they have travelled back in time, then the situation seems distinctly paradoxial. Consequently, it could be that quantum physics does not just suggest that particles can travel backwards in time, but also that the universe these particles came from can no longer exist.
That's what I got from this anyway, and in a mind bending way it makes sense, but is still based on assumptions. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.
post approved
And another piece of fiction to add to those already mentioned: Gregory Benford's Timescape - science experiment caused to fail by effect of actions made in the future.
post approved
post approved
The truth you seek will be revealed only in the future sense of the current time, however in total truth you will be troubled to know it as being thusly so.
post approved
post approved
This article is spooky to me. It gives me goosebumps. Probing the structure of the Hamiltonian to the smallest increments of space and at the highest energies (effort, money, Watts, determination) created by man is a cost we may not be willing to pay - especially if it reveals nothing useful.
Ask yourself, if there is no limit to the number of tinier and tinier particles we can create, when do we stop? We'd know we can't find them all: would it be a vain waste of energy?
The universe ultimately exists only in balance. If it were any other way it could not be... energy must be conserved. Nature demonstrates to us conservation and balance. Wouldn't it be a waste to do something which doesn't help us survive, while there are people suffering in poverty, abuse, or neglect?
Well, this will be a decision which can only be decided collectively. I'm sure there will very strong motivation to continue: people have devoted their lives to formulating and testing particle physics at the LHC.
It seems we will likely do some tests to pacify and to determine how to proceed. However, I put it to everyone: huge energies surpass potential barriers and create more unpredictable outcomes - the ultimate of which we do not want to experience. If we create sufficient energy to probe beyond our universe, we may "create" a black hole, turning our universe inside out here on Earth. Seriously. We see black holes elsewhere... do we need to do it here? I haven't done the calculation, but how much energy is really required to reach the Planck length? But furthermore, as energy density increases... the PROBABILITY of "tunneling" increases... that is, we have increasing chances of a bad outcome. I hope the established physics vanguard will consider this matter seriously, putting aside all individual pride in past predictions and accomplishments to consider the long-term effects our actions can have. At every moment of every day... are we trying to survive? We would be well-served to take every action with ultimate survival in mind. We have not been the best stewards of our Earth, let's pause now to be careful with our knowledge.
post approved
Ask yourself, if there is no limit to the number of tinier and tinier particles we can create, when do we stop? We'd know we can't find them all: would it be a vain waste of energy?
The universe ultimately exists only in balance. If it were any other way it could not be... energy must be conserved. Nature demonstrates to us conservation and balance. Wouldn't it be a waste to do something which doesn't help us survive, while there are people suffering in poverty, abuse, or neglect?
Well, this will be a decision which can only be decided collectively. I'm sure there will very strong motivation to continue: people have devoted their lives to formulating and testing particle physics at the LHC.
It seems we will likely do some tests to pacify and to determine how to proceed. However, I put it to everyone: huge energies surpass potential barriers and create more unpredictable outcomes - the ultimate of which we do not want to experience. If we create sufficient energy to probe beyond our universe, we may "create" a black hole, turning our universe inside out here on Earth. Seriously. We see black holes elsewhere... do we need to do it here? I haven't done the calculation, but how much energy is really required to reach the Planck length? But furthermore, as energy density increases... the PROBABILITY of "tunneling" increases... that is, we have increasing chances of a bad outcome. I hope the established physics vanguard will consider this matter seriously, putting aside all individual pride in past predictions and accomplishments to consider the long-term effects our actions can have. At every moment of every day... are we trying to survive? We would be well-served to take every action with ultimate survival in mind. We have not been the best stewards of our Earth, let's pause now to be careful with our knowledge.
post approved
Wow...so it turns out that activating the LHC did end up destroying all matter in the universe. How much hubris we had in probing nature's depths!
But the strange thing is that non-existence feels just like existence so far...
post approved
But the strange thing is that non-existence feels just like existence so far...
post approved
They haven't actually started high energy collision tests yet, so... the black hole possibility is still there. Here's what might happen (it's a flash but it shows the real possibility):
http://www.yaplakal.com/forum8/topic208652.html
The guys behind LHC say nothing like that will happen and suggest that nature conducts similar experiments in the Earth's atmosphere every day. However Dr Wagner is pretty sure that nature does not collide two highly focused beams of particles with the energies seen only when the universe was born. See his web site here:
http://lhcdefense.org/
The second argument of CERN is that even if a microscopic black hole appears, it will quickly evaporate due to hawking radiation. However, hawking radiation is just a theory. Hawking changed his mind about black holes once, and there's not reason to think he'd get it right this time. There's not reason to bet your life, the life of your children and the future of the planet based on a word of one quantum physicist.
Even though the odds of the black hole appearing are not that high, did anyone ask you if you're willing to trust a bunch of scientists with your life just so that they can test their theories?
I sure hope that the next time $6 bln dollars are spent by scientists it will be on finding cure for cancer and not the hypothetical higgs particle. Last time quantum physicists produced something useful resulted in millions of people dead in Hirohima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl.
The first high power experiments will be conducted end of 2008 or early 2009, so there's still time to stop this doomsday device.
I hope that anyone who cares about the future will take an action. Please suggest your ideas on how to do this (no violence, please). Will injunction help? For example:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080123
210737AAn0nZV
I hope that if enough of us do that, we will be able to save our planet.
post approved
http://www.yaplakal.com/forum8/topic208652.html
The guys behind LHC say nothing like that will happen and suggest that nature conducts similar experiments in the Earth's atmosphere every day. However Dr Wagner is pretty sure that nature does not collide two highly focused beams of particles with the energies seen only when the universe was born. See his web site here:
http://lhcdefense.org/
The second argument of CERN is that even if a microscopic black hole appears, it will quickly evaporate due to hawking radiation. However, hawking radiation is just a theory. Hawking changed his mind about black holes once, and there's not reason to think he'd get it right this time. There's not reason to bet your life, the life of your children and the future of the planet based on a word of one quantum physicist.
Even though the odds of the black hole appearing are not that high, did anyone ask you if you're willing to trust a bunch of scientists with your life just so that they can test their theories?
I sure hope that the next time $6 bln dollars are spent by scientists it will be on finding cure for cancer and not the hypothetical higgs particle. Last time quantum physicists produced something useful resulted in millions of people dead in Hirohima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl.
The first high power experiments will be conducted end of 2008 or early 2009, so there's still time to stop this doomsday device.
I hope that anyone who cares about the future will take an action. Please suggest your ideas on how to do this (no violence, please). Will injunction help? For example:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080123
210737AAn0nZV
I hope that if enough of us do that, we will be able to save our planet.
post approved
anonymous,
I appreciate your sarcasm because it brings balance to my seemingly alarmist post. Still, the thoughts weren't intended to be apocalyptic; my point is that destroying matter is a waste of energy - both literally and figuratively.
By the way, the LHC is still in a ramp-up phase, so the possibility remains. Can you or another reader prove that a catastrophic event has zero probability? In a much weaker sense, can you prove that increasing the collision energy does not increase the measurement uncertainty?
post approved
I appreciate your sarcasm because it brings balance to my seemingly alarmist post. Still, the thoughts weren't intended to be apocalyptic; my point is that destroying matter is a waste of energy - both literally and figuratively.
By the way, the LHC is still in a ramp-up phase, so the possibility remains. Can you or another reader prove that a catastrophic event has zero probability? In a much weaker sense, can you prove that increasing the collision energy does not increase the measurement uncertainty?
post approved
Neil,
Regarding the black hole concern...
Think on a few things which may alleviate your fears:
1. Conservation of energy: we don't expect to get out more than we put in, so the micro black holes (MBHs) should simply be the consumption of high energy particles with the emission of radiation ("particles," "virtual particles") in proportion. By creating such non-equilibrium states as MBHs, we have a lot of science indicating they will be ephemeral. We don't have sufficient energy to crush galaxies together, but protons, sure.
2. Black holes and white holes may be more common than we all suspect. We observe blackbody radiation but say we haven't observed Hawking radiation. We observe shock waves and various forms of event horizons in many natural phenomena. While higher energies seem to admit more intricate and therefore unpredictable outcomes, it is nice to know CERN is taking incremental steps toward collision at the goal energies. We'd expect early data to provide some signs of danger before we'd reach a hypothetical tipping point creating some metastable and omnivorous singularity. There will be a lot of data to process (300MB/s counting only "interesting" events). Hopefully CERN will "stop to smell the flowers along the way."
3. The anthropic principle applied in the context of some modern concepts of a harmonic universe seems to suggest that we will not destroy ourselves in the future because here we are today. You would likely agree the past determines the present by causality. In this assumed universe (agrees with Peter Lynds's view) the balancing term is phase reversed... that is, the future also determines the present state. I'm optimistic, thinking we'll figure this stuff out and find some physical basis for optimism. :-)
-Ryan Westafer
post approved
Regarding the black hole concern...
Think on a few things which may alleviate your fears:
1. Conservation of energy: we don't expect to get out more than we put in, so the micro black holes (MBHs) should simply be the consumption of high energy particles with the emission of radiation ("particles," "virtual particles") in proportion. By creating such non-equilibrium states as MBHs, we have a lot of science indicating they will be ephemeral. We don't have sufficient energy to crush galaxies together, but protons, sure.
2. Black holes and white holes may be more common than we all suspect. We observe blackbody radiation but say we haven't observed Hawking radiation. We observe shock waves and various forms of event horizons in many natural phenomena. While higher energies seem to admit more intricate and therefore unpredictable outcomes, it is nice to know CERN is taking incremental steps toward collision at the goal energies. We'd expect early data to provide some signs of danger before we'd reach a hypothetical tipping point creating some metastable and omnivorous singularity. There will be a lot of data to process (300MB/s counting only "interesting" events). Hopefully CERN will "stop to smell the flowers along the way."
3. The anthropic principle applied in the context of some modern concepts of a harmonic universe seems to suggest that we will not destroy ourselves in the future because here we are today. You would likely agree the past determines the present by causality. In this assumed universe (agrees with Peter Lynds's view) the balancing term is phase reversed... that is, the future also determines the present state. I'm optimistic, thinking we'll figure this stuff out and find some physical basis for optimism. :-)
-Ryan Westafer
post approved
I'm not a physicist, but I do try to keep a decent grasp of the ideas involved. That being said, I would be surprised if this does not make tiny black holes, at some point or another. Thing is, a black hole with a mass of a few protons has the gravitational force of... a few protons. Not exactly a world ending threat, especially when they evaporate instantaneously.
Back on topic, though, the helium leak that has shut down the collider for the next two months is interesting. Perhaps, as the article you read suggested, that by operating in the future the machine prevented itself from working now? It certainly seems like an odd coincidence. (Though, being a spoilsport, the problem isn't that surprising when you consider that one of the most complicated machines in history is being tested.)
post approved
Back on topic, though, the helium leak that has shut down the collider for the next two months is interesting. Perhaps, as the article you read suggested, that by operating in the future the machine prevented itself from working now? It certainly seems like an odd coincidence. (Though, being a spoilsport, the problem isn't that surprising when you consider that one of the most complicated machines in history is being tested.)
post approved
So the way to prove the theory is to build a great number of LHCs (or other Higgs producing devices) and keep trying to fire them off. As the number of devices that malfunctions approaches infinity, the likelihood that the theory is true approaches one.
post approved
post approved
It seems fairly intangible that future particle actions could cause conspiracies and “mysterious circumstances”, however I can certainly grasp the idea that temporally backwards moving quantum interaction could alter/change/interact with the operation of the collider causing it to shut down or malfunction. Say something like a transformer burning out? The collider operates by the sole grace of our precision understanding and manipulation forces and tolerances at an unprecedented level. The idea that it could generate effects whose temporal displacement could alter the operating environment and parameters in both forward AND backward domains seems perfectly feasible. In some ways, it almost seems like exactly what we are looking for but forgot to actually look for….
post approved
post approved
How does the LHC shut itself down from the future if it was never operable in the present?
post approved
post approved
....well that's easy.
Black holes swallow up matter as well as time, so the future and the past will both be engulfed up by the tiny blank holes the collider has released. It's rather simple really.
post approved
Black holes swallow up matter as well as time, so the future and the past will both be engulfed up by the tiny blank holes the collider has released. It's rather simple really.
post approved
So wouldn't this mean that the LHC will never work until the day it's decreed to be dismantled and then it will work once, before it's taken apart? This one use being the only one not being interfered with from the future use, and interfering with all previous attempts?
post approved
post approved
I guess in part it depends how "real" the universe is and what sort of reality we inhabit. In a quantum multiverse there would seem to be no problem, all possibilities would arise, perhaps even ones that rely on future events, making the paper's point that in our universe the LHD could be prevented from producing unallowable particles, or whatever.
If however we live in some form of simulated universe, well, all bets are off. How in hell does a character in a computer game get to grips with the higher reality of existence, when all it can measure is in fact an illusion? Such an illusion would seem capable of holding things together, but at it's core is at the whim of the (perhaps) unchanging initial program. There are no true distances in a computer simulated world, nor indeed time scales. Wave/particle duality seems nuts in a physical world, but its fairly easy to explain in a non-physical simulation.
We may well be nothing more than a god boy's science project. Reading the papers lately does not give me hope that we are not....scientific or news.
post approved
If however we live in some form of simulated universe, well, all bets are off. How in hell does a character in a computer game get to grips with the higher reality of existence, when all it can measure is in fact an illusion? Such an illusion would seem capable of holding things together, but at it's core is at the whim of the (perhaps) unchanging initial program. There are no true distances in a computer simulated world, nor indeed time scales. Wave/particle duality seems nuts in a physical world, but its fairly easy to explain in a non-physical simulation.
We may well be nothing more than a god boy's science project. Reading the papers lately does not give me hope that we are not....scientific or news.
post approved
Remember that time Hubble gave us those blurry images? Turns out it wasn't spherical abberation. Photons from the past purposely distored themselves to prevent the grandfather paradox, etc.
Do you think the engineer's responsible for the magnet that imploded on itself used the grandfather paradox as an argument?
Did everyone expect the most complicated thing ever built to work perfectly?! Maybe theoretical physicists should try experimenting a little more and publishing a little less.
That paper should be studied by sociologists as an example that serious celebrity physicists have bad ideas too (gasp!). What is worse is people will believe them because they are from serious celebrity physicists.
Celebrity crackpots until proven otherwise.
post approved
Do you think the engineer's responsible for the magnet that imploded on itself used the grandfather paradox as an argument?
Did everyone expect the most complicated thing ever built to work perfectly?! Maybe theoretical physicists should try experimenting a little more and publishing a little less.
That paper should be studied by sociologists as an example that serious celebrity physicists have bad ideas too (gasp!). What is worse is people will believe them because they are from serious celebrity physicists.
Celebrity crackpots until proven otherwise.
post approved
Neil, millions of people did not die at Nagasaki, Chernobyl, nor at Hiroshima. Not even all combined. Thousands of people did. Far more people died during WWII than in those 3 places combined. Yes 2 of those of events were during WWII.
post approved
post approved
You know how we find out is we simplify the problem or find a child that can somewhat grasp the concept and ask him.
I heard a story about a truck (semi) that got stuck under and overpass (Truck or Semi was too high for the bridge or overpass) and all the emergency people that were one site were trying for hours to figure out how to pull out the truck. A girl was in a car passing by I believe when someone asked her how to get the truck out and she replied to let the air out of the tires.
The truck was free from the bridge as they were easily able to pull it out.
post approved
I heard a story about a truck (semi) that got stuck under and overpass (Truck or Semi was too high for the bridge or overpass) and all the emergency people that were one site were trying for hours to figure out how to pull out the truck. A girl was in a car passing by I believe when someone asked her how to get the truck out and she replied to let the air out of the tires.
The truck was free from the bridge as they were easily able to pull it out.
post approved
SpiderX listed a Python program to "test" the supposition. It's not clear whether this was a joke or a misunderstanding.
If you read the actual paper (simply skipping any text & equations that are not readily understandable), it will be clear that the authors' proposal requires society to firmly agree in advance that the outcome of the random card game (or computer program) will be used to DECIDE whether or not to abandon the LHC before running experiments that could generate Higgs particles.
The probability of this "regrettable" outcome would be set infinitesimally small (the proposal is 1 chance in 10 million). (And as an aside, you would want to seed your random number generator with a high-quality quantum mechanically random source.)
With such a tiny chance of that card or number coming up, if it actually does occur, then this is taken statistically to be very strong evidence that an influence from the future has been detected -- and that is the consolation prize for giving up the LHC.
(But we must then faithfully follow the outcome and not complete the collider. Otherwise, the card game or program has ZERO predictive ability!)
Nevertheless, the authors propose this as a "cheap" way to see whether the LHC would work after all, compared to proceeding normally with construction & operation, which they say would (if the whole concept is correct) lead to some other unexpected and perhaps bizarre reason for its failure to ever actually go into operation. Such as one miraculous failure after another each time we attempt to turn it on. (So far, that's what we've had. Evidently the very last circuit tested led to the serious failure before the first actual collisions could be run! Now we wait until spring '09 for the next possible failure... This is highly amusing although I doubt the authors really believe they have identified the reason.)
So if their fanciful suggestion is actually correct, then no matter what we try, we will nearly never be able to generate Higgs particles. However, the reasons could be things such as a change of political parties (which killed the SSC), an economic crash (which currently threatens large-scale science), founded or unfounded fears about risks of creating strangelets/black holes, or unworkable technical problems with the design of the LHC, or an asteroid that collides with the collider.
Despite all this, I do think there may be tabletop experiments, such as may be run in Python albeit with better random sources, which may be able to demonstrate either the receipt of information from the future, or if "useful" information cannot actually be sent back, at least the retro-correlation of events in the present with events to be decided later on (as opposed to their retrocausation).
You can read the paper at http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.2991
post approved
If you read the actual paper (simply skipping any text & equations that are not readily understandable), it will be clear that the authors' proposal requires society to firmly agree in advance that the outcome of the random card game (or computer program) will be used to DECIDE whether or not to abandon the LHC before running experiments that could generate Higgs particles.
The probability of this "regrettable" outcome would be set infinitesimally small (the proposal is 1 chance in 10 million). (And as an aside, you would want to seed your random number generator with a high-quality quantum mechanically random source.)
With such a tiny chance of that card or number coming up, if it actually does occur, then this is taken statistically to be very strong evidence that an influence from the future has been detected -- and that is the consolation prize for giving up the LHC.
(But we must then faithfully follow the outcome and not complete the collider. Otherwise, the card game or program has ZERO predictive ability!)
Nevertheless, the authors propose this as a "cheap" way to see whether the LHC would work after all, compared to proceeding normally with construction & operation, which they say would (if the whole concept is correct) lead to some other unexpected and perhaps bizarre reason for its failure to ever actually go into operation. Such as one miraculous failure after another each time we attempt to turn it on. (So far, that's what we've had. Evidently the very last circuit tested led to the serious failure before the first actual collisions could be run! Now we wait until spring '09 for the next possible failure... This is highly amusing although I doubt the authors really believe they have identified the reason.)
So if their fanciful suggestion is actually correct, then no matter what we try, we will nearly never be able to generate Higgs particles. However, the reasons could be things such as a change of political parties (which killed the SSC), an economic crash (which currently threatens large-scale science), founded or unfounded fears about risks of creating strangelets/black holes, or unworkable technical problems with the design of the LHC, or an asteroid that collides with the collider.
Despite all this, I do think there may be tabletop experiments, such as may be run in Python albeit with better random sources, which may be able to demonstrate either the receipt of information from the future, or if "useful" information cannot actually be sent back, at least the retro-correlation of events in the present with events to be decided later on (as opposed to their retrocausation).
You can read the paper at http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.2991
post approved
Continuing from the previous post,
If anyone here besides me has been seriously working on retrocausality/retrocorrelation experiments, or is interested in either funding them or collaborating in person to build small-scale electronic and/or software-based devices to test the possibility of sending information across time, I invite your email correspondence: I can be reached at backtime.to.glaoATdfgh.net
I have run many such experiments to date with some intriguing results. I do not claim sufficient proof of a useful and reliable effect but know of a group of researchers who do, who would be willing to demonstrate this to us in person, and I have the skills and access to the detailed information needed to replicate their equipment given reasonable resources. If this can actually be demonstrated (which is of course a very big 'if') I will then proceed directly to monetize the discovery in an automated way, to rapidly realize a very large ROI.
post approved
If anyone here besides me has been seriously working on retrocausality/retrocorrelation experiments, or is interested in either funding them or collaborating in person to build small-scale electronic and/or software-based devices to test the possibility of sending information across time, I invite your email correspondence: I can be reached at backtime.to.glaoATdfgh.net
I have run many such experiments to date with some intriguing results. I do not claim sufficient proof of a useful and reliable effect but know of a group of researchers who do, who would be willing to demonstrate this to us in person, and I have the skills and access to the detailed information needed to replicate their equipment given reasonable resources. If this can actually be demonstrated (which is of course a very big 'if') I will then proceed directly to monetize the discovery in an automated way, to rapidly realize a very large ROI.
post approved
Being able to predict a future event is 'just' an exercise in gathering all the present information that affects the future event. Easier said than done, but in principle it could be made to approach better than an even chance; thus, a future event is as knowable as the present inormation...
Given sufficient information, the circumstances leading to the future event either happen or don't happen with an increasing probability proportional to the 'engineered' present (causal) information...
Time symmetry implies that the reverse is true; hence, the possibility of modifying the input information (tuning it) to yield an experimental outcome that depends on a future state...
Such a causal feedback loop is possible in principle and could form the basis of a 'tunable' experiment whose output depends on a future state. Very quirky indeed, just like the above comment gap between Sep 28 and Dec 31...
post approved
Given sufficient information, the circumstances leading to the future event either happen or don't happen with an increasing probability proportional to the 'engineered' present (causal) information...
Time symmetry implies that the reverse is true; hence, the possibility of modifying the input information (tuning it) to yield an experimental outcome that depends on a future state...
Such a causal feedback loop is possible in principle and could form the basis of a 'tunable' experiment whose output depends on a future state. Very quirky indeed, just like the above comment gap between Sep 28 and Dec 31...
post approved
Kevin if a phenomenon that exists in future can influence present this means that future already is existent. My idea is that time is only a measure of motion in space. Space itself is “out of time” but past, present and future exists in space. So past, present and future can influence each other in all possible ways.
Practically this means that division on past, present and future is not necessary. Universe is a block of “matter-energy(of the space)” where “before” and “after” do not exists physically, they are only models for explaining energy interactions. Universe runs in a timeless (atemporal) dimension where time is a measure of energy motion.
my mail: sorli.bistra@gmail.com
attachments: ETERNITY_IS_NOW_Sorli_2009.pdf
post approved
Practically this means that division on past, present and future is not necessary. Universe is a block of “matter-energy(of the space)” where “before” and “after” do not exists physically, they are only models for explaining energy interactions. Universe runs in a timeless (atemporal) dimension where time is a measure of energy motion.
my mail: sorli.bistra@gmail.com
attachments: ETERNITY_IS_NOW_Sorli_2009.pdf
post approved
article attached before is a bit exotic, this one is written more in a scientific spirit
attachments: Idea_of_Time_as_a_Measure_of_Motion_Permits_Test_of_Influence_from_Future_in_Large_Hadron_ColliderSorli__2009.doc
post approved
attachments: Idea_of_Time_as_a_Measure_of_Motion_Permits_Test_of_Influence_from_Future_in_Large_Hadron_ColliderSorli__2009.doc
post approved
Time is like a river, although the rivers don't just flow one way, they flow all ways, at the same time, this displacement of energy, is what creates the surface movement, so just as this theorem of time displacement, there is no possible way to differentiate where and when. Never the less how, time will do as it does. Now I'm no specialist in Quantum Mechanics, but I do know a thing r' two about Metaphysics, and such. .
post approved
post approved
c'mon everyone,the Higgs boson IS the God Particle.end of speculation.
post approved
post approved
Future events influence the present all the time. It's called "worry". Somewhere, there is a politician or a bean counter that is preparing to change the present "close down the LHC" because he is influenced by his perception of some future event. Fortunately, there is another politician somewhere that forsees a different future, and is working feverishly to undermine the efforts of the first politician.
There are contrasting visions of the future. To influence the present, you have to create the illusion of a great future. At least that's my 2 cents. :-D
post approved
There are contrasting visions of the future. To influence the present, you have to create the illusion of a great future. At least that's my 2 cents. :-D
post approved
What will be done? what's done is done..
Suerly, if the LHC can confirm a theory, by creating the "HIGGS", then and thus, the "HIGGSY/GOD" particles can, and by defualt process will, create and destroy the theory of LHC? ;)
Is the Higgs creating the LHC, or the other way round? (forgive the circular/cern pun) This remindes me of the Des Carter parallexed viewpoint,: I aint gonna think, therfore Iam not, thus why worry!
Retrocausality, as far as I am aware, cannot be" machined", that is manafactured and procured by a forward thinking, backwards-in-time (retrocausality) AI action, there are laws, legally and in physics, for
bendy_ robots, and rigid_robots also? :)
Is the Higgs a forwards thinking artificial intelligent AI particle?, and who's T.O.E is it representing, and which pond will ripples be seen or felt?
Feynman and Wheeler proposed particles such as positrons the anti-matter equivailent of Electrons, are simply particles travelling backwards in time?
post approved
Suerly, if the LHC can confirm a theory, by creating the "HIGGS", then and thus, the "HIGGSY/GOD" particles can, and by defualt process will, create and destroy the theory of LHC? ;)
Is the Higgs creating the LHC, or the other way round? (forgive the circular/cern pun) This remindes me of the Des Carter parallexed viewpoint,: I aint gonna think, therfore Iam not, thus why worry!
Retrocausality, as far as I am aware, cannot be" machined", that is manafactured and procured by a forward thinking, backwards-in-time (retrocausality) AI action, there are laws, legally and in physics, for
bendy_ robots, and rigid_robots also? :)
Is the Higgs a forwards thinking artificial intelligent AI particle?, and who's T.O.E is it representing, and which pond will ripples be seen or felt?
Feynman and Wheeler proposed particles such as positrons the anti-matter equivailent of Electrons, are simply particles travelling backwards in time?
post approved
Paul,
You see, this is why time travel cannot be possible. From retrocausality, you then have to have antiretrocausality. Then, if you have "forwards thinking artificial intelligent AI particle", then you must have "reverse anti-forwards thinking artificial intelligent AI particle". Or even worse, "lateral-forwards thinking semi-artificial para-intelligent AI particle-wave monstrosity effects". In the end, everyone is confused; we finally know why time travel is impossible, and why God favors 'forgiveness'.
post approved
You see, this is why time travel cannot be possible. From retrocausality, you then have to have antiretrocausality. Then, if you have "forwards thinking artificial intelligent AI particle", then you must have "reverse anti-forwards thinking artificial intelligent AI particle". Or even worse, "lateral-forwards thinking semi-artificial para-intelligent AI particle-wave monstrosity effects". In the end, everyone is confused; we finally know why time travel is impossible, and why God favors 'forgiveness'.
post approved
Hello all,
I have always thought what the time travel was impossible due to the rule of the time like a constant ,the past is the past ,but about the acceleration or deceleration ,in a short time ,I have some questions ,and that ponctually or in a little volume of spherical space .
I have always thought what AI was impossible ,because the time evolution of complexification of polarizations wasn't insert like foundamenatl .
It's impossible to reproduce a quantum architecture like our brain .The ultim quantum codes and its specific dynamic implies the intelligence of evolution.
We can invent many many things but some are impossible because it's like that in correlation with the foundamental laws ,God,the entity ,the entropy and its diffusion of mass .
These bosons are numerous and in correlation with the numbers of cosmological spheres with their mass ,volume ,density ,velocity of rotations ...If my logic is correct these bosons have a velocity of rot of the sphere around itself which is big ,each quantum spheres is specific like one planet is specific ,stars,BH moons .....thus each boson is specific ....These light particles I think shall be find in other experiment like a vegetal multiplication for exemple ,because there is an increase of mass and a building bypolarizations .Like the light ,the linearity and the ponctuality are essentials to encircle the whole .
I suspect the LHC in the impossibility to find the bosons because if the ponctuality is not a foundamental for the bosons thus.....
On the other side ,with for exemple the auxins and the totipotence of cells by AIA ....it's intersting about the polarizations of evolution by very very weak particles ,it's more logic to find them there .
But the LHC can find some new particles in the strong interations,gravity,....in fact it's a question of polarizations between all and the center of our Universe and the membran limit .
Sincerely
Steve
post approved
I have always thought what the time travel was impossible due to the rule of the time like a constant ,the past is the past ,but about the acceleration or deceleration ,in a short time ,I have some questions ,and that ponctually or in a little volume of spherical space .
I have always thought what AI was impossible ,because the time evolution of complexification of polarizations wasn't insert like foundamenatl .
It's impossible to reproduce a quantum architecture like our brain .The ultim quantum codes and its specific dynamic implies the intelligence of evolution.
We can invent many many things but some are impossible because it's like that in correlation with the foundamental laws ,God,the entity ,the entropy and its diffusion of mass .
These bosons are numerous and in correlation with the numbers of cosmological spheres with their mass ,volume ,density ,velocity of rotations ...If my logic is correct these bosons have a velocity of rot of the sphere around itself which is big ,each quantum spheres is specific like one planet is specific ,stars,BH moons .....thus each boson is specific ....These light particles I think shall be find in other experiment like a vegetal multiplication for exemple ,because there is an increase of mass and a building bypolarizations .Like the light ,the linearity and the ponctuality are essentials to encircle the whole .
I suspect the LHC in the impossibility to find the bosons because if the ponctuality is not a foundamental for the bosons thus.....
On the other side ,with for exemple the auxins and the totipotence of cells by AIA ....it's intersting about the polarizations of evolution by very very weak particles ,it's more logic to find them there .
But the LHC can find some new particles in the strong interations,gravity,....in fact it's a question of polarizations between all and the center of our Universe and the membran limit .
Sincerely
Steve
post approved
Steve,
If you believe that the universe is more like frames on a movie reel, then time travel, forwards and back, is possible, but freewill is not. I belieive that time travel is the equivalent of forcing every particle in the universe into it's previous quantum eigenstate, whatever that was; who can remember, or cares. I think (hope) it is possible to push quantum particles into a preferred set of eigenstates; and do this repeatedly. Some might call this 'magic' or 'a miracle'. I believe in can be done in a localized and limited way. Creating loaves and fishes out of air is, I believe, possible for the Deity; harder for us. But pushing the whole universe back in time just too much to ask; and in fact, it is impossible.
post approved
If you believe that the universe is more like frames on a movie reel, then time travel, forwards and back, is possible, but freewill is not. I belieive that time travel is the equivalent of forcing every particle in the universe into it's previous quantum eigenstate, whatever that was; who can remember, or cares. I think (hope) it is possible to push quantum particles into a preferred set of eigenstates; and do this repeatedly. Some might call this 'magic' or 'a miracle'. I believe in can be done in a localized and limited way. Creating loaves and fishes out of air is, I believe, possible for the Deity; harder for us. But pushing the whole universe back in time just too much to ask; and in fact, it is impossible.
post approved
Jason ,
You are right ,afetr all ,I have any proof about the time travel.
What I find impossible is the past ,....for the present and futur I see differently but the past really ,I have difficulties .
What do you think Jason?
If we take for exemple a set of eigenstates in a local sphere .
Thus with spherical coordonates and an extended fuction to extrapolate the frequences and the symmetries.
If the locality and ponctuality are balanced by translation,orthogonal symmetry or central symmetry thus it's interesting about a weak acceleration or deceleration of this spaces and its parameters .
I support your inflatons to find the road of harmonized frequences of eigenstates and their extentions .
You know Jason ,me I focus on space ,and the effects of gravity and thus the rotations of the mass in complexification.
Let's imagine if we check the space and the short local acceleration and deceleration of time ,thus our velocity is optimized in its enviroment ,that' will permit to optimize our movement in our physical space .decelerate locally the time ,decrease the space and accelerate our velocity in this system or kind of vortex or vaccuum.
Sincerely
Steve
post approved
You are right ,afetr all ,I have any proof about the time travel.
What I find impossible is the past ,....for the present and futur I see differently but the past really ,I have difficulties .
What do you think Jason?
If we take for exemple a set of eigenstates in a local sphere .
Thus with spherical coordonates and an extended fuction to extrapolate the frequences and the symmetries.
If the locality and ponctuality are balanced by translation,orthogonal symmetry or central symmetry thus it's interesting about a weak acceleration or deceleration of this spaces and its parameters .
I support your inflatons to find the road of harmonized frequences of eigenstates and their extentions .
You know Jason ,me I focus on space ,and the effects of gravity and thus the rotations of the mass in complexification.
Let's imagine if we check the space and the short local acceleration and deceleration of time ,thus our velocity is optimized in its enviroment ,that' will permit to optimize our movement in our physical space .decelerate locally the time ,decrease the space and accelerate our velocity in this system or kind of vortex or vaccuum.
Sincerely
Steve
post approved
Let's take the LHC and Tevatron tests,in competition of course .
The big question is this one ,why the Higgs bosons have mass and the light no !
The collisions of protons won't give I think Higgs bosons ,beause they aren't there .Furthermore if they exist there ,their period of life is so short .
The symmetry is so bad understood .
An other important question is the desintegrations of forces by bosons .
I have some questions just now ,about the quantum and cosmological link ,and if the expansion is correlated with a specific dynamic and the contraction with an other ,thus the weak interactions of complexification are in two possible roads but it's a hypothesis of course .
If we are in the expansion ,thus the desintegration of forces are relevants but not during the contraction because in this logic the weak interactions are for the polarizations with stable quantum architecture If I can say .
I doubt that LHC or Tevatron shall find these datas .
If these bosons have a mass they are in a complex architecture like a human ,or a plant but not into two protons .
These particles of very weak mass are in a specific system and due to the complexification of evolution .
I have a question ,hope somebody can answer me ,What is the nature of the protons collisions ,a H on a man is different than a H in a star for make simple.Thus it's essntial to insert the evolution time space parameters ,which are numerous like the correlation with spheres and their rotations .
The weak interactions result from a complexification of mass ,all polarizes it's environment .
All times we polarize ,the interactions are in continuity in their polarizations ,we capture very very weak mass in a light design of gauge .
I wish the best results for the LHC and the Tevatron ,but news parameters are necesserary and that to decrease the lost of time .
Sincerely
Steve
post approved
The big question is this one ,why the Higgs bosons have mass and the light no !
The collisions of protons won't give I think Higgs bosons ,beause they aren't there .Furthermore if they exist there ,their period of life is so short .
The symmetry is so bad understood .
An other important question is the desintegrations of forces by bosons .
I have some questions just now ,about the quantum and cosmological link ,and if the expansion is correlated with a specific dynamic and the contraction with an other ,thus the weak interactions of complexification are in two possible roads but it's a hypothesis of course .
If we are in the expansion ,thus the desintegration of forces are relevants but not during the contraction because in this logic the weak interactions are for the polarizations with stable quantum architecture If I can say .
I doubt that LHC or Tevatron shall find these datas .
If these bosons have a mass they are in a complex architecture like a human ,or a plant but not into two protons .
These particles of very weak mass are in a specific system and due to the complexification of evolution .
I have a question ,hope somebody can answer me ,What is the nature of the protons collisions ,a H on a man is different than a H in a star for make simple.Thus it's essntial to insert the evolution time space parameters ,which are numerous like the correlation with spheres and their rotations .
The weak interactions result from a complexification of mass ,all polarizes it's environment .
All times we polarize ,the interactions are in continuity in their polarizations ,we capture very very weak mass in a light design of gauge .
I wish the best results for the LHC and the Tevatron ,but news parameters are necesserary and that to decrease the lost of time .
Sincerely
Steve
post approved
Better late than never -- the New York Times weighs in the idea, a year after Kevin Black:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/science/space/13lhc.
html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
this post has been edited by the forum administrator
report post as inappropriate
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/science/space/13lhc.
html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
this post has been edited by the forum administrator
report post as inappropriate
There is no Law of Temporal Sabotage. There is only the creeping fear that we can't jump the next hurdle.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Dear Kevin
Space-time is a math model merely.
No influence can be from the future and no influence from the past.
Motion in the universe is result of dynamics between quantum space and mass that runs in timeless quantum space
see more on the subject on:
http://vixra.org/pdf/0910.0007v1.pdf
yours amrit
report post as inappropriate
Space-time is a math model merely.
No influence can be from the future and no influence from the past.
Motion in the universe is result of dynamics between quantum space and mass that runs in timeless quantum space
see more on the subject on:
http://vixra.org/pdf/0910.0007v1.pdf
yours amrit
report post as inappropriate
Dear Amrit,
We have a mathematical model of space-time. Effects cannot propagate away from their cause any faster than c. I'm not sure I agree about mass moving in timeless quantum space. Time shows up as simply as y=Aexp[i(kx-wt)].
I do agree with you that the very idea of Higgs particles moving back from the past to sabotage the LHC sounds like one of the strangest excuses for missing a deadline I have ever heard.
report post as inappropriate
We have a mathematical model of space-time. Effects cannot propagate away from their cause any faster than c. I'm not sure I agree about mass moving in timeless quantum space. Time shows up as simply as y=Aexp[i(kx-wt)].
I do agree with you that the very idea of Higgs particles moving back from the past to sabotage the LHC sounds like one of the strangest excuses for missing a deadline I have ever heard.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Jason
Physical time is run of clocks in timeless quantum space. Symbol "t" in equations means "thicks" of clock. Einsten was awre of that and so he put
X4 = i x c x t where i is imaginary number. In SR X4 is imaginary math coordionate that describes motion.
yours amrit
report post as inappropriate
Physical time is run of clocks in timeless quantum space. Symbol "t" in equations means "thicks" of clock. Einsten was awre of that and so he put
X4 = i x c x t where i is imaginary number. In SR X4 is imaginary math coordionate that describes motion.
yours amrit
report post as inappropriate
I am of the opinion that time and space are built into c = wavelength x frequency; c is the absolute for our universe. The ticks of the clock are dependent upon how fast you're moving with respect to what you're observing. Time is built into the speed of light. Since the speed of light exists, and both time and space are necessary parts of the speed of light, time and space both exist, therefore, everything moves in time and space or space-time.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Whether or not time should be considered built in depends on what you consider time to be. If time is considered to be an energy change (related to change in quaternion spatial position) then it is. Time is part of speed but only because we use time rather than 4th dimensional distance or energy change as the measurement. As it is a 4th dimensional distance we can not measure with the usual tools for distance. Nor can we measure the energy change directly.
The assumption that the change is regular allows a regular change observed in 3D space (tick-tock) to be used which relates to the unobservable energy change and corresponding change in position within quaternion space. What the clock is indirectly measuring is not a mysterious otherness called time but unobservable spatial and energetic change. Time is a tool for measurement. The speed of light exists because we make that particular measurement using time and call it speed of light. It could be called ratio of propagation or some other term. It is change in 3D vector spatial position divided by change in 4th dimensional scalar spatial position.
It is OK to say space-time but it is all just space, in which energetic change and corresponding change in spatial position occurs. This said does not mean that the historical concept of time also applies, it does not. There is no past or future as places with physical existence in which matter is duplicated and can be visited. The present is constructed from input that has taken various lengths of time to arrive at each observer and is amalgamated into a seem-less experience. It is not absolute for all observers. In this regard there is no time and there is no paradox.
Nothing travels back from the future. But we can not know what is ahead in afore space and its possible influence. Though we can experience its gravitational effect.
report post as inappropriate
The assumption that the change is regular allows a regular change observed in 3D space (tick-tock) to be used which relates to the unobservable energy change and corresponding change in position within quaternion space. What the clock is indirectly measuring is not a mysterious otherness called time but unobservable spatial and energetic change. Time is a tool for measurement. The speed of light exists because we make that particular measurement using time and call it speed of light. It could be called ratio of propagation or some other term. It is change in 3D vector spatial position divided by change in 4th dimensional scalar spatial position.
It is OK to say space-time but it is all just space, in which energetic change and corresponding change in spatial position occurs. This said does not mean that the historical concept of time also applies, it does not. There is no past or future as places with physical existence in which matter is duplicated and can be visited. The present is constructed from input that has taken various lengths of time to arrive at each observer and is amalgamated into a seem-less experience. It is not absolute for all observers. In this regard there is no time and there is no paradox.
Nothing travels back from the future. But we can not know what is ahead in afore space and its possible influence. Though we can experience its gravitational effect.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Georgina
You say: Time is part of speed but only because we use time rather than 4th dimensional distance or energy change as the measurement.
Yes here is a mistake. Physical time as a run of clocks is a measuring device.
Godel explained in 1949 that time is not part of space and still today this is leading belief. Because we are not aware of inner neuronal space-time as a map of the mind. Physics should put more attention to bridge observer and observed. This will open deeper understanding about the universe and observer as its consistent part.
yours amrit
attachments: 1_Experimental_Proof_for_Godel_Theorem_on_Time.doc
report post as inappropriate
You say: Time is part of speed but only because we use time rather than 4th dimensional distance or energy change as the measurement.
Yes here is a mistake. Physical time as a run of clocks is a measuring device.
Godel explained in 1949 that time is not part of space and still today this is leading belief. Because we are not aware of inner neuronal space-time as a map of the mind. Physics should put more attention to bridge observer and observed. This will open deeper understanding about the universe and observer as its consistent part.
yours amrit
attachments: 1_Experimental_Proof_for_Godel_Theorem_on_Time.doc
report post as inappropriate
I don't believe that physics can offer anything of value to the exploration of consciousness. Both physics and consciousness are deeply embedded in reality, but they distort one another in very unhelpful ways. Consciousness is meant to be creative and free. Physics is meant to be logical and constrained. The world would be a better place if they just ignored each other.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Jason I think physics will bring consciousness into science. Observer itself is consciousness. Physics starts now opening the question: Who is the observer ?
see my essay here: Awakening of the Observer in Physics.
yours amrit
report post as inappropriate
see my essay here: Awakening of the Observer in Physics.
yours amrit
report post as inappropriate
The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.
The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.
Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.
Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.
The Tao is like a well:
used but never used up.
It is like the eternal void:
filled with infinite possibilities.
It is hidden but always present.
I don't know who gave birth to it.
It is older than God.
Lao Tzu 600 bc
report post as inappropriate
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.
The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.
Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.
Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.
The Tao is like a well:
used but never used up.
It is like the eternal void:
filled with infinite possibilities.
It is hidden but always present.
I don't know who gave birth to it.
It is older than God.
Lao Tzu 600 bc
report post as inappropriate
I am annoyed that sensible people in the 21st century still retain the belief in the magical lands of the future and the past where all that is to happen is played out and all that has happened is eternally repeated. ( Even the disgusting and horrific and painful things.)This belief is so ridiculous and sickening.
The magical imaginary lands of past and future are fantasy not reality. No more real than your magical invisible friends, including Santa and the tooth fairy. There is absolutely no scientific proof that such places exist and no scientific reason to speculate that they must exist. It is nonsense. Oscam's razor should slash them out of all serious consideration. Only to remain within science fiction for the purpose of entertainment. I do not need to prove that they do not exist. Science should have to prove that they do exist if they are to be used within scientific theory.
How can serious trained scientists talk such non scientific, naive nonsense about time in the 21st century. Any scientist talking of time travel or the like, who actually believes that the imaginary lands are real places is deluded. The trouble is that the belief is so widely held, even amongst the scientific community, that they do not realise the unscientific error of retaining such naive beliefs. The grandfather paradox clearly shows that the concept of a physical past realm is incorrect. To make up silly reasons why events avoid a paradox is daft when there is no scientific proof of such a place anyway. No more sensible than scientists speculating how all of the souls of the universe could fit into heaven.
Einstein and Godel were seriously concerned about the problem of time. They were rightly concerned. Other scientists should have been concerned too but they had another agenda. So here we are. Grow up, get real.
report post as inappropriate
The magical imaginary lands of past and future are fantasy not reality. No more real than your magical invisible friends, including Santa and the tooth fairy. There is absolutely no scientific proof that such places exist and no scientific reason to speculate that they must exist. It is nonsense. Oscam's razor should slash them out of all serious consideration. Only to remain within science fiction for the purpose of entertainment. I do not need to prove that they do not exist. Science should have to prove that they do exist if they are to be used within scientific theory.
How can serious trained scientists talk such non scientific, naive nonsense about time in the 21st century. Any scientist talking of time travel or the like, who actually believes that the imaginary lands are real places is deluded. The trouble is that the belief is so widely held, even amongst the scientific community, that they do not realise the unscientific error of retaining such naive beliefs. The grandfather paradox clearly shows that the concept of a physical past realm is incorrect. To make up silly reasons why events avoid a paradox is daft when there is no scientific proof of such a place anyway. No more sensible than scientists speculating how all of the souls of the universe could fit into heaven.
Einstein and Godel were seriously concerned about the problem of time. They were rightly concerned. Other scientists should have been concerned too but they had another agenda. So here we are. Grow up, get real.
report post as inappropriate
Amrit,
This is why physics and consciousness should not mix. Physics uses Occam's razor to shave away anything that is unnecessary, including those things that are sacred and enrich our soul. In return for the benefits that physics and mathematics provide, they demand that we sacrifice our soul and our God at Occam's alter.
Take whatever wonders you still have left, and run as fast as you can!!!
report post as inappropriate
This is why physics and consciousness should not mix. Physics uses Occam's razor to shave away anything that is unnecessary, including those things that are sacred and enrich our soul. In return for the benefits that physics and mathematics provide, they demand that we sacrifice our soul and our God at Occam's alter.
Take whatever wonders you still have left, and run as fast as you can!!!
report post as inappropriate
Jason,
It is the lack of a level playing field that is wrong. Religious belief is ridiculed and proclaimed irrational yet belief in the imaginary past and future realms are conveniently overlooked. Not even recognised as a belief but just accepted as fact. Why? There is no proof that they exist and there is a glaring paradox that makes it nonsensical. Space exists.
A torture victim tortured for eternity within space-time is not a sacred vision or enriching to the soul. It is disgusting. When the torture is over just nip back in time and its happening all over again and again. Never mind meeting Granddad. Every atrocity fixed forever. This is a sickening human invention of the naive human mind not the reality of the universe.Instead of imaginary future and past there is space that has been passed through and space that will be passed through in which events occur. That is there are changes in spatial positions and corresponding energetic change.There is no continuous duplication of matter throughout time.
If people want to believe in Santa and the tooth fairy that is OK but lets not pretend that it is scientific. If people want to believe in past and future realms that's OK but lets not pretend that that is any more scientific than fairyland.
As for wonders, there are all sort of amazing and wonderful things that science has ridiculed but are now being accepted scientifically. The New Scientist had some recent articles on sleep and how the sleep and wake cycles are not entirely separated and can overlap during wakefulness, giving rise to hallucination. (So verification that even two people sitting next to each other are not necessarily observing the same reality!) This is quite normal, especially for the sleep deprived. Also about out of body experiences. Just stimulating a certain area of the brain has been observed to cause this effect. How amazing. Descriptions of such experiences have in the past been derided as the nonsense of attention seeking liars, crack pots or pseudo-science. Now there is scientific proof of their physical cause.
report post as inappropriate
It is the lack of a level playing field that is wrong. Religious belief is ridiculed and proclaimed irrational yet belief in the imaginary past and future realms are conveniently overlooked. Not even recognised as a belief but just accepted as fact. Why? There is no proof that they exist and there is a glaring paradox that makes it nonsensical. Space exists.
A torture victim tortured for eternity within space-time is not a sacred vision or enriching to the soul. It is disgusting. When the torture is over just nip back in time and its happening all over again and again. Never mind meeting Granddad. Every atrocity fixed forever. This is a sickening human invention of the naive human mind not the reality of the universe.Instead of imaginary future and past there is space that has been passed through and space that will be passed through in which events occur. That is there are changes in spatial positions and corresponding energetic change.There is no continuous duplication of matter throughout time.
If people want to believe in Santa and the tooth fairy that is OK but lets not pretend that it is scientific. If people want to believe in past and future realms that's OK but lets not pretend that that is any more scientific than fairyland.
As for wonders, there are all sort of amazing and wonderful things that science has ridiculed but are now being accepted scientifically. The New Scientist had some recent articles on sleep and how the sleep and wake cycles are not entirely separated and can overlap during wakefulness, giving rise to hallucination. (So verification that even two people sitting next to each other are not necessarily observing the same reality!) This is quite normal, especially for the sleep deprived. Also about out of body experiences. Just stimulating a certain area of the brain has been observed to cause this effect. How amazing. Descriptions of such experiences have in the past been derided as the nonsense of attention seeking liars, crack pots or pseudo-science. Now there is scientific proof of their physical cause.
report post as inappropriate
I said "Space exists!" I now feel I must qualify that statement. It is possible to describe and measure the space that an object occupies rather than the space it does not occupy. Since this difference can be observed and measured and as science is based on observations, it is scientific to include space in a model. Time can not be observed. We can observe changes in spatial position of objects such as apparent movement of sun and hands of clock, but not time. We just call the observed changes the passing of time.
The observation of the space an object occupies is constructed from the energetic input received and processed. So ultimately it is not possible to know if the source of the input is the same as the reconstructed subjective image. However science begins with observation. It is the boundary.
report post as inappropriate
The observation of the space an object occupies is constructed from the energetic input received and processed. So ultimately it is not possible to know if the source of the input is the same as the reconstructed subjective image. However science begins with observation. It is the boundary.
report post as inappropriate
It seems to me that physics is straying into the world of philosphy because there is nothing left to measure in the natural occuring world. I find this fantastech theory , and find it great , but I think as you approach this realm leave the slide rule alone and discover the dynamic models of modern philosphy , not the subject matter as such but the methodology of analysis used by dialectical materialism or how Wittgenstein was right when he was wrong and visa versa .
I do not really belong here but am really happy to see that science has itself become a religion threatening to have its own own reformation . It seems that the Inquisition is ready to condemn any modern galileo who dares challenge the order established by its high priests or its scripture .
The LHC can write this episode of discussion up as one of its success stories. When dealing with absolutes everything is true till proven otherwise .
report post as inappropriate
I do not really belong here but am really happy to see that science has itself become a religion threatening to have its own own reformation . It seems that the Inquisition is ready to condemn any modern galileo who dares challenge the order established by its high priests or its scripture .
The LHC can write this episode of discussion up as one of its success stories. When dealing with absolutes everything is true till proven otherwise .
report post as inappropriate
thought about it,
you said "when dealing with absolutes everything is true until proven otherwise."
I am asserting the idea that the historical concept of time that is, past, present and future as physical realms, should not form any part of scientific reasoning because it is not a physical reality and there is no proof of its physical reality. I am of the opinion that past and future are not part of the structure of the universe but a fantasy equivalent in existential physical reality to fairyland. That is not to deny the quaternion structure of the universe but to say that there is no proof that the 4th dimension is time and not spatial. Time causes the grandfather paradox, space allows gravity to be explained. It is only belief, faith and confusion that has maintained the position of time not science. Time is just a measurement of 4th dimensional change not an absolute in itself.
And because I am still feeling annoyed...
8 billion dollars and not a single subatomic speck of pixie dust. So it may be the magical influence from fairyland preventing us getting hold of the stuff. Self censorship of inappropriate language necessary. For humanity's sake, think!
report post as inappropriate
you said "when dealing with absolutes everything is true until proven otherwise."
I am asserting the idea that the historical concept of time that is, past, present and future as physical realms, should not form any part of scientific reasoning because it is not a physical reality and there is no proof of its physical reality. I am of the opinion that past and future are not part of the structure of the universe but a fantasy equivalent in existential physical reality to fairyland. That is not to deny the quaternion structure of the universe but to say that there is no proof that the 4th dimension is time and not spatial. Time causes the grandfather paradox, space allows gravity to be explained. It is only belief, faith and confusion that has maintained the position of time not science. Time is just a measurement of 4th dimensional change not an absolute in itself.
And because I am still feeling annoyed...
8 billion dollars and not a single subatomic speck of pixie dust. So it may be the magical influence from fairyland preventing us getting hold of the stuff. Self censorship of inappropriate language necessary. For humanity's sake, think!
report post as inappropriate
Georgina,
You said,"A torture victim tortured for eternity within space-time is not a sacred vision or enriching to the soul. It is disgusting..." If you are referring to the Christian Hell that is used to scare people into being Christians, it doesn't exist. There is no eternal torment for not being a Christian. We all have character failings, it's part of the human condition. I can't prove this, but I am very certain that God and his angels all understand that human life is difficult. They are compassionate and understand that we will fail to sustain perfection from time to time. This is why compassion and love are so important.
I'm not sure that anything spiritual can really be proved. If it could, it would be kind of spooky. But we should hold onto whatever spiritual practices people have that bring joy, peace of mind and strength. I'm not talking about evil practices that inflict harm; those practices should be done away with.
As you may have noticed, I believe in a higher power. I treat others with compassion because I want to be treated compassionately. This was a key point in my interactions with this higher power. When I noticed that I could be treated the way I treat other people, I adjusted my behaviour accordingly.
If you ask me if there is scientific evidence that God is real, I cannot provide any that will satisfy a scientific community. But when the physicists and neurologists have finished reducing the human brain to a bunch of lifeless particles, it leaves me with a sick and empty feeling. I cannot emphasize enough that this conclusion is a dead end. A dead end. There is no benefit to this conclusion.
Whatever God is, it isn't anything that a quantum bit can describe.
report post as inappropriate
You said,"A torture victim tortured for eternity within space-time is not a sacred vision or enriching to the soul. It is disgusting..." If you are referring to the Christian Hell that is used to scare people into being Christians, it doesn't exist. There is no eternal torment for not being a Christian. We all have character failings, it's part of the human condition. I can't prove this, but I am very certain that God and his angels all understand that human life is difficult. They are compassionate and understand that we will fail to sustain perfection from time to time. This is why compassion and love are so important.
I'm not sure that anything spiritual can really be proved. If it could, it would be kind of spooky. But we should hold onto whatever spiritual practices people have that bring joy, peace of mind and strength. I'm not talking about evil practices that inflict harm; those practices should be done away with.
As you may have noticed, I believe in a higher power. I treat others with compassion because I want to be treated compassionately. This was a key point in my interactions with this higher power. When I noticed that I could be treated the way I treat other people, I adjusted my behaviour accordingly.
If you ask me if there is scientific evidence that God is real, I cannot provide any that will satisfy a scientific community. But when the physicists and neurologists have finished reducing the human brain to a bunch of lifeless particles, it leaves me with a sick and empty feeling. I cannot emphasize enough that this conclusion is a dead end. A dead end. There is no benefit to this conclusion.
Whatever God is, it isn't anything that a quantum bit can describe.
report post as inappropriate
Jason,
No, I am not talking about hell. I have given my opinion on that before.I am talking about the consequences of belief in space-time. One can not just have the fantasy of seeing Auntie sipping tea in the sunshine and perhaps seeing the odd dinosaur, without accepting the consequence that the child that is raped and murdered endures that torture eternally, if the space-time structure is accepted. I do not accept it. To avoid hypocrisy the belief in the past and future, as realms, should be treated with the same scepticism that scientists treat un- provable religious ideas. I am told that science is not belief or faith but based solely on observation and experiment. There is no evidence of these realms. (A benign God would not allow it either for that matter.)
Nothing that I have said in my recent posts are directed personally to your own personal religious convictions and faith. Human psychology is complex and ideas that give strength an comfort are valuable. I agree that it is important to treat others respectfully, compassionately and benignly as far as possible. Yes it feels nice to be treated well. One does not have to adhere to a particular faith to behave in an altruistic manner and most people with social intelligence reciprocate the behaviour. Most people are innately pretty nice to other people.
I do not think scientific knowledge is necessarily diminishing to our humanity. Amoral (rather than moral) atheism is. Rather we can marvel at the complexity and intricacy of the natural world and its mechanisms. Which some may see as even greater appreciation of the Creator and its works.
report post as inappropriate
No, I am not talking about hell. I have given my opinion on that before.I am talking about the consequences of belief in space-time. One can not just have the fantasy of seeing Auntie sipping tea in the sunshine and perhaps seeing the odd dinosaur, without accepting the consequence that the child that is raped and murdered endures that torture eternally, if the space-time structure is accepted. I do not accept it. To avoid hypocrisy the belief in the past and future, as realms, should be treated with the same scepticism that scientists treat un- provable religious ideas. I am told that science is not belief or faith but based solely on observation and experiment. There is no evidence of these realms. (A benign God would not allow it either for that matter.)
Nothing that I have said in my recent posts are directed personally to your own personal religious convictions and faith. Human psychology is complex and ideas that give strength an comfort are valuable. I agree that it is important to treat others respectfully, compassionately and benignly as far as possible. Yes it feels nice to be treated well. One does not have to adhere to a particular faith to behave in an altruistic manner and most people with social intelligence reciprocate the behaviour. Most people are innately pretty nice to other people.
I do not think scientific knowledge is necessarily diminishing to our humanity. Amoral (rather than moral) atheism is. Rather we can marvel at the complexity and intricacy of the natural world and its mechanisms. Which some may see as even greater appreciation of the Creator and its works.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina,
When you speak of space-time, and then dinosaurs, I guess you mean that you don't believe in time travel. Neither do I. I think we are on the same page; we both agree that time travel as a consequence of space-time would mean that everyone would have to re-live the painful experiences every time a time traveler went back into the past. Once again, I agree with you. Time travel, and causality violations, are impossible. Personally, I think movement outside of the light cone (Faster than light travel), should be reserved for transit through space, only. In fact, I would argue that FTL travel does not run the clock back, at all. That's all a bunch of nonsense, in my opinion. If anything, FTL simply negates the conditions of the Einstein equations.
Anyway, sorry I misunderstood you. "Tortured for eternity" has connotations...
report post as inappropriate
When you speak of space-time, and then dinosaurs, I guess you mean that you don't believe in time travel. Neither do I. I think we are on the same page; we both agree that time travel as a consequence of space-time would mean that everyone would have to re-live the painful experiences every time a time traveler went back into the past. Once again, I agree with you. Time travel, and causality violations, are impossible. Personally, I think movement outside of the light cone (Faster than light travel), should be reserved for transit through space, only. In fact, I would argue that FTL travel does not run the clock back, at all. That's all a bunch of nonsense, in my opinion. If anything, FTL simply negates the conditions of the Einstein equations.
Anyway, sorry I misunderstood you. "Tortured for eternity" has connotations...
report post as inappropriate
Jason,
It's more than just not believing in the possibility of time travel.I really, absolutely, don't believe in time as a physical reality. Why are there scientists in the 21st century that still retain their irrational belief? What scientific proof do they rely on? How can it be scientifically justified? Other than as a measurement of 4th dimensional change in quaternion spatial position and corresponding energy change, time should, in my opinion, be recognised, within science, as having no physical reality.
There is no proof that the 4th dimension is time, though 4 dimensions are necessary for a full explanation of observations within 3D space. Instead a far more rational speculation is that there is afore space and aft space. We know that space exists.There is observational proof. Using a spatial 4th dimension gravity can be explained. This is further support for the idea of a spatial 4th dimension. The belief in an existential physical past or future should no longer be taken seriously by any sensible scientists.Unless they have experimental evidence of these imaginary realms. Any talk of the future affecting the present should be dismissed as unscientific.
report post as inappropriate
It's more than just not believing in the possibility of time travel.I really, absolutely, don't believe in time as a physical reality. Why are there scientists in the 21st century that still retain their irrational belief? What scientific proof do they rely on? How can it be scientifically justified? Other than as a measurement of 4th dimensional change in quaternion spatial position and corresponding energy change, time should, in my opinion, be recognised, within science, as having no physical reality.
There is no proof that the 4th dimension is time, though 4 dimensions are necessary for a full explanation of observations within 3D space. Instead a far more rational speculation is that there is afore space and aft space. We know that space exists.There is observational proof. Using a spatial 4th dimension gravity can be explained. This is further support for the idea of a spatial 4th dimension. The belief in an existential physical past or future should no longer be taken seriously by any sensible scientists.Unless they have experimental evidence of these imaginary realms. Any talk of the future affecting the present should be dismissed as unscientific.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina,
On a practical note, time is integrated into our very culture. We go to work at x oclock. We spend thirty minutes a day on this or that. If time doesn't exist, then what do we replace it with? How does a no time approach make my life easier? How does a no time approach make physics easier? It's remarkable that you can think in 4 spatial dimensions. But how does a quaternion approach make anything easier? Quaternion mathematics has it's uses. But I'm not convinced that we should throw away our clocks and our wristwatches because time somehow doesn't exist. Although, truthfully, I probably should meditate in that timeless state much more than I do.
report post as inappropriate
On a practical note, time is integrated into our very culture. We go to work at x oclock. We spend thirty minutes a day on this or that. If time doesn't exist, then what do we replace it with? How does a no time approach make my life easier? How does a no time approach make physics easier? It's remarkable that you can think in 4 spatial dimensions. But how does a quaternion approach make anything easier? Quaternion mathematics has it's uses. But I'm not convinced that we should throw away our clocks and our wristwatches because time somehow doesn't exist. Although, truthfully, I probably should meditate in that timeless state much more than I do.
report post as inappropriate
Kevin Black wrote (way back on August 5,2008), "How could you ever design an experiment that would disprove future causal influence on a current condition? I just can't imagine how one could do that, but I am open to suggestions. Any ideas?"
At the risk of appearing to talk crazy, I'd like to suggest that it is not necessary to design such an experiment. Moreover, I'd like to go on record here as proposing the following as a basic axiom of physics: Anything which does not exist cannot influence anything which does exist. A crazy idea? Maybe, but crazy enough to be true? Time will tell, or not.
The future does not exist. Therefore it cannot influence the present, which does exist. For a fuller discussion of this, please read my current FQXi essay, 'On the Impossibility of Time Travel,' which may be found here, and also my essay 'Time: Illusion and Reality,' which may be found here. Then let's talk.
Sorry I just finally got around to reading this thread today. Btw, Eli Vance had the right idea in his post of Aug 6, 2008. Eli, if you're still checking in with this thread, I especially invite you to read my essays and re-join the discussion; you're obviously already a "believer." Whether time "exists" or not hinges precariously on how one chooses to define "time." I choose to define time as configurations of the universe. By this definition, time does exist.
The present cannot be influenced by the future any more than it can be influenced by leprechauns and/or by fairy dust, which are equally as real as the future. And yes, I am very much aware that Mr. Einstein has been quoted as saying, "For we convinced physicists, the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, however persistent." But I must respectfully disagree with him on this point. General Relativity and the block universe are magnificent, successful, internally self-consistent edifices, so long as you buy into the unfortunately flawed fundamental concept of time upon which they're built.
In his book 'The Trouble With Physics,' Lee Smolin wrote, "More and more, I have the feeling that quantum theory and general relativity are both deeply wrong about the nature of time. It is not enough to combine them. There is a deeper problem, perhaps going back to the origin of physics." (p. 256) I'm convinced that Smolin is exactly correct in this assessment, and I address the causes of the problem in 'Time: Illusion and Reality.'
Cheers
report post as inappropriate
At the risk of appearing to talk crazy, I'd like to suggest that it is not necessary to design such an experiment. Moreover, I'd like to go on record here as proposing the following as a basic axiom of physics: Anything which does not exist cannot influence anything which does exist. A crazy idea? Maybe, but crazy enough to be true? Time will tell, or not.
The future does not exist. Therefore it cannot influence the present, which does exist. For a fuller discussion of this, please read my current FQXi essay, 'On the Impossibility of Time Travel,' which may be found here, and also my essay 'Time: Illusion and Reality,' which may be found here. Then let's talk.
Sorry I just finally got around to reading this thread today. Btw, Eli Vance had the right idea in his post of Aug 6, 2008. Eli, if you're still checking in with this thread, I especially invite you to read my essays and re-join the discussion; you're obviously already a "believer." Whether time "exists" or not hinges precariously on how one chooses to define "time." I choose to define time as configurations of the universe. By this definition, time does exist.
The present cannot be influenced by the future any more than it can be influenced by leprechauns and/or by fairy dust, which are equally as real as the future. And yes, I am very much aware that Mr. Einstein has been quoted as saying, "For we convinced physicists, the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, however persistent." But I must respectfully disagree with him on this point. General Relativity and the block universe are magnificent, successful, internally self-consistent edifices, so long as you buy into the unfortunately flawed fundamental concept of time upon which they're built.
In his book 'The Trouble With Physics,' Lee Smolin wrote, "More and more, I have the feeling that quantum theory and general relativity are both deeply wrong about the nature of time. It is not enough to combine them. There is a deeper problem, perhaps going back to the origin of physics." (p. 256) I'm convinced that Smolin is exactly correct in this assessment, and I address the causes of the problem in 'Time: Illusion and Reality.'
Cheers
report post as inappropriate
Dear J.C.N.Smith,
Maybe the future manifests in the present through the mysterious multiverse called, the imagination. These physicists are just getting nervous that their LHC is very difficult to get operational. Let's give them some encouragement, and be patient.
report post as inappropriate
Maybe the future manifests in the present through the mysterious multiverse called, the imagination. These physicists are just getting nervous that their LHC is very difficult to get operational. Let's give them some encouragement, and be patient.
report post as inappropriate
Jason ,
I am not saying that we must not use time as a measurement. I am talking about what the measurement actually represents physically. We can all carry on using it in a practical way. That is subjective time t not historical time Ht. I have explained before that time is a muddle of different concepts that are all just called time but are not the same.
Science needs to rid itself of the fantasy of historical time. That is that there is such a place as the past or the future or an absolute present. This solves the grandfather paradox and the disgusting consequences of history being fixed in time.It does not negate Einstein's work on relativity but just recognises that the 4th dimension measures distance as do the other 3. We need time as a measurement of 4th dimensional change because we can not measure the distance directly. That's all.Time is not some mysterious otherness that we can not comprehend and that we should weave fantasies and superstitions around in the 21st century.
report post as inappropriate
I am not saying that we must not use time as a measurement. I am talking about what the measurement actually represents physically. We can all carry on using it in a practical way. That is subjective time t not historical time Ht. I have explained before that time is a muddle of different concepts that are all just called time but are not the same.
Science needs to rid itself of the fantasy of historical time. That is that there is such a place as the past or the future or an absolute present. This solves the grandfather paradox and the disgusting consequences of history being fixed in time.It does not negate Einstein's work on relativity but just recognises that the 4th dimension measures distance as do the other 3. We need time as a measurement of 4th dimensional change because we can not measure the distance directly. That's all.Time is not some mysterious otherness that we can not comprehend and that we should weave fantasies and superstitions around in the 21st century.
report post as inappropriate
Mr. Wolfe,
You may have a point there. Leprechauns and fairy dust manifest via the imagination, so why not the future? Hmmm . . . . Food for thought, perhaps?
Encouragement and patience are always good things.
Cheers
report post as inappropriate
You may have a point there. Leprechauns and fairy dust manifest via the imagination, so why not the future? Hmmm . . . . Food for thought, perhaps?
Encouragement and patience are always good things.
Cheers
report post as inappropriate
Georgina,
I don't understand how we can ever return to the past in any physically interactive way, other than memories and virtual environments. I'm pursuing an expanation of space-time as a group of fermions/bosons, each with a velocity/interaction range of c (speed of light). Any two such fermions/bosons whose relative velocity is faster than c will be unable to interact with each other. Fasterthan light does not return to the past. Faster than light travel (which is the only way that sci-fi travels to the past), merely puts particles out of reach.
The past only exists as the mark it leaves on the present. It can never, ever be returned to through FTL, magic or by any other means. All we have is the memory of the past, for as long as that lasts.
report post as inappropriate
I don't understand how we can ever return to the past in any physically interactive way, other than memories and virtual environments. I'm pursuing an expanation of space-time as a group of fermions/bosons, each with a velocity/interaction range of c (speed of light). Any two such fermions/bosons whose relative velocity is faster than c will be unable to interact with each other. Fasterthan light does not return to the past. Faster than light travel (which is the only way that sci-fi travels to the past), merely puts particles out of reach.
The past only exists as the mark it leaves on the present. It can never, ever be returned to through FTL, magic or by any other means. All we have is the memory of the past, for as long as that lasts.
report post as inappropriate
Jason, J.C.N. Smith,
How many more millions of dollars worth of encouragement and patience is reasonable in your opinion?
report post as inappropriate
How many more millions of dollars worth of encouragement and patience is reasonable in your opinion?
report post as inappropriate
Until they get the result. I'm not at the LHC, so I don't know what the problems are. But they need to get those protons moving. This is not just for fun. We're stagnating at this tech level, and we need to move forward.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Jason,
Sounds like a blank cheque. No time limit, no financial limit? Certainly no need to hurry with that kind of reasonableness.
report post as inappropriate
Sounds like a blank cheque. No time limit, no financial limit? Certainly no need to hurry with that kind of reasonableness.
report post as inappropriate
Mr. Wolfe,
"The past only exists as the mark it leaves on the present. It can never, ever be returned to through FTL, magic or by any other means. All we have is the memory of the past, for as long as that lasts."
We are in total agreement here. And you raise a very interesting way of looking at this; we are, whether we know it or not, and whether we like it or not, "helping" (I use the term loosely) to *shape* the future of the universe. Unfortunately, we have little way of knowing how our miniscule acts of volition will reverberate into the future of the universe, just as the butterfly flapping its wings in China has little way of knowing how it will influence the hurricane in Florida.
Ms. Parry,
"How many more millions of dollars worth of encouragement and patience is reasonable in your opinion?"
At least as many as it would take to buy another unneeded jet fighter plane.
Cheers
report post as inappropriate
"The past only exists as the mark it leaves on the present. It can never, ever be returned to through FTL, magic or by any other means. All we have is the memory of the past, for as long as that lasts."
We are in total agreement here. And you raise a very interesting way of looking at this; we are, whether we know it or not, and whether we like it or not, "helping" (I use the term loosely) to *shape* the future of the universe. Unfortunately, we have little way of knowing how our miniscule acts of volition will reverberate into the future of the universe, just as the butterfly flapping its wings in China has little way of knowing how it will influence the hurricane in Florida.
Ms. Parry,
"How many more millions of dollars worth of encouragement and patience is reasonable in your opinion?"
At least as many as it would take to buy another unneeded jet fighter plane.
Cheers
report post as inappropriate
Dear J.C.N.Smith,
Engineers, architects and everyday people control the future all the time. For some, it's called planning. For others, it's called authority. But there are limits to what can be controlled. A parent certainly has the ability to control whether or not a child gets to watch television. An LHC physicist may or may not have the technical capability to determine whether or not we get to see protons smash into each other anytime soon. Control over the future can be limited.
Dear Georgina,
Before we give up on the LHC, don't you think we should examine the REAL problems why it won't work? This Higgs sabotage particle crap is an unacceptable reason; it is a technically elaborate way of saying: it's too hard. I admit, I haven't been following the LHC news lately, I don't know the exact problems.
Has the physics community fallen into a belief that it can't know or measure any new physics? Has humanity become complacent with it's mediocre physics? "Sorry humanity! There is just so much we CAN'T do. We're just too tired and too complacent with our mathematics to try to find any new physics." I assure you, there are things beyond the scope of our mathematical CAGE. If the physics community and/or the human race gets complacent, the universe will KICK our cage across the cosmos if that's what it takes to motivate us.
report post as inappropriate
Engineers, architects and everyday people control the future all the time. For some, it's called planning. For others, it's called authority. But there are limits to what can be controlled. A parent certainly has the ability to control whether or not a child gets to watch television. An LHC physicist may or may not have the technical capability to determine whether or not we get to see protons smash into each other anytime soon. Control over the future can be limited.
Dear Georgina,
Before we give up on the LHC, don't you think we should examine the REAL problems why it won't work? This Higgs sabotage particle crap is an unacceptable reason; it is a technically elaborate way of saying: it's too hard. I admit, I haven't been following the LHC news lately, I don't know the exact problems.
Has the physics community fallen into a belief that it can't know or measure any new physics? Has humanity become complacent with it's mediocre physics? "Sorry humanity! There is just so much we CAN'T do. We're just too tired and too complacent with our mathematics to try to find any new physics." I assure you, there are things beyond the scope of our mathematical CAGE. If the physics community and/or the human race gets complacent, the universe will KICK our cage across the cosmos if that's what it takes to motivate us.
report post as inappropriate
Jason said,
"The past only exists as the mark it leaves on the present. It can never, ever be returned to through FTL, magic or by any other means. All we have is the memory of the past, for as long as that lasts."
I almost agree. The present however is also a problematic term. There is no absolute present. The observed present being a patchwork of input that has taken different lengths of time to reach each observer and so is different for each observer. Perhaps one should just say the effect of prior spatial and energetic change is observable, within observable space. There is no existential past, future or absolute present.
report post as inappropriate
"The past only exists as the mark it leaves on the present. It can never, ever be returned to through FTL, magic or by any other means. All we have is the memory of the past, for as long as that lasts."
I almost agree. The present however is also a problematic term. There is no absolute present. The observed present being a patchwork of input that has taken different lengths of time to reach each observer and so is different for each observer. Perhaps one should just say the effect of prior spatial and energetic change is observable, within observable space. There is no existential past, future or absolute present.
report post as inappropriate
Ms. Parry,
Your wrote, "There is no absolute present. The observed present being a patchwork of input that has taken different lengths of time to reach each observer and so is different for each observer."
Please consider the case of several blind persons who have no prior knowledge of elephants and who are positioned at various fixed points around an elephant and who are asked to examine and then describe the elephant.
The descriptions of the elephant given by each of the various observers will almost certainly vary considerably, and any one of the descriptions will only partially capture the elephant's true overall configuration. Would you take this to be convincing evidence that the elephant does not exist? The universe is our elephant, and, contrary to what you seem to assert, it does indeed exist, despite the fact that no one observer can ever have access to information about more than a small part of its total configuration. The evolving configurations of the universe are what we perceive as the flow of time.
Cheers
report post as inappropriate
Your wrote, "There is no absolute present. The observed present being a patchwork of input that has taken different lengths of time to reach each observer and so is different for each observer."
Please consider the case of several blind persons who have no prior knowledge of elephants and who are positioned at various fixed points around an elephant and who are asked to examine and then describe the elephant.
The descriptions of the elephant given by each of the various observers will almost certainly vary considerably, and any one of the descriptions will only partially capture the elephant's true overall configuration. Would you take this to be convincing evidence that the elephant does not exist? The universe is our elephant, and, contrary to what you seem to assert, it does indeed exist, despite the fact that no one observer can ever have access to information about more than a small part of its total configuration. The evolving configurations of the universe are what we perceive as the flow of time.
Cheers
report post as inappropriate
Jason ,
I do not know the value, rather than cost, of the LHC. However I think it is the international co-operation, academic collaboration and coming together of various technology and information processing companies on such a project that adds value to what could otherwise be a very expensive folly. There may be future business opportunities for various companies and their technicians for having been involved. Also potential income from the application of new advances in technology or IT for those countries involved in this project, which is naturally an incentive for being involved. There is also the lure of the prestige of being involved in such a monumental project for individuals and governments. Whether it should be funded indefinitely depends upon the value the participants and their sponsors place on the project. That is there must be perceived net benefit to both groups to justify continuing. Perhaps there is already less value in trying to get it to work than in having co-operated to build it.It could be an interesting tourist attraction.
report post as inappropriate
I do not know the value, rather than cost, of the LHC. However I think it is the international co-operation, academic collaboration and coming together of various technology and information processing companies on such a project that adds value to what could otherwise be a very expensive folly. There may be future business opportunities for various companies and their technicians for having been involved. Also potential income from the application of new advances in technology or IT for those countries involved in this project, which is naturally an incentive for being involved. There is also the lure of the prestige of being involved in such a monumental project for individuals and governments. Whether it should be funded indefinitely depends upon the value the participants and their sponsors place on the project. That is there must be perceived net benefit to both groups to justify continuing. Perhaps there is already less value in trying to get it to work than in having co-operated to build it.It could be an interesting tourist attraction.
report post as inappropriate
J.N.C.Smith,
I am not saying the universe does not exist. It exists within quaternion space not space-time. The present is a concept that does not actually apply to the objective reality of the universe.
What is the present if we are to discount our individual observations as I explained them? I can give my geographical location, height above sea level which is my spatial position. Time varies with geographical location and height above sea level so what do you mean by the present? Your now is not the same as my now.
report post as inappropriate
I am not saying the universe does not exist. It exists within quaternion space not space-time. The present is a concept that does not actually apply to the objective reality of the universe.
What is the present if we are to discount our individual observations as I explained them? I can give my geographical location, height above sea level which is my spatial position. Time varies with geographical location and height above sea level so what do you mean by the present? Your now is not the same as my now.
report post as inappropriate
Ms. Parry,
You wrote, "Time varies with geographical location and height above sea level so what do you mean by the present? Your now is not the same as my now."
Sorry, but I must beg to differ with you. My now *is* the same as your now and the same as the now of every observer in the universe, regardless of their location. The problem to which you allude arises, however, because we all have differing perspectives on that "now." We're all looking at the same elephant, but from different vantage points.
The fact that our descriptions of the elephant (i.e., our perspectives on the universe) differ considerably (they may not even overlap, and therefore won't appear to agree even in the slightest) doesn't mean that the elephant we're all looking at isn't real or that it doesn't have a real configuration. The configuration of the elephant is the now, and it is real. We simply may not be able to agree on it. That doesn't mean that any one of us is "wrong;" it simply means that we each have incomplete information.
This clearly is not an ideal situation, but I fear that it is an accurate description of reality. The only way to avoid it would be to bump up the speed of light to infinity. Then we'd all be able to see the whole elephant, it all its glory, in its real, simultaneous configuration. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
Cheers
report post as inappropriate
You wrote, "Time varies with geographical location and height above sea level so what do you mean by the present? Your now is not the same as my now."
Sorry, but I must beg to differ with you. My now *is* the same as your now and the same as the now of every observer in the universe, regardless of their location. The problem to which you allude arises, however, because we all have differing perspectives on that "now." We're all looking at the same elephant, but from different vantage points.
The fact that our descriptions of the elephant (i.e., our perspectives on the universe) differ considerably (they may not even overlap, and therefore won't appear to agree even in the slightest) doesn't mean that the elephant we're all looking at isn't real or that it doesn't have a real configuration. The configuration of the elephant is the now, and it is real. We simply may not be able to agree on it. That doesn't mean that any one of us is "wrong;" it simply means that we each have incomplete information.
This clearly is not an ideal situation, but I fear that it is an accurate description of reality. The only way to avoid it would be to bump up the speed of light to infinity. Then we'd all be able to see the whole elephant, it all its glory, in its real, simultaneous configuration. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
Cheers
report post as inappropriate
Georgina,
What if they get the LHC working? If we confirm the existence of a Higgs particle, that's great. But, what if we slam two protons together, and we discover particles we didn't expect? What if we discover something that revolutionizes physics? They want to test a hyperdrive theory of their own, involving two protons flying by each other, almost touching.
Where would you rather spend the money? Taking care of the poor? With new technology, we can give them job! Which is better?
report post as inappropriate
What if they get the LHC working? If we confirm the existence of a Higgs particle, that's great. But, what if we slam two protons together, and we discover particles we didn't expect? What if we discover something that revolutionizes physics? They want to test a hyperdrive theory of their own, involving two protons flying by each other, almost touching.
Where would you rather spend the money? Taking care of the poor? With new technology, we can give them job! Which is better?
report post as inappropriate
J.C.N. Smith,
You said "The configuration of the elephant is the now, and it is real. We simply may not be able to agree on it."
If we consider observation of a present moment; pointing at a star I could see light from it, which is said to have taken light years to arrive, and light reflected from my own hand, that has taken a fraction of a second to arrive at my eye, simultaneously. Both in the same present moment. The star may no longer exist but it is in my present. Although I am seeing its past.If it no longer has material existence, what I am seeing could be considered an illusion of reality rather than an accurate portrayal of material reality itself.So is the now actually "real" as you say? My material hand does still exist and its image is also in my present. So each present moment is a composite of various past images not now as such.
To continue using your analogy, If it is the material configuration of the elephant, rather than its image, that is the now , then that means that it is its existing material substance and spatial arrangement. Why assume a temporal description of the configuration of matter in space is necessary, when it is adequately described by a spatial rather than temporal description. How does the inclusion of temporal description aid or improve comprehension in your opinion?
report post as inappropriate
You said "The configuration of the elephant is the now, and it is real. We simply may not be able to agree on it."
If we consider observation of a present moment; pointing at a star I could see light from it, which is said to have taken light years to arrive, and light reflected from my own hand, that has taken a fraction of a second to arrive at my eye, simultaneously. Both in the same present moment. The star may no longer exist but it is in my present. Although I am seeing its past.If it no longer has material existence, what I am seeing could be considered an illusion of reality rather than an accurate portrayal of material reality itself.So is the now actually "real" as you say? My material hand does still exist and its image is also in my present. So each present moment is a composite of various past images not now as such.
To continue using your analogy, If it is the material configuration of the elephant, rather than its image, that is the now , then that means that it is its existing material substance and spatial arrangement. Why assume a temporal description of the configuration of matter in space is necessary, when it is adequately described by a spatial rather than temporal description. How does the inclusion of temporal description aid or improve comprehension in your opinion?
report post as inappropriate
Jason,
"What if" is a question that could be applied equally well elsewhere. What if funding or extra funding had been given to all sorts of other investigations and endeavours? (It is a rhetorical question.)
report post as inappropriate
"What if" is a question that could be applied equally well elsewhere. What if funding or extra funding had been given to all sorts of other investigations and endeavours? (It is a rhetorical question.)
report post as inappropriate
Georgina,
We're in a technological box right now. We need to find a way out of it. We can certainly learn to get along and sing Kumbiah, but the reality of existence is this: people need to grow and expand in all sorts of areas. If they do not, they will stagnate. Funding for cancer research is fine by me. But humans beings have to push the envelope of what is ultimately possible for us to do. If physicists can't make the breakthrough, then we'll have to exert our efforts in other areas, like magic...
report post as inappropriate
We're in a technological box right now. We need to find a way out of it. We can certainly learn to get along and sing Kumbiah, but the reality of existence is this: people need to grow and expand in all sorts of areas. If they do not, they will stagnate. Funding for cancer research is fine by me. But humans beings have to push the envelope of what is ultimately possible for us to do. If physicists can't make the breakthrough, then we'll have to exert our efforts in other areas, like magic...
report post as inappropriate
Ms. Parry,
Thank you for your very pertinent comments and questions. I infer from the nature of your questions, however, that you've apparently not read and/or given much thought to the content of my current FQXi essay, 'On the Impossibility of Time Travel,' and its related thread, which you'll find here, or my related essay, 'Time: Illusion and Reality,' which you'll find here. I'd respectfully suggest that you'll find your questions already addressed in some detail in those readings. Rather than reconstruct them here paragraph by paragraph, I'd appreciate it if you'd look carefully at those readings and then raise whatever questions are not satisfactorily answered there. Thank you.
I sense from your comments and questions that a meeting of the minds between us is possible, but for this to happen we will both need to put in some work. Some of my (already completed) work on the topic will be found in the referenced essays and related thread. Thanks in advance for taking the time and trouble to read and think about them. I look forward to continuing this dialogue. And yes, I know that we're all overwhelmed with readings. I've read all of the 113 other essays in this year's competition, and am now re-reading and commenting on quite a few of them, so I understand the problem of insufficient time.
Cheers
report post as inappropriate
Thank you for your very pertinent comments and questions. I infer from the nature of your questions, however, that you've apparently not read and/or given much thought to the content of my current FQXi essay, 'On the Impossibility of Time Travel,' and its related thread, which you'll find here, or my related essay, 'Time: Illusion and Reality,' which you'll find here. I'd respectfully suggest that you'll find your questions already addressed in some detail in those readings. Rather than reconstruct them here paragraph by paragraph, I'd appreciate it if you'd look carefully at those readings and then raise whatever questions are not satisfactorily answered there. Thank you.
I sense from your comments and questions that a meeting of the minds between us is possible, but for this to happen we will both need to put in some work. Some of my (already completed) work on the topic will be found in the referenced essays and related thread. Thanks in advance for taking the time and trouble to read and think about them. I look forward to continuing this dialogue. And yes, I know that we're all overwhelmed with readings. I've read all of the 113 other essays in this year's competition, and am now re-reading and commenting on quite a few of them, so I understand the problem of insufficient time.
Cheers
report post as inappropriate
The LHC and these main programs like ATLAS or ALICE or LHCb or the solenoid ...I think really it's incredibly incredible .What can I say ,perhaps nothing in fact .I have the impression that this story of collisions has embarked a boat of business extrapolations......pay attention soon 7 Tev after 10 for the super magnets ....
And these higgs and imaginaries extrapolations like a quest of the supranaturel .
Only 3D in a time constant and a specific dynamic ! only that
No but I dream or what .The only one which is interesting is the return to the balance and stability of the system divided.There some dynamic of re becoming if I can say are relevant .
An other point, what I don't find in our global analyzes, is the result of this collision and circular movement .Can we do all what we want without consciousness about the ultim energy in eveything .
The enginiering is sufficient and stable ,6 systems /8 are near the zero absolute ,what about the resistance and the results of errors due to the complex energy and its steps of architecture .We are humans and only a weak part of conscious people checks this LHC ,some are in the imaginaries ,others in the inutile experiments ,others in the business plan and commercialization of multiple products ,others in the reals ,others in and in and in ....and some look with pragmatism ,realism and consciousness.
The LHC is going to divide spheres with the mass and fields of energy ,the number is so important ,how much spheres divided with their specificities from the collision between protons ,that depends of many parametrs ,already we don't understand well this proton ,let's divide thus the spheres and thus let's take the enrgy of these divisions .BOUM hihihi I don't understand why the humans focus on fission ,division ,it's even though better with the fusion ...the fusion is logic ,harmonic ,the fusion is chaotic due to our perception ,walls ,and limits of our physicalty .
Sincerely
Steve
report post as inappropriate
And these higgs and imaginaries extrapolations like a quest of the supranaturel .
Only 3D in a time constant and a specific dynamic ! only that
No but I dream or what .The only one which is interesting is the return to the balance and stability of the system divided.There some dynamic of re becoming if I can say are relevant .
An other point, what I don't find in our global analyzes, is the result of this collision and circular movement .Can we do all what we want without consciousness about the ultim energy in eveything .
The enginiering is sufficient and stable ,6 systems /8 are near the zero absolute ,what about the resistance and the results of errors due to the complex energy and its steps of architecture .We are humans and only a weak part of conscious people checks this LHC ,some are in the imaginaries ,others in the inutile experiments ,others in the business plan and commercialization of multiple products ,others in the reals ,others in and in and in ....and some look with pragmatism ,realism and consciousness.
The LHC is going to divide spheres with the mass and fields of energy ,the number is so important ,how much spheres divided with their specificities from the collision between protons ,that depends of many parametrs ,already we don't understand well this proton ,let's divide thus the spheres and thus let's take the enrgy of these divisions .BOUM hihihi I don't understand why the humans focus on fission ,division ,it's even though better with the fusion ...the fusion is logic ,harmonic ,the fusion is chaotic due to our perception ,walls ,and limits of our physicalty .
Sincerely
Steve
report post as inappropriate
In spite of these trepidative and fearful theories of time travel, the LHC is making progress towards become operational.
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/journal/article?name=CERNB
ulletin&issue=43/2009&number=3&category=News%20Articles&ln=e
n
By the way, I'm kind of curious about this HIggs time travelling particle that is supposedly preventing the LHC from doing experiments. How does one misinterpret the mathemics and physics to arrive at the conclusion that Higgs can sabotage their own generator?
report post as inappropriate
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/journal/article?name=CERNB
ulletin&issue=43/2009&number=3&category=News%20Articles&ln=e
n
By the way, I'm kind of curious about this HIggs time travelling particle that is supposedly preventing the LHC from doing experiments. How does one misinterpret the mathemics and physics to arrive at the conclusion that Higgs can sabotage their own generator?
report post as inappropriate
As time is run of clocks One can travel in space only. Time travel are impossible.
For members here that believe space-time is physical reality they should answer how shrinking of 4-th coordinate manage that clock run slower.
Clear description of mechenism in 4-th coordinate that influences velocity of clocks should be presented.
yours amrit
report post as inappropriate
For members here that believe space-time is physical reality they should answer how shrinking of 4-th coordinate manage that clock run slower.
Clear description of mechenism in 4-th coordinate that influences velocity of clocks should be presented.
yours amrit
report post as inappropriate
Amrit,
I agree that time travel is impossible. But it seems to me that ones own clock is ones own time std; Photons from somewhere else are either red shifted or blue shifted. If a photon is redshifted, it means it will generate clock ticks that are longer in duration, because they're moving away, or in any event, their photons have lost energy. Blue shifted photons have energy added to them, and their ticks of time are speeded up.
By this argument, space-time is simply the effect of waiting for photon messengers from the rest of the universe to give you informational updates about what's going on. These poor little photons run as fast as they can with their information. These photons do not let you time travel into the past or the future. They only transmit information. When we look at stars, we're just looking at old information that took a long time to get to us. If someone builds a hyperdrive and uses methods to move faster than the speed of light, this might make it possible to transmit information FTL. You can get information from locations light years away in just a few seconds. But that doesn't put you into the past. It just makes your information system run faster.
report post as inappropriate
I agree that time travel is impossible. But it seems to me that ones own clock is ones own time std; Photons from somewhere else are either red shifted or blue shifted. If a photon is redshifted, it means it will generate clock ticks that are longer in duration, because they're moving away, or in any event, their photons have lost energy. Blue shifted photons have energy added to them, and their ticks of time are speeded up.
By this argument, space-time is simply the effect of waiting for photon messengers from the rest of the universe to give you informational updates about what's going on. These poor little photons run as fast as they can with their information. These photons do not let you time travel into the past or the future. They only transmit information. When we look at stars, we're just looking at old information that took a long time to get to us. If someone builds a hyperdrive and uses methods to move faster than the speed of light, this might make it possible to transmit information FTL. You can get information from locations light years away in just a few seconds. But that doesn't put you into the past. It just makes your information system run faster.
report post as inappropriate
time travel may be impossible but exchange of infomation over time may be possible . As a model : at a point in our development we develop the technology to pass infomation between moments in human perceived time , along the lines of lets say a telephone , that can phone a " time phone " at a different moment in human time . In this simple model the moment that we have the phone is the starting point for communication through time . We can not phone a preceding point in time because before that moment nobody has a phone to receive the call .
Our first call is to ourselves the next day.Our future self tells us that it will rain tomorrow and we can best take an umbrella to work . The next day in does rain and we have already had our umbrella at the ready . But on that future day we have to answer he phone to talk to ourselves from the previous day . If this is not so then we will have phoned a virtual self which means we are already a virtual self .
With an infinite number of possible phone calls there would have to be an infinite number of virtual selves , with an infinite number of universes supporting their existence .
There would not be anyway to phone a point before the first phone because it will be like having internet in a world with no computers. The moment the very first primitive machine comes on line will be the moment that the system will be waiting for and it would show up on the grid at once , it would also be the very first moment that the future machine could have any contact with the past , perhaps its first communication would be a warning .
We need to extrapolate our development over millions of years before we think ourselves as all knowing beings . Humans will be around for a long time and we will keep developing . Our intelligence will always solve our ignorance , we will destroy the known earth but we will make artificial trees , develop bio systems and cold technology etc , leave earth and more than likely be able to grow our own solar systems in the cause of 200 million years continually evolving . Do you honestly beleive that we haved not cracked time communication (not time travel) in the future and are waiting for the first moment to communicate with the first machine that is capable of reception .
report post as inappropriate
Our first call is to ourselves the next day.Our future self tells us that it will rain tomorrow and we can best take an umbrella to work . The next day in does rain and we have already had our umbrella at the ready . But on that future day we have to answer he phone to talk to ourselves from the previous day . If this is not so then we will have phoned a virtual self which means we are already a virtual self .
With an infinite number of possible phone calls there would have to be an infinite number of virtual selves , with an infinite number of universes supporting their existence .
There would not be anyway to phone a point before the first phone because it will be like having internet in a world with no computers. The moment the very first primitive machine comes on line will be the moment that the system will be waiting for and it would show up on the grid at once , it would also be the very first moment that the future machine could have any contact with the past , perhaps its first communication would be a warning .
We need to extrapolate our development over millions of years before we think ourselves as all knowing beings . Humans will be around for a long time and we will keep developing . Our intelligence will always solve our ignorance , we will destroy the known earth but we will make artificial trees , develop bio systems and cold technology etc , leave earth and more than likely be able to grow our own solar systems in the cause of 200 million years continually evolving . Do you honestly beleive that we haved not cracked time communication (not time travel) in the future and are waiting for the first moment to communicate with the first machine that is capable of reception .
report post as inappropriate
J.C.N. Smith,
I have not read your essays. As you have noted there are 113 essays to choose from. I will try to make time for reading your essay and giving it some thought.
If I have anything to say about them I will post under the essay.
report post as inappropriate
I have not read your essays. As you have noted there are 113 essays to choose from. I will try to make time for reading your essay and giving it some thought.
If I have anything to say about them I will post under the essay.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Still Thinking,
I believe that the confusion over time travel, and sending information can be solved this way. Physicist talk about information, but they don't really discuss signalling. Signalling is when you actually make a change or change something, in a way that demonstrates that you have the ability to do so. If I place a signal into a broadcast media, such as AM radio or some other kind of modulation, it can broadcast for decades. The waves flow outwards from the antenna at the speed of light. I can only broadcast or signal when I am in the present. Some sattelite a light year away can hypothetically hear my broadcast, my signalling. If I am really an alien from a high tech civilization and my broadcast is transmitting a signal using tachyons, I still can only transmit from the present. One light year away, there might be an alien spaceship that can pick up my signal. They might respond and we might have a conversation with tachyons over a long distance. But if I accidently tell that alien that he is a "nucklehead", once those words are out, I can't take them back. Hypothetically, if I sent them out at the speed of light, I might have a chance to get in my own starship, head off the signal, and block the part about him being a nucklehead. But that's not really time travel. If the alien heard me call him a nucklehead, there is no way to take it back.
As for psychic stuff, I leave all that to naturally occuring quantum waves. Our thoughts are just electrons moving around anyway. Why would that stuff transmit? The only signal I can send from the past is the one I send from the present directed towards the future. I can't have a two way conversation with someone in the past. Out of respect to all those who thrive upon the mysterious and unexplained, I will just say that physics restricts it, but reality includes more than just physics.
report post as inappropriate
I believe that the confusion over time travel, and sending information can be solved this way. Physicist talk about information, but they don't really discuss signalling. Signalling is when you actually make a change or change something, in a way that demonstrates that you have the ability to do so. If I place a signal into a broadcast media, such as AM radio or some other kind of modulation, it can broadcast for decades. The waves flow outwards from the antenna at the speed of light. I can only broadcast or signal when I am in the present. Some sattelite a light year away can hypothetically hear my broadcast, my signalling. If I am really an alien from a high tech civilization and my broadcast is transmitting a signal using tachyons, I still can only transmit from the present. One light year away, there might be an alien spaceship that can pick up my signal. They might respond and we might have a conversation with tachyons over a long distance. But if I accidently tell that alien that he is a "nucklehead", once those words are out, I can't take them back. Hypothetically, if I sent them out at the speed of light, I might have a chance to get in my own starship, head off the signal, and block the part about him being a nucklehead. But that's not really time travel. If the alien heard me call him a nucklehead, there is no way to take it back.
As for psychic stuff, I leave all that to naturally occuring quantum waves. Our thoughts are just electrons moving around anyway. Why would that stuff transmit? The only signal I can send from the past is the one I send from the present directed towards the future. I can't have a two way conversation with someone in the past. Out of respect to all those who thrive upon the mysterious and unexplained, I will just say that physics restricts it, but reality includes more than just physics.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina & Mr Smith,
I get the feeling that you are arguing two aspects of the same thing and in fact are in basic agreement! Mr Smith and I have had extended discussions at his essay thread and I completely agree with his principle of evolving configurations explaining what we call "time" and "advancing time". What I have also said there is that it would be nice to extend this idea to be relativistic. This is where I agree with Georgina that there can be no objective "present" due to relativity and that a 4th dimensional *spatially* represented quantity is needed for a fully realistic description of the "Elephant". This would require representation as a *spatial* displacement for example in place of the "t" coordinate in a Lorentz transformation to relate the different views of the Elephant. I have read Georgina's proposal for this as basically a redistribution of energy scenario on a 4D sphere with "hidden" motion along an axis orthogonal to the 3d surface (as I recall?) and this may well be as good as any other representation I have heard.
As Georgina has said, any observers or subsystems of the Universe will have their own (evolving) "image" of an observable Universe which must vary unless exactly co-moving. Mr Smith's objective "now" may have a *global* objective reality but this would only be observable from outside the Universe, ie by a hypothetical external observer who sees all the blind people and elephant non-relativistically! From within the Universe, there is an infinite configuration space of "nows".
Cheers
report post as inappropriate
I get the feeling that you are arguing two aspects of the same thing and in fact are in basic agreement! Mr Smith and I have had extended discussions at his essay thread and I completely agree with his principle of evolving configurations explaining what we call "time" and "advancing time". What I have also said there is that it would be nice to extend this idea to be relativistic. This is where I agree with Georgina that there can be no objective "present" due to relativity and that a 4th dimensional *spatially* represented quantity is needed for a fully realistic description of the "Elephant". This would require representation as a *spatial* displacement for example in place of the "t" coordinate in a Lorentz transformation to relate the different views of the Elephant. I have read Georgina's proposal for this as basically a redistribution of energy scenario on a 4D sphere with "hidden" motion along an axis orthogonal to the 3d surface (as I recall?) and this may well be as good as any other representation I have heard.
As Georgina has said, any observers or subsystems of the Universe will have their own (evolving) "image" of an observable Universe which must vary unless exactly co-moving. Mr Smith's objective "now" may have a *global* objective reality but this would only be observable from outside the Universe, ie by a hypothetical external observer who sees all the blind people and elephant non-relativistically! From within the Universe, there is an infinite configuration space of "nows".
Cheers
report post as inappropriate
Mr. Johnstone,
Thank you for your characteristically insightful and constructive thoughts and words. Yes, I suspect that you're correct; my view of time probably is overly simplistic in some/many ways, but that stems largely from my simple-minded, primitive, naive approach to the universe, and I use those adjectives proudly rather than apologetically. But perhaps I err too far in those directions. I do acknowledge, somewhere in the remote, back recesses of my head, that things probably are not quite as simple as I'd like to believe. The devil is always in the details.
Ms. Parry, despite having discovered your footprints in numerous threads to numerous FQXi essays, I have not found your name listed as author of an essay in this year's competition or in last year's. Have you written an essay which spells out your thinking on the nature of time? If so, I'd certainly be willing to read it and think about it and comment on it if you'd be so kind as to point me toward where I might find it.
Cheers
report post as inappropriate
Thank you for your characteristically insightful and constructive thoughts and words. Yes, I suspect that you're correct; my view of time probably is overly simplistic in some/many ways, but that stems largely from my simple-minded, primitive, naive approach to the universe, and I use those adjectives proudly rather than apologetically. But perhaps I err too far in those directions. I do acknowledge, somewhere in the remote, back recesses of my head, that things probably are not quite as simple as I'd like to believe. The devil is always in the details.
Ms. Parry, despite having discovered your footprints in numerous threads to numerous FQXi essays, I have not found your name listed as author of an essay in this year's competition or in last year's. Have you written an essay which spells out your thinking on the nature of time? If so, I'd certainly be willing to read it and think about it and comment on it if you'd be so kind as to point me toward where I might find it.
Cheers
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe i understand what you are saying , a priest once tried to tell me that modern physics had proven that all our actions good or bad will exist forever as they are projected endlessly through the universe .
But what i am really saying is very simple . In the linear progression of human development together with the existence of the universe , the rubbing together of two sticks to make fire to the development of the LHC would be 400 000 years . A mere whispher in the history of existence . In an infinite human future we should have the 'time' to develop the technology to transfer some form of data over time , a particle binary code . It would need to be decoded . If such technology would be developed all improvements on the technology would take place in retrospect .
I am not talking about sending last years xmas cards this year so that they arrive last year , no data like the internet , i can not download a banana and eat it but i can download a photo of a banana and print it out .
A machine which can make exotic matter could enable this model to develop , but here is my point IF!! we manage to send data back in time from the future it will all go whizzing by until we build a machine that can decode it . We would not be able to 'transmit' from the future to a point before the existence of this machine therefore we have not yet noticed any communication.
I beleive that this sought of problematic is to be solved with abstact thought seeking hypothesis and paradigm , the constant has to be found to reveal the relative . We need a new constant or else we will chase the relative until it becomes an alternative for crossword puzzles .
Time is a sticky issue even our cultural background determines how we perceive it , i come from a part of Africa where local people refer to time not in seconds but as 'later' .
report post as inappropriate
But what i am really saying is very simple . In the linear progression of human development together with the existence of the universe , the rubbing together of two sticks to make fire to the development of the LHC would be 400 000 years . A mere whispher in the history of existence . In an infinite human future we should have the 'time' to develop the technology to transfer some form of data over time , a particle binary code . It would need to be decoded . If such technology would be developed all improvements on the technology would take place in retrospect .
I am not talking about sending last years xmas cards this year so that they arrive last year , no data like the internet , i can not download a banana and eat it but i can download a photo of a banana and print it out .
A machine which can make exotic matter could enable this model to develop , but here is my point IF!! we manage to send data back in time from the future it will all go whizzing by until we build a machine that can decode it . We would not be able to 'transmit' from the future to a point before the existence of this machine therefore we have not yet noticed any communication.
I beleive that this sought of problematic is to be solved with abstact thought seeking hypothesis and paradigm , the constant has to be found to reveal the relative . We need a new constant or else we will chase the relative until it becomes an alternative for crossword puzzles .
Time is a sticky issue even our cultural background determines how we perceive it , i come from a part of Africa where local people refer to time not in seconds but as 'later' .
report post as inappropriate
Dear Thinking,
You are lucky to be able to live in such a relaxed atmosphere where "later" is an acceptable answer.
If you want to download pictures of technology from the future, then what stops us from sending lottery numbers? I don't know if you have a lottery back then. Did you see the movie, Back to the Future II? The bad guy is a poor old man; he gets a hold of the time machine, with a book of betting results from the futre. He goes back to give his young self this book with the betting results. The bad guy, when he was younger, starts betting and winning huge amount of money. You might disagree, but I honestly think that that the laws of physics will restrict specific information from flowing from the future to the past.
In contrast, Nostradamus revealed information about the future that is not specific and open to interpretation. My personal opinion is that psychic phenomena has quantum information encoded into it, but the signal is usually weak and sometimes the person receiving it interprets it wrong. Since it's not specific and precise information, it can be transfered. I think that is about as good as you're gonna get, in my opinion.
report post as inappropriate
You are lucky to be able to live in such a relaxed atmosphere where "later" is an acceptable answer.
If you want to download pictures of technology from the future, then what stops us from sending lottery numbers? I don't know if you have a lottery back then. Did you see the movie, Back to the Future II? The bad guy is a poor old man; he gets a hold of the time machine, with a book of betting results from the futre. He goes back to give his young self this book with the betting results. The bad guy, when he was younger, starts betting and winning huge amount of money. You might disagree, but I honestly think that that the laws of physics will restrict specific information from flowing from the future to the past.
In contrast, Nostradamus revealed information about the future that is not specific and open to interpretation. My personal opinion is that psychic phenomena has quantum information encoded into it, but the signal is usually weak and sometimes the person receiving it interprets it wrong. Since it's not specific and precise information, it can be transfered. I think that is about as good as you're gonna get, in my opinion.
report post as inappropriate
Mr. Smith,
I was not aware of FQXi or the first essay competition, about time, until it was too late to enter. I only stumbled upon the site by browsing.
I do not have an essay just about time. The mechanism for how the perception of time arises, what time is currently perceived to be and how gravity arises as well as various other physical phenomena are all intertwined. It would take me some time to break it down into a respectable stand alone but fully explained essay. This is something that I might do sometime if I feel there is enough reason to spend the time doing so. Mostly I feel damned by faint praises or more usually no acknowledgement at all and that I may just as well bang my head on the wall. I have spent quite a bit of time on this site just talking to myself. You are the first person to request to see such an essay.
I have not entered the current competition. It has to be worthwhile from -my- perspective. Besides if I did think I knew what was "ultimately" possible in physics why would I waive all right to defend my intellectual property to FQXi?
I did enter the Gravity Foundation competition but nothing at all came of that.I would write the essay differently now having had time to reflect on the presentation of my explanation and how I might improve upon it. Likewise I need to return to my writing of the Prime Quaternion model and produce a revised version. Having had the opportunity to reflect on the way in which I have explained and presented my ideas.It is somewhere on my mental "to do" list. Likewise I need to update the web site I had began presenting my ideas on, prior to stumbling on FQXi. I have done nothing with it for a long time.4D Megauniverse So much to do and no time!
I do appreciate the opportunity to say what I think on the FQXi site and perhaps one day someone who is really interested will actually read what I have said. There are some careless mistakes but on the whole I think I have explained it clearly.
report post as inappropriate
I was not aware of FQXi or the first essay competition, about time, until it was too late to enter. I only stumbled upon the site by browsing.
I do not have an essay just about time. The mechanism for how the perception of time arises, what time is currently perceived to be and how gravity arises as well as various other physical phenomena are all intertwined. It would take me some time to break it down into a respectable stand alone but fully explained essay. This is something that I might do sometime if I feel there is enough reason to spend the time doing so. Mostly I feel damned by faint praises or more usually no acknowledgement at all and that I may just as well bang my head on the wall. I have spent quite a bit of time on this site just talking to myself. You are the first person to request to see such an essay.
I have not entered the current competition. It has to be worthwhile from -my- perspective. Besides if I did think I knew what was "ultimately" possible in physics why would I waive all right to defend my intellectual property to FQXi?
I did enter the Gravity Foundation competition but nothing at all came of that.I would write the essay differently now having had time to reflect on the presentation of my explanation and how I might improve upon it. Likewise I need to return to my writing of the Prime Quaternion model and produce a revised version. Having had the opportunity to reflect on the way in which I have explained and presented my ideas.It is somewhere on my mental "to do" list. Likewise I need to update the web site I had began presenting my ideas on, prior to stumbling on FQXi. I have done nothing with it for a long time.4D Megauniverse So much to do and no time!
I do appreciate the opportunity to say what I think on the FQXi site and perhaps one day someone who is really interested will actually read what I have said. There are some careless mistakes but on the whole I think I have explained it clearly.
report post as inappropriate
Roy,
thank you very much for your comment.I get very little positive feedback, so your opinion on my "representation" was very welcome and well received. I also do not think that I am in essence in disagreement with Mr. smith.
report post as inappropriate
thank you very much for your comment.I get very little positive feedback, so your opinion on my "representation" was very welcome and well received. I also do not think that I am in essence in disagreement with Mr. smith.
report post as inappropriate
Mr. Smith,
For the sake of clarification when mentioning "intellectual property rights" I was not being entirely serious and was thinking about those potential new technologies that Anthony Aguirre had suggested might be topics for this essay contest when it was announced.
report post as inappropriate
For the sake of clarification when mentioning "intellectual property rights" I was not being entirely serious and was thinking about those potential new technologies that Anthony Aguirre had suggested might be topics for this essay contest when it was announced.
report post as inappropriate
Mr. Johnstone, Ms. Parry,
"As Georgina has said, any observers or subsystems of the Universe will have their own (evolving) 'image' of an observable Universe which must vary unless exactly co-moving. Mr Smith's objective 'now' may have a *global* objective reality but this would only be observable from outside the Universe, ie by a hypothetical external observer who sees all the blind people and elephant non-relativistically! From within the Universe, there is an infinite configuration space of 'nows'."
Yes, I agree. And I don't want to be seen as being an advocate of a position or concept which requires a god-like observer who resides outside the universe (although I must admit that for the purpose of thought experiments this is a useful perspective).
In 'Three Roads to Quantum Gravity' Lee Smolin wrote, ". . . the first principle of cosmology must be 'There is nothing outside the universe.'" (p. 17) And later, "I believe that the main lesson of relativity and quantum theory is that the world is nothing but an evolving network of relationships." (pp. 19-20) And later, "Like all advocates of new ideas we support our opinions with slogans as well as with results. Our slogans are 'In the future we shall know more' and 'One universe seen by many observers, rather than many universes, seen by one mythical observer outside the universe'." (p.48)
It is statements such as these which give me hope that any new book on the nature of time which Smolin writes will almost certainly incorporate some of our ideas, *and* will allow for the reality of motion. I'd love to get Messrs. Smolin and Barbour in a room to hash this all out once and for all, and be a fly on the wall as they do so.
A (perhaps "the") central tenet of my own thinking about the nature of time can be stated very simply: what we traditionally have thought of and referred to as "the flow of time" is, in reality, nothing more and nothing less than the evolution of the physical universe.
Cheers
report post as inappropriate
"As Georgina has said, any observers or subsystems of the Universe will have their own (evolving) 'image' of an observable Universe which must vary unless exactly co-moving. Mr Smith's objective 'now' may have a *global* objective reality but this would only be observable from outside the Universe, ie by a hypothetical external observer who sees all the blind people and elephant non-relativistically! From within the Universe, there is an infinite configuration space of 'nows'."
Yes, I agree. And I don't want to be seen as being an advocate of a position or concept which requires a god-like observer who resides outside the universe (although I must admit that for the purpose of thought experiments this is a useful perspective).
In 'Three Roads to Quantum Gravity' Lee Smolin wrote, ". . . the first principle of cosmology must be 'There is nothing outside the universe.'" (p. 17) And later, "I believe that the main lesson of relativity and quantum theory is that the world is nothing but an evolving network of relationships." (pp. 19-20) And later, "Like all advocates of new ideas we support our opinions with slogans as well as with results. Our slogans are 'In the future we shall know more' and 'One universe seen by many observers, rather than many universes, seen by one mythical observer outside the universe'." (p.48)
It is statements such as these which give me hope that any new book on the nature of time which Smolin writes will almost certainly incorporate some of our ideas, *and* will allow for the reality of motion. I'd love to get Messrs. Smolin and Barbour in a room to hash this all out once and for all, and be a fly on the wall as they do so.
A (perhaps "the") central tenet of my own thinking about the nature of time can be stated very simply: what we traditionally have thought of and referred to as "the flow of time" is, in reality, nothing more and nothing less than the evolution of the physical universe.
Cheers
report post as inappropriate
Feynmann liked to present a positron as an electron moving backwards in time. Isn't that a form of timetravel? When we have the creation of an electron-positron pair, isn't it just one particle, rotating in a circle forward and backward in time?
When time is not a physical reality where does this leave the Minkowski metric? This metric describes the spacetime continuum and it is said that special relativity wasn't finished until Minkowski came with his metric describing spacetime (based on the hyperbolic quaternion).
report post as inappropriate
When time is not a physical reality where does this leave the Minkowski metric? This metric describes the spacetime continuum and it is said that special relativity wasn't finished until Minkowski came with his metric describing spacetime (based on the hyperbolic quaternion).
report post as inappropriate
It can still move backwards along the 4th dimension but it is not time travelling.
It does not pass through events that have already occurred but through space that has already been passed through. That is the significant difference. Travelling back through time causes a paradox, travelling through space along another spatio-energetic dimension does not.
report post as inappropriate
It does not pass through events that have already occurred but through space that has already been passed through. That is the significant difference. Travelling back through time causes a paradox, travelling through space along another spatio-energetic dimension does not.
report post as inappropriate
According to the model I have proposed the 4th dimension represents a scale of "universal" potential energy as well as spatial distance. This is because every change in spatial position is an energy change according to the model. Within 3D vector space change in spatial position is regarded as kinetic energy. The 3 vector dimensions do not work as scales of kinetic energy because it is not possible to give an absolute orientation of those dimensions, unlike the 4th dimension. Moving forwards (afore)along the 4th dimension is loss of "universal" potential energy. Moving backwards will thus be gain of "universal" potential energy.It is therefore not unreasonable for objects to oscillate forwards and backwards along this dimension loosing and gaining energy as they do so.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
What quantity does this 4th dimension represent? is it energy? is it length? is it time?
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
There has to be a 4th dimensional change to give rise to both the experience of time within 3D vector space and the observation of gravity. It is also this change that provides the energy input for the increasing complexity and order of matter in the universe. Just as a change in distance within 3D vector space requires kinetic energy so a change in 4th dimensional position requires an energy change.
One may consider either the energy change that has occurred or the change in position as the objective reality. However it is not possible to measure either of these quantities from the 3D vector space perspective of an observer. We can not observe the 4th dimension in order to make the measurement.
A change that is regular, continuous and observable within 3D vector space can be used as a measurement of actual 4th dimensional change, if the assumption is made that the change that occurs along the 4th dimension is also regular and continuous. That is to say that time is used but it is an indirect measurement of a change that can not be directly measured, not a physical reality of the universe itself.
report post as inappropriate
One may consider either the energy change that has occurred or the change in position as the objective reality. However it is not possible to measure either of these quantities from the 3D vector space perspective of an observer. We can not observe the 4th dimension in order to make the measurement.
A change that is regular, continuous and observable within 3D vector space can be used as a measurement of actual 4th dimensional change, if the assumption is made that the change that occurs along the 4th dimension is also regular and continuous. That is to say that time is used but it is an indirect measurement of a change that can not be directly measured, not a physical reality of the universe itself.
report post as inappropriate
Godel suggests 4-th dimension is spatial too.
I suggest physical time is run of clocks in 4 dimensional timeless quantum space.
yours amrit
report post as inappropriate
I suggest physical time is run of clocks in 4 dimensional timeless quantum space.
yours amrit
report post as inappropriate
But again: when time is not a physical reality where does this leave the Minkowski metric? What are the consequences for special relativity?
The same for 'the 4th dimension is spatial': then what is the time component in the Minkowski metric?
report post as inappropriate
The same for 'the 4th dimension is spatial': then what is the time component in the Minkowski metric?
report post as inappropriate
Time can still be used as is for that purpose but should, in my opinion, be interpreted differently. Time has to be used (As the 4th dimension is unobservable it is the only measurement we can make) but it is not time that is really being measured. The time measurement is telling us about the amount of 4th dimensional energetic and spatial change that has occurred. The consequence of this alternative interpretation is that there are no future or past realms. History is not fixed within space-time. There is no grandfather paradox and gravity can be explained.
There is no paradoxical consequence of travelling aft-wards along the 4th dimension. There would be no actually reverse causality, as such, for sub atomic particles travelling aft-wards along the 4th dimension, as it is a spatio-energetic change rather than temporal change in position. Within the macroscopic world that is experienced there is always net afore-ward motion of matter along the 4th dimension giving the subjective experience of time. That makes us think of a flow or arrow of time. This is also the continuous loss of universal potential energy driving the formation of the universe.
report post as inappropriate
There is no paradoxical consequence of travelling aft-wards along the 4th dimension. There would be no actually reverse causality, as such, for sub atomic particles travelling aft-wards along the 4th dimension, as it is a spatio-energetic change rather than temporal change in position. Within the macroscopic world that is experienced there is always net afore-ward motion of matter along the 4th dimension giving the subjective experience of time. That makes us think of a flow or arrow of time. This is also the continuous loss of universal potential energy driving the formation of the universe.
report post as inappropriate
Just considering the 4th dimension differently from a philosophical viewpoint does not alter its treatment within existing mathematics.It only alters the interpretation of the meaning of the mathematical findings. Structurally, within this alternative model, it is just the same. That is, it is a scalar dimension (no single direction can be ascribed to it from 3D vector space) that is orthogonal to the other 3 dimensions.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Georgina,
Do you think the gravitational constant could be a function of the speed of light? In other words, do you think that the gravitiaonal constant is dependent upon the speed of light?
report post as inappropriate
Do you think the gravitational constant could be a function of the speed of light? In other words, do you think that the gravitiaonal constant is dependent upon the speed of light?
report post as inappropriate
If you take the time to read the paper proposing the test, the 'deck' consists of 200,000 cards - only ONE of which is the shutdown card.
The purpose of this test is to 'randomize' the activities of the LHC, controlling it's operating parameters (ranges of energies, etc.)
My only problem with this attempt to violate causality is that, if it is truly interference from the future, wouldn't the future already know what cards are drawn in what order? And, if so, at that point, how do they manage to influence the operation of the LHC? Playing with the deck?
report post as inappropriate
The purpose of this test is to 'randomize' the activities of the LHC, controlling it's operating parameters (ranges of energies, etc.)
My only problem with this attempt to violate causality is that, if it is truly interference from the future, wouldn't the future already know what cards are drawn in what order? And, if so, at that point, how do they manage to influence the operation of the LHC? Playing with the deck?
report post as inappropriate
Peter
time "t" in Minkovski metrics works well.
"t" menas thick of clock.
The problem is we think time is physical reality in which material change happens.
Time is only a measure. X4 = i x c "t" whete "t" is thick of clock
yours amrit
report post as inappropriate
time "t" in Minkovski metrics works well.
"t" menas thick of clock.
The problem is we think time is physical reality in which material change happens.
Time is only a measure. X4 = i x c "t" whete "t" is thick of clock
yours amrit
report post as inappropriate
Hi Peter:
You ask:
What quantity does this 4th dimension represent? is it energy? is it length? is it time?
My reply is:
I have demonstrated the equivalency of extension in time and space at a three to one ratio in keeping with the following (below). I have shown that the integrated extensiveness of being and experience go hand-in-hand in and with time. What I will now...
view entire post
You ask:
What quantity does this 4th dimension represent? is it energy? is it length? is it time?
My reply is:
I have demonstrated the equivalency of extension in time and space at a three to one ratio in keeping with the following (below). I have shown that the integrated extensiveness of being and experience go hand-in-hand in and with time. What I will now...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
Jason,
You asked "Do you think the gravitational constant could be a function of the speed of light? In other words, do you think that the gravitational constant is dependent upon the speed of light?" I'm not sure where your question sprang from. Or what answer you are looking for.I will attempt to answer it to the best of my (sleep deprived)...
view entire post
You asked "Do you think the gravitational constant could be a function of the speed of light? In other words, do you think that the gravitational constant is dependent upon the speed of light?" I'm not sure where your question sprang from. Or what answer you are looking for.I will attempt to answer it to the best of my (sleep deprived)...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
Hi Jason and Georgina,
Jason asked if the gravitational constant could be a function of the speed of light. In other words, is the gravitational constant dependent upon the speed of light?
The 4 terms in the Minkowski metric have the same dimension. Minkowski replaced time t with 'proportional time' ict. Proportional time has the same dimension as length. Georgina in this sense I...
view entire post
Jason asked if the gravitational constant could be a function of the speed of light. In other words, is the gravitational constant dependent upon the speed of light?
The 4 terms in the Minkowski metric have the same dimension. Minkowski replaced time t with 'proportional time' ict. Proportional time has the same dimension as length. Georgina in this sense I...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
G is not an imaginairy number. G has dimension burst/mass.
But 'proportional G' is an imaginairy number. proportional G = (prop. burst)/(prop. mass)
Below I will explain how I derived 'proportional bust' and 'proportional mass', but it is a bit ellaborate. In the same way Minkoswki composed his metric, I composed a bigger metric. I will use the extra quantities I defined in the post...
view entire post
But 'proportional G' is an imaginairy number. proportional G = (prop. burst)/(prop. mass)
Below I will explain how I derived 'proportional bust' and 'proportional mass', but it is a bit ellaborate. In the same way Minkoswki composed his metric, I composed a bigger metric. I will use the extra quantities I defined in the post...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
We can give all coordinate quantities the same dimension as gmflux, so the other quantities are proportional to gmflux:
This metric can be decomposed into two opposite octonions (c and G left away for readability and i,j,k and L are imaginary units).
Of = f + ix + jy + kz + LE + iLsx + jLsy + kLsz
Ot = - t - ibx - jby - kbz - Lm - iLpx - jLpy - kLpz
Proportional velocity = (prop length)/(prop time) =
And just like velocity = length/time, there is a quantity 'gravicity': gravicity = burst/mass.
The speed of light is maximal velocity and the gravitational constant G is maximal gravicity.
Proportional G = (prop burst)/(prop mass) =
So proportional G = iL
report post as inappropriate
This metric can be decomposed into two opposite octonions (c and G left away for readability and i,j,k and L are imaginary units).
Of = f + ix + jy + kz + LE + iLsx + jLsy + kLsz
Ot = - t - ibx - jby - kbz - Lm - iLpx - jLpy - kLpz
Proportional velocity = (prop length)/(prop time) =
And just like velocity = length/time, there is a quantity 'gravicity': gravicity = burst/mass.
The speed of light is maximal velocity and the gravitational constant G is maximal gravicity.
Proportional G = (prop burst)/(prop mass) =
So proportional G = iL
report post as inappropriate
Oh ye, I forgot to tell.
The metric I found in the post above is the completion of classical relativistic gravitomagnetic mechanics. It is the missing idea that will form the basis for the correct quantum theory.
So please keep it secret. :)
post approved
The metric I found in the post above is the completion of classical relativistic gravitomagnetic mechanics. It is the missing idea that will form the basis for the correct quantum theory.
So please keep it secret. :)
post approved
Do String Theorists Wear Belled Slippers"
Dear Anon,
I am so glad you asked.
Yes, they do, and they also have bells on their floppy pointed hats.
However, only the Master Jesters are allowed to juggle the Glass Beads.
The sycophants have to sit around them in a circle and clap.
Otherwise they are branded "cranks" and ostracised.
Good observing Anon,
RLO
report post as inappropriate
Dear Anon,
I am so glad you asked.
Yes, they do, and they also have bells on their floppy pointed hats.
However, only the Master Jesters are allowed to juggle the Glass Beads.
The sycophants have to sit around them in a circle and clap.
Otherwise they are branded "cranks" and ostracised.
Good observing Anon,
RLO
report post as inappropriate
Peter van Gaalen: I of course recognize momentum invariant interals, quaterions and the like, but beyond that I have a difficult time seeing what you are writing about.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Georgia and Peter,
I want to thank you both for putting effort onto your answers. I think gravitational flux is what I stumbled upon. I came up with what I think is a good hypothesis or idea for a hyperdrive physics theory. My initial starting assumption is this: 3D space exists, but there is an infinite set of space-times for the same 3D space. There is the one space-time we know exists; I call that the c_1 brane. I speculate that there is a c_2 brane with a speed of light equal to two times c, a c_3 brane with 3c, c_4,...c_n. This isn't proven, but dark matter and dark energy influcnced this idea.
Next, I ran a very simple thought experiment. I have two apples, identical, both with mass m1. I am going to drop them both a height L1. I am assuming that energy is conserved. One of the apples is going to fall through a region of space where the speed of light is 2c, a c_2 brane. I want to convince you that
EQ1: m1g1L1= m2g2L2.
If energy is to be conserved, then an energy of E1 that passes into a c_2 brane, will equal the energy E2. No energy is gained or lost in the transition. If this is the case, then what is the relationship between m1 and m2? E=mc2, so E1=m1c12 = E2= m2c22. Thus,
EQ2: m1/m2 = (c2/c1)2.
If we assume that L1 = L2 out of convenience, that the path through c2 space does not change the elevation, then we are left with m1g1= m2g2. Energy is conserved, so if the mass scales by equation 2, then the gravitational acceleration must scale too, so,
EQ3: g2 = g1(c2/c1)2.
Of course, we all know that g=GM/r2. Since the mass of the earth, M doesn't change because we went through a c2 brane, and the distance r doesn't change, then it must be the gravitational constant, G, that changes. Hence,
EQ4 G2/G1 = (c2/c1)2.
The gravitational constant scales by the square of the speed of light. I think this means that the speed of light determines how fast we can fall. There's more, but I want to get your comments or questions.
report post as inappropriate
I want to thank you both for putting effort onto your answers. I think gravitational flux is what I stumbled upon. I came up with what I think is a good hypothesis or idea for a hyperdrive physics theory. My initial starting assumption is this: 3D space exists, but there is an infinite set of space-times for the same 3D space. There is the one space-time we know exists; I call that the c_1 brane. I speculate that there is a c_2 brane with a speed of light equal to two times c, a c_3 brane with 3c, c_4,...c_n. This isn't proven, but dark matter and dark energy influcnced this idea.
Next, I ran a very simple thought experiment. I have two apples, identical, both with mass m1. I am going to drop them both a height L1. I am assuming that energy is conserved. One of the apples is going to fall through a region of space where the speed of light is 2c, a c_2 brane. I want to convince you that
EQ1: m1g1L1= m2g2L2.
If energy is to be conserved, then an energy of E1 that passes into a c_2 brane, will equal the energy E2. No energy is gained or lost in the transition. If this is the case, then what is the relationship between m1 and m2? E=mc2, so E1=m1c12 = E2= m2c22. Thus,
EQ2: m1/m2 = (c2/c1)2.
If we assume that L1 = L2 out of convenience, that the path through c2 space does not change the elevation, then we are left with m1g1= m2g2. Energy is conserved, so if the mass scales by equation 2, then the gravitational acceleration must scale too, so,
EQ3: g2 = g1(c2/c1)2.
Of course, we all know that g=GM/r2. Since the mass of the earth, M doesn't change because we went through a c2 brane, and the distance r doesn't change, then it must be the gravitational constant, G, that changes. Hence,
EQ4 G2/G1 = (c2/c1)2.
The gravitational constant scales by the square of the speed of light. I think this means that the speed of light determines how fast we can fall. There's more, but I want to get your comments or questions.
report post as inappropriate
Pater said "c and G are both constants. What does this mean? The speed of light c is responsible for relativistic effect. In my view G must also be responsible for relativistic effects. And therefore proportional G must also be an imaginary unit."
I do not follow the logic of this statement.
I agree that both c and G are constants and involved in relativistic effects. Gravitational time dilation is in my opinion real and not an artefact,in that there is actual spatial distribution of matter along the 4th dimension giving discrepancy between time measurement by external observer and on the gravitationally accelerated object. As I said this being due to the assumption that time passes regularly for all objects rather than being variable for each according to spatial position in relation to the gravitationally attracting mass. G giving the difference between actual and assumed change.
The speed of light measured in 3d space actually is constant, in my opinion, as explained, unlike the "only assumed constant passage of time for all matter."
Peter said "So I think it should be that speed has meaning when considering the 4th dimension itself because (proportional time)/(proportional length) = -i."
I do not really understand the meaning of this. Please can you explain in words what meaning this equation has? Does the meaning only relate to the mathematics itself or does it have some meaning outside of the mathematical formulation that enables speed without time or speed without distance to be understood?
We can assume that a regular change in 3D vector space is proportional to a regular passage of time (or regular change along the 4th dimension). However the assumption is wrong, it is only an approximation. Hence relativistic effects.
report post as inappropriate
I do not follow the logic of this statement.
I agree that both c and G are constants and involved in relativistic effects. Gravitational time dilation is in my opinion real and not an artefact,in that there is actual spatial distribution of matter along the 4th dimension giving discrepancy between time measurement by external observer and on the gravitationally accelerated object. As I said this being due to the assumption that time passes regularly for all objects rather than being variable for each according to spatial position in relation to the gravitationally attracting mass. G giving the difference between actual and assumed change.
The speed of light measured in 3d space actually is constant, in my opinion, as explained, unlike the "only assumed constant passage of time for all matter."
Peter said "So I think it should be that speed has meaning when considering the 4th dimension itself because (proportional time)/(proportional length) = -i."
I do not really understand the meaning of this. Please can you explain in words what meaning this equation has? Does the meaning only relate to the mathematics itself or does it have some meaning outside of the mathematical formulation that enables speed without time or speed without distance to be understood?
We can assume that a regular change in 3D vector space is proportional to a regular passage of time (or regular change along the 4th dimension). However the assumption is wrong, it is only an approximation. Hence relativistic effects.
report post as inappropriate
I was hoping someone would ask. I have a cool idea for a hyperdrive and I'm ready to give some of the specifics about how energy is handled. I'm talking about hyper-drive mechanics 101. Is anyone interested?
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Hi Lawrence, can you tell where you lost me?
Minkowski gave a description of spacetime in his metric. The quantities in this metric have the same dimension, they are proportional quantities. This metric can be decomposed into a (hyperbolic) quaternion. The elements of the quaternion are real and imaginary proportional elements. We can use these proportional complex elements to see what the dimension of proportional velocity is. Proportional velocity = (prop length)/(prop time) = length/ict imaginary unit -i.
The second part is to do the same thing for the gravitational constant G. But first we had to develop a metric just like the minkowski metric:
From the newtonian equations we derived the relationship between length and mass. If we extend the number of quantities then we can see that G = burst/mass. from this I did a premature combination of the minkowski metric and the relativistic energy momentum equation. Reconsider relativistic mass we can extend the energy-momentum equation to a equation with 8 dimensions. The same thing for the Minkowski metric, also extended to 8 dimensions. Now we combined the extended minkowski metric with the extended energy momentum equation. Ultimately we got the 16 dimensional metric. this metric can be decomposed into two opposite octonions. The octonions are composed of the proportional imaginary elements. So now we can finaly see what proportional burst and proportional mass are. From those two we found that the proportional gravitational constant G = iL.
report post as inappropriate
Minkowski gave a description of spacetime in his metric. The quantities in this metric have the same dimension, they are proportional quantities. This metric can be decomposed into a (hyperbolic) quaternion. The elements of the quaternion are real and imaginary proportional elements. We can use these proportional complex elements to see what the dimension of proportional velocity is. Proportional velocity = (prop length)/(prop time) = length/ict imaginary unit -i.
The second part is to do the same thing for the gravitational constant G. But first we had to develop a metric just like the minkowski metric:
From the newtonian equations we derived the relationship between length and mass. If we extend the number of quantities then we can see that G = burst/mass. from this I did a premature combination of the minkowski metric and the relativistic energy momentum equation. Reconsider relativistic mass we can extend the energy-momentum equation to a equation with 8 dimensions. The same thing for the Minkowski metric, also extended to 8 dimensions. Now we combined the extended minkowski metric with the extended energy momentum equation. Ultimately we got the 16 dimensional metric. this metric can be decomposed into two opposite octonions. The octonions are composed of the proportional imaginary elements. So now we can finaly see what proportional burst and proportional mass are. From those two we found that the proportional gravitational constant G = iL.
report post as inappropriate
Peter said "From those two we found that the proportional gravitational constant G = iL."
How does this aid comprehension?
report post as inappropriate
How does this aid comprehension?
report post as inappropriate
The MInkowki metric applies for the Lorentz group, with the invariant interval or proper time
ds^2 = c^2dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2,
and in keeping with some basic structure of classical physics conjugate momentum distance is
(mc^2)^2 = E^2 - (pc)^2.
This is the basic construction of Minkoswki spacetime. The light cone is defined where ds = 0 and equivlaently for m = 0.
I am not sure what the reasoning is for proportional velocity. Velocities in spacetime can be easily defined from the invariant interval by dividing through by ds^2 so that
1 = c^2(dt/ds)^2 - (dx/ds)^2 - (dy/ds)^2 - (dz/dx)^2 = U_t^1 - U_x^2 - ...,
which tells us that four velocities are always of length one. A proper time derivative of this gives 0 with
0 = a_tU_t - a_xU_x - ...
so accleration in four dimensions is orthogonal or perpendicultar to four velocity. This is standard stuff.
Gravitation enters into the picture with curvature, where this Minkowski structure is local, and on the spacetime in general there are locally different Lorentzian systems. These merge together according to connection terms and curvatures, thus giving general relativity. In special relativity there is no reference to G.
Now if you want to consider something a bit odd the following sequence exists
1^2 + 2^2 + 3^2 + ... + 24^2 = 70^2.
This sequence of squares of integers turns out to be tied to some remarkable structure with something called the Leech lattice, which is the root system for the sporadic group M_{24}. This turns out to define the 26 dimensional Lorentzian structure (Minkowsi spacetime) with the null condition
0^2 + 1^2 + 2^2 + 3^2 + ... + 24^2 - 70^2 = 0.
If I change the sign on 0^2, which is of minimal consequence for this discrete setting, I have a space where and anti-de Sitter structure exists. Now 26 dimensions is the size of the space for the bonsonic string. and it is under a so called infinite momentum frame condition the space which emerges from the exceptional Jordan matrix J^3(O). This further defines an automorphism structure for the Fisher-Griess group, or "The Monster" group.
This is the domain where I have been working things. What I mention here is just a couple of highlights of this. This is a deep subject to study and to work within.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
ds^2 = c^2dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2,
and in keeping with some basic structure of classical physics conjugate momentum distance is
(mc^2)^2 = E^2 - (pc)^2.
This is the basic construction of Minkoswki spacetime. The light cone is defined where ds = 0 and equivlaently for m = 0.
I am not sure what the reasoning is for proportional velocity. Velocities in spacetime can be easily defined from the invariant interval by dividing through by ds^2 so that
1 = c^2(dt/ds)^2 - (dx/ds)^2 - (dy/ds)^2 - (dz/dx)^2 = U_t^1 - U_x^2 - ...,
which tells us that four velocities are always of length one. A proper time derivative of this gives 0 with
0 = a_tU_t - a_xU_x - ...
so accleration in four dimensions is orthogonal or perpendicultar to four velocity. This is standard stuff.
Gravitation enters into the picture with curvature, where this Minkowski structure is local, and on the spacetime in general there are locally different Lorentzian systems. These merge together according to connection terms and curvatures, thus giving general relativity. In special relativity there is no reference to G.
Now if you want to consider something a bit odd the following sequence exists
1^2 + 2^2 + 3^2 + ... + 24^2 = 70^2.
This sequence of squares of integers turns out to be tied to some remarkable structure with something called the Leech lattice, which is the root system for the sporadic group M_{24}. This turns out to define the 26 dimensional Lorentzian structure (Minkowsi spacetime) with the null condition
0^2 + 1^2 + 2^2 + 3^2 + ... + 24^2 - 70^2 = 0.
If I change the sign on 0^2, which is of minimal consequence for this discrete setting, I have a space where and anti-de Sitter structure exists. Now 26 dimensions is the size of the space for the bonsonic string. and it is under a so called infinite momentum frame condition the space which emerges from the exceptional Jordan matrix J^3(O). This further defines an automorphism structure for the Fisher-Griess group, or "The Monster" group.
This is the domain where I have been working things. What I mention here is just a couple of highlights of this. This is a deep subject to study and to work within.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Dear Lawrence,
I appreciate your review of GR.
You said, "I am not sure what the reasoning is for proportional velocity. "
GR is very much designed to suggest that FTL (faster than light) travel is impossible. I was looking for a simple and easy way to introduce a hypothetical hyper-drive physics without drastically departing from the mathematical structure of General...
view entire post
I appreciate your review of GR.
You said, "I am not sure what the reasoning is for proportional velocity. "
GR is very much designed to suggest that FTL (faster than light) travel is impossible. I was looking for a simple and easy way to introduce a hypothetical hyper-drive physics without drastically departing from the mathematical structure of General...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
I am not sure what a c_n brane is. D-branes are extended objects, similar to spaces, but which for dim > 1 have solitonic physics of strings they interact with. A one dimensional brane is a string. You might be best to liberate yourself from ideas of FTL drives and the like. These things are not likely to bear any fruit in physics. That just seems to be how the cards have been delt in the universe.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Dear Lawrence,
Well, thank you for your effort and your feedback. I'm sorry I couldn't more clearly define a c_i brane as a 3D space with an integer multiple of the velocity of light, i times c. I acknowledge that there are probably more formal ways to clearly define it. I was going for a college freshman physics description to keep the physics clear and simple. I also understand that the very suggestion that physics could exist for faster than light phenomena goes against generations of theoretical physics efforts. I thought it would be best to draw the needed experimental evidence from observations about dark energy and dark matter.
While I value your vast knowledge in General Relativity and String Theory, I don't wish to tax your thoughts with something too radical.
Thank you,
Jason
report post as inappropriate
Well, thank you for your effort and your feedback. I'm sorry I couldn't more clearly define a c_i brane as a 3D space with an integer multiple of the velocity of light, i times c. I acknowledge that there are probably more formal ways to clearly define it. I was going for a college freshman physics description to keep the physics clear and simple. I also understand that the very suggestion that physics could exist for faster than light phenomena goes against generations of theoretical physics efforts. I thought it would be best to draw the needed experimental evidence from observations about dark energy and dark matter.
While I value your vast knowledge in General Relativity and String Theory, I don't wish to tax your thoughts with something too radical.
Thank you,
Jason
report post as inappropriate
The Loretnzian structure of gravitation appears to be a bedrock of physical principles. It also pretty clearly appears that even though this might apply to local frames, that the basic form carries over to global manifolds. In other words faster than light spacetimes with warp drives or multiple connected topologies are pathological.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
The constant c is built into every part of Lorentian transforms, the Einstein equations and gravitation. Yet dark energy and dark mass account for 96% of all gravitationally relevent material.
It comes down to this: why can't we see, with photons, 96% of the gravitationally significant universe. In my opinion, most of 96% comes from light that we can't observe, and travels along a brane that doesn't transmit our kind of light. I'm simply suggesting that those other branes might be FTL branes. If those other branes really are FTL, then whatever light they transmit, is incompatible with our light. Our brane is optically incompatible with the other brane(s). But gravitation transmits by warping space, not by transmitting light.
report post as inappropriate
It comes down to this: why can't we see, with photons, 96% of the gravitationally significant universe. In my opinion, most of 96% comes from light that we can't observe, and travels along a brane that doesn't transmit our kind of light. I'm simply suggesting that those other branes might be FTL branes. If those other branes really are FTL, then whatever light they transmit, is incompatible with our light. Our brane is optically incompatible with the other brane(s). But gravitation transmits by warping space, not by transmitting light.
report post as inappropriate
Jason, you said "It comes down to this: why can't we see, with photons, 96% of the gravitationally significant universe".
General relativity tells us that matter is distributed along the 4th dimension. (I have spoken at some length about how this spatio-energetic dimension is involved in the perception of a passage of time. There is no justifiable reason to assume that this 4th dimension can not be regarded as another spatial dimension.) Which makes matter distributed in 4 rather than just 3 observable dimensions.
However we can not see 4 dimensions of space. Therefore we can not observe the objective material distribution of the universe. We observe an image of the universe within 3 dimensions that is not the actual material distribution of matter but former distributions and configurations of matter that no longer exist in that precise form. This means there is always a discrepancy between what we can see and what is actually out there. We can not see along the 4th dimension at all. However gravity acts along this dimensions so un-seeable matter is able to exert a gravitational force upon see-able matter because of the distortion it causes.
report post as inappropriate
General relativity tells us that matter is distributed along the 4th dimension. (I have spoken at some length about how this spatio-energetic dimension is involved in the perception of a passage of time. There is no justifiable reason to assume that this 4th dimension can not be regarded as another spatial dimension.) Which makes matter distributed in 4 rather than just 3 observable dimensions.
However we can not see 4 dimensions of space. Therefore we can not observe the objective material distribution of the universe. We observe an image of the universe within 3 dimensions that is not the actual material distribution of matter but former distributions and configurations of matter that no longer exist in that precise form. This means there is always a discrepancy between what we can see and what is actually out there. We can not see along the 4th dimension at all. However gravity acts along this dimensions so un-seeable matter is able to exert a gravitational force upon see-able matter because of the distortion it causes.
report post as inappropriate
Time is dependent upon the integrated extensiveness of being, experience, space, and thought.
Regarding the darkness/blackness of [outer] space, the increased transparency/invisibility of space in astronomical/telescopic observations makes these observations possible, AS IT ALLOWS US TO SEE FARTHER.
THE INCREASING TRANSPARENCY/INVISIBILITY OF SPACE IN ASTRONOMICAL/TELESCOPIC OBSERVATIONS EXPLAINS THE REDSHIFT. THAT IS BIG NEWS!
Astronomical/telescopic observations and dreams both involve a narrowing/"telescoping" of vision. Astronomical/telescopic observations have significant similarities with dreams. Both dreams and astronomical/telescopic observations involve increasing invisibility/transparency of space. Telescopic/astronomical observations are interactive creations of thought to a significant extent.
report post as inappropriate
Regarding the darkness/blackness of [outer] space, the increased transparency/invisibility of space in astronomical/telescopic observations makes these observations possible, AS IT ALLOWS US TO SEE FARTHER.
THE INCREASING TRANSPARENCY/INVISIBILITY OF SPACE IN ASTRONOMICAL/TELESCOPIC OBSERVATIONS EXPLAINS THE REDSHIFT. THAT IS BIG NEWS!
Astronomical/telescopic observations and dreams both involve a narrowing/"telescoping" of vision. Astronomical/telescopic observations have significant similarities with dreams. Both dreams and astronomical/telescopic observations involve increasing invisibility/transparency of space. Telescopic/astronomical observations are interactive creations of thought to a significant extent.
report post as inappropriate
Hi Georgina,
I'm afraid you caught me. I can't really comprehend a 4th spatio-energetic dimension. To me, it's easier to imagine that space-time is nothing more then the simple fact that standard model particles interact at the speed of light. Outside of the light cone, standard model particles are beyond reach of each other. But these interactions occur on some kind of "surface", a brane if you will. Gravity seems to be able to curve/compress this surface/brane. Think of photons as little messengers walking around on a flat surface. But gravity comes along and turns that flat surface into the Grand Canyon. These photons will exert as much energy as they have to climb to the top. After theyve climbed the top, they're very tired and sluggish. One would think that the bottom of the canyon is slow. It's just that the photons are tired and sluggish after their climb.
The hyperspace ideas I've been discussing, 2c branes, 3c branes, etc., presuppose there are really fast photons on a 2c brane. They run twice as fast as normal photons. They are also snobs and don't like to talk to our 1c-brane photons.
My point is that it's easier to imagine space-time and gravity in this way. Visualizing a 4th spatio-energetic space-time is too awkward for my layperson brain.
report post as inappropriate
I'm afraid you caught me. I can't really comprehend a 4th spatio-energetic dimension. To me, it's easier to imagine that space-time is nothing more then the simple fact that standard model particles interact at the speed of light. Outside of the light cone, standard model particles are beyond reach of each other. But these interactions occur on some kind of "surface", a brane if you will. Gravity seems to be able to curve/compress this surface/brane. Think of photons as little messengers walking around on a flat surface. But gravity comes along and turns that flat surface into the Grand Canyon. These photons will exert as much energy as they have to climb to the top. After theyve climbed the top, they're very tired and sluggish. One would think that the bottom of the canyon is slow. It's just that the photons are tired and sluggish after their climb.
The hyperspace ideas I've been discussing, 2c branes, 3c branes, etc., presuppose there are really fast photons on a 2c brane. They run twice as fast as normal photons. They are also snobs and don't like to talk to our 1c-brane photons.
My point is that it's easier to imagine space-time and gravity in this way. Visualizing a 4th spatio-energetic space-time is too awkward for my layperson brain.
report post as inappropriate
Electromagnetric space (e.g., photons and the Sun) is both larger and smaller than ordinary or typical space (such as the Earth). When space manifests as gravitational/electromagnetic energy, scale is then balanced, space is particle/wave, invisible/visible, and larger/smaller. Accordingly, space is both repulsive and attractive as well.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Jason: "I think gravitational flux is what I stumbled upon."
In the Kerr metric there is also a quantity that is the same as gmflux/phase: the product of rotational length and velocity.
I do not understand: "One of the apples is going to fall through a region of space where the speed of light is 2c, a c_2 brane."
report post as inappropriate
In the Kerr metric there is also a quantity that is the same as gmflux/phase: the product of rotational length and velocity.
I do not understand: "One of the apples is going to fall through a region of space where the speed of light is 2c, a c_2 brane."
report post as inappropriate
Hi Georgina,
[Georgina: Peter said "c and G are both constants. What does this mean? The speed of light c is responsible for relativistic effect. In my view G must also be responsible for relativistic effects. And therefore proportional G must also be an imaginary unit.."
I do not follow the logic of this statement.
I agree that both c and G are constants and involved in...
view entire post
[Georgina: Peter said "c and G are both constants. What does this mean? The speed of light c is responsible for relativistic effect. In my view G must also be responsible for relativistic effects. And therefore proportional G must also be an imaginary unit.."
I do not follow the logic of this statement.
I agree that both c and G are constants and involved in...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
Jason I'm not just imagining a 4th dimension for fun. You've said your self that gravity curves a surface of some kind. A 4th dimension enables that curvature of space to be described and modelled. If 3D space can be curved you need another dimension to give that curvature.
3 dimensions of space and 1 of time is more complex and difficult and less scientific ( as it involves imagining time realms) than 4 dimensions that all give orientation of the same stuff ie. space. The only problem is where is that extra dimension as we can not see it within 3d space. It is not curled up very small but runs through the mass itself. So the exterior of the mass is always moving to the position that was occupied by the interior as the interior has moved on, without moving through 3D space. It does not collapse into itself in 3D space but is in continuous motion as described giving the effect of gravity.
The 4th dimension is a necessary part of a model that describes the observations that are made, giving us relativity. A spatial (or energetic) 4th dimension is necessary to understand the arrow of time and to explain gravity.It is not just imagination but a necessary progression in understanding of the meaning of scientific observations including dark matter and black holes and how galaxies hold together and how there can be input into quantum systems that is not observable within local space, without anything coming from a future or past realm.
Your explanation of space-time and gravity is not easier to comprehend in my opinion (except perhaps it is to you.) It is just very different and I think it explains less. Unless you can demonstrate that it is a model that can explain more than we can at present then it is probably incorrect.
report post as inappropriate
3 dimensions of space and 1 of time is more complex and difficult and less scientific ( as it involves imagining time realms) than 4 dimensions that all give orientation of the same stuff ie. space. The only problem is where is that extra dimension as we can not see it within 3d space. It is not curled up very small but runs through the mass itself. So the exterior of the mass is always moving to the position that was occupied by the interior as the interior has moved on, without moving through 3D space. It does not collapse into itself in 3D space but is in continuous motion as described giving the effect of gravity.
The 4th dimension is a necessary part of a model that describes the observations that are made, giving us relativity. A spatial (or energetic) 4th dimension is necessary to understand the arrow of time and to explain gravity.It is not just imagination but a necessary progression in understanding of the meaning of scientific observations including dark matter and black holes and how galaxies hold together and how there can be input into quantum systems that is not observable within local space, without anything coming from a future or past realm.
Your explanation of space-time and gravity is not easier to comprehend in my opinion (except perhaps it is to you.) It is just very different and I think it explains less. Unless you can demonstrate that it is a model that can explain more than we can at present then it is probably incorrect.
report post as inappropriate
Peter,
I was trying to say that the apple that falls through a region of space where the speed of light is twice c, will accelerate faster. If we assume that energy is conserved when transitioning between a c1 brane and a c2 brane, we discover that mass converts as m2/m1=(c1/c2)^2; in effect, an apple with mass m1 will have less mass in a space where the speed of light is 2c, a c2-brane. For two apples in a gravity field, m1g1L1=m2g2L2, where L2 is the elevation within the c2-brane. It won't be possible to gain or lose energy by climbing in one brane and then falling through the other brane. L1=L2, same elevation; so m1g1=m2g2. Because m2/m1=(c1/c2)^2, then g2/g1=(c2/c1)^2, so the velocity of light ratios cancel out. But g=GM/r^2. The mass of the earth is not in hyperspace, and r^2 is not scaled. Therefore, the only thing that can scale is the gravitational constant. Thus, G2/G1=(c2/c1)^2. I interpret this to mean that objects that fall in a c2 brane (twice c), will fall faster.
Georgina,
There are different ways of thinking about General Relativity. Adding an additional dimension is a perfectly good way to interpret gravity and GR. It is important to me to be able to explain these ideas, both GR and hyperdrive physics suppositions, it's important to be able to explain these ideas as simply as is possible. If I can't explain these ideas to a high school senior or a college freshman because the mathematics is so sophisticated, then how do I know that I really understand it? I wonder if I'm just regurgitating what some college professor taught me.
I don't experience the 4th dimension. As a layperson, I only know that gravity keeps me from floating away. Gravity makes it hard to climb hills and mountain. But someone who is immersed in mathematics might find that the mathematics makes more sense then common experience. For a few really intelligent persons, visualizing in four spatial dimensions might be easy. You have the advantage over me because you can work the quaternion mathematics visually. I have to use various metaphors to make GR make sense. It has taken years to refine my use of metaphors and intuition to the point where I can explore branes and gravity very quickly. It is here that I hold the advantage of being able to ask reasonable questions and consider plausible scenarios.
I don't anticipate much interest in my ideas from the physics community because I can't weave tensors and diffential mathematics effortlessly. I expect I will eventually push my ideas through the internet at a layperson level to attract more interest.
You, on the other hand, will have more sway with the physics community because of your skill in mathematics. Do don't feel like I'm attacking quaternions. There are many different ways to understand general relativity/gravity/etc.
report post as inappropriate
I was trying to say that the apple that falls through a region of space where the speed of light is twice c, will accelerate faster. If we assume that energy is conserved when transitioning between a c1 brane and a c2 brane, we discover that mass converts as m2/m1=(c1/c2)^2; in effect, an apple with mass m1 will have less mass in a space where the speed of light is 2c, a c2-brane. For two apples in a gravity field, m1g1L1=m2g2L2, where L2 is the elevation within the c2-brane. It won't be possible to gain or lose energy by climbing in one brane and then falling through the other brane. L1=L2, same elevation; so m1g1=m2g2. Because m2/m1=(c1/c2)^2, then g2/g1=(c2/c1)^2, so the velocity of light ratios cancel out. But g=GM/r^2. The mass of the earth is not in hyperspace, and r^2 is not scaled. Therefore, the only thing that can scale is the gravitational constant. Thus, G2/G1=(c2/c1)^2. I interpret this to mean that objects that fall in a c2 brane (twice c), will fall faster.
Georgina,
There are different ways of thinking about General Relativity. Adding an additional dimension is a perfectly good way to interpret gravity and GR. It is important to me to be able to explain these ideas, both GR and hyperdrive physics suppositions, it's important to be able to explain these ideas as simply as is possible. If I can't explain these ideas to a high school senior or a college freshman because the mathematics is so sophisticated, then how do I know that I really understand it? I wonder if I'm just regurgitating what some college professor taught me.
I don't experience the 4th dimension. As a layperson, I only know that gravity keeps me from floating away. Gravity makes it hard to climb hills and mountain. But someone who is immersed in mathematics might find that the mathematics makes more sense then common experience. For a few really intelligent persons, visualizing in four spatial dimensions might be easy. You have the advantage over me because you can work the quaternion mathematics visually. I have to use various metaphors to make GR make sense. It has taken years to refine my use of metaphors and intuition to the point where I can explore branes and gravity very quickly. It is here that I hold the advantage of being able to ask reasonable questions and consider plausible scenarios.
I don't anticipate much interest in my ideas from the physics community because I can't weave tensors and diffential mathematics effortlessly. I expect I will eventually push my ideas through the internet at a layperson level to attract more interest.
You, on the other hand, will have more sway with the physics community because of your skill in mathematics. Do don't feel like I'm attacking quaternions. There are many different ways to understand general relativity/gravity/etc.
report post as inappropriate
Peter thank you for explaining your reasoning.
I believe the speed of light is constant because I have often heard that it is. I understand that there is mathematical proof and experimental evidence to verify the assumption. I have conducted no experiments of my own on this or worked through any mathematical proof of it myself. I therefore take it on faith as correct to the best of our current knowledge. I can not test every assumption and must just accept some as correct. I also accept that I may be wrong and it may be found that in fact it is not constant after all.
As for c and g and relativity I was unclear in what I said. I merely meant that the speed of light and force of gravity come into consideration when considering relativity.
I trust that Mr. Einstein , Mr. Minowski and Mr Lorentz all knew how to do their algebra. It is only its meaning that concerns me. If it works mathematically and it seems that the majority consider that it does then I am more than content to leave their work well alone.
I currently think that a quaternion arrangement of 4 spatio-energetic dimensions is the most suitable for describing the structure of the universe, explaining scientific observations and answering the foundational questions. Including explaining gravity. I may be wrong but I would like to see how another structure can explain as much before I am convinced that it is not the best solution.
report post as inappropriate
I believe the speed of light is constant because I have often heard that it is. I understand that there is mathematical proof and experimental evidence to verify the assumption. I have conducted no experiments of my own on this or worked through any mathematical proof of it myself. I therefore take it on faith as correct to the best of our current knowledge. I can not test every assumption and must just accept some as correct. I also accept that I may be wrong and it may be found that in fact it is not constant after all.
As for c and g and relativity I was unclear in what I said. I merely meant that the speed of light and force of gravity come into consideration when considering relativity.
I trust that Mr. Einstein , Mr. Minowski and Mr Lorentz all knew how to do their algebra. It is only its meaning that concerns me. If it works mathematically and it seems that the majority consider that it does then I am more than content to leave their work well alone.
I currently think that a quaternion arrangement of 4 spatio-energetic dimensions is the most suitable for describing the structure of the universe, explaining scientific observations and answering the foundational questions. Including explaining gravity. I may be wrong but I would like to see how another structure can explain as much before I am convinced that it is not the best solution.
report post as inappropriate
Jason you said that you don't experience the 4th dimension. You do experience it. Only you don't experience it in the same way as the other 3 spatial dimensions. The progression of matter along that dimension can explain the experience of time, the energy input for the self assembly and increasing complexity of the universe, and the effect of gravity. These are all things that you can observe and thus experience. Direct observation with the eyes is not everything. It is possible to infer its existence from indirect observation of its effects within 3D space.
Jason I think that you overestimate my abilities and chances of being taken seriously and most probably underestimate your own. I agree that it is good to have the opportunity to explain our own ideas. You do a good job of that. You are very articulate. You also have so many ideas going on that it is difficult to know where they are going or what to make of them. You are correct in that there are lots of possible ways of understanding explaining things. Some ideas will stand the test of time others will not.I do not believe that there is a future already written.
report post as inappropriate
Jason I think that you overestimate my abilities and chances of being taken seriously and most probably underestimate your own. I agree that it is good to have the opportunity to explain our own ideas. You do a good job of that. You are very articulate. You also have so many ideas going on that it is difficult to know where they are going or what to make of them. You are correct in that there are lots of possible ways of understanding explaining things. Some ideas will stand the test of time others will not.I do not believe that there is a future already written.
report post as inappropriate
How about thinking of it this way. The normal 3 spatial dimensions of an object enable the limits of its existence in space to be identified. By giving height length and width it is possible to distinguish the space it occupies from the space it does not occupy. Now if one considers time dilation for a spherical object, the mathematics shows that the interior of the sphere is further forward in time than the exterior. If one thinks that physical time realms do not exist this has no sensible meaning. However if that dimension is considered spatial rather than temporal it shows that there are extra limits to the existence of the object that give its quaternion spatial existence rather than just 3D spatial existence. Those being the centre of gravity and the external surface.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Dear Georgina,
I believe in time because I literally only have a couple of minutes to reply.
Yes, I agree that photons and particles exist on some kind of a surface or a brane. I have said before that I think that particles are actually tiny "kinks" in space, itself. I think the effect of "space-time" results from the effect that particles on this brane interact because photons signal back and forth at the speed of light. My hyperdrive starts with the idea that there are n of such branes, where the speed of light on each brane is an integer multiple of c: c, 2c, 3c ... n*c. The idea is still evolving.
I do understand that I have ideas all of the time, and they often don't seem to add up to one idea. Some of my ideas are better than others, some will survive, most will not. Gotta go!
report post as inappropriate
I believe in time because I literally only have a couple of minutes to reply.
Yes, I agree that photons and particles exist on some kind of a surface or a brane. I have said before that I think that particles are actually tiny "kinks" in space, itself. I think the effect of "space-time" results from the effect that particles on this brane interact because photons signal back and forth at the speed of light. My hyperdrive starts with the idea that there are n of such branes, where the speed of light on each brane is an integer multiple of c: c, 2c, 3c ... n*c. The idea is still evolving.
I do understand that I have ideas all of the time, and they often don't seem to add up to one idea. Some of my ideas are better than others, some will survive, most will not. Gotta go!
report post as inappropriate
Dear Georgina,
I hope to articulate this clearly, I will do my best.
What if time is kept, in this thought experiment, with a laser, whose frequency is f_0; the laser shines on a sensor and every cycle makes the clock progress; f_0 makes it progress at the normal rate. Let's say that you are a safe distance from a black hole gravity well, you feel gravity potential V=0. I take my...
view entire post
I hope to articulate this clearly, I will do my best.
What if time is kept, in this thought experiment, with a laser, whose frequency is f_0; the laser shines on a sensor and every cycle makes the clock progress; f_0 makes it progress at the normal rate. Let's say that you are a safe distance from a black hole gravity well, you feel gravity potential V=0. I take my...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
It seems that the major postulate here is that the Higgs will make itself observable only to travel into the past to make itself unobservable, to me this goes against the conservation of energy. As far as I'm concerned the importance of these experiments is really about the human endeavor and what it means for our species as a whole. Our whole existance has been wrought by chance and risk and it has brought us wonders beyond all comprehension. Past, present and future, it's all relative, so fix the damn thing and lets get on with it.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
"so fix the damn thing and lets get on with it."
I don't think it's that simple. Dr. Who won't let us. He is the Time Lord.
report post as inappropriate
I don't think it's that simple. Dr. Who won't let us. He is the Time Lord.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence: I am not sure what the reasoning is for proportional velocity. Velocities in spacetime can be easily defined from the invariant interval by dividing through by ds^2
Georgina: Peter said "From those two we found that the proportional gravitational constant G = iL." How does this aid comprehension?
proportional velocity v/c is used in the Lorenz factor. Because of my octonion model of gravity, all quantities of the gravitomagnetic system have been made 'proportional imaginary quantities'. Als those proportional imaginary quantities are relativistic. And with relativistic I mean both: special and general relativity. The consequences are gigantic! special and general relativity are fused into one closed system! So if you use equations with proportional quantities: The laws of physics that satisfy the demands of general relativity take the mathematical form in which all coordinate quantities other then space coordinates exactly play the same rol as the three space coordinates.
In my model proportional area and proportional mass-squared have the same 'imaginary' unit (both are negative). (You can do it yourself just take a look at my octonions:
Of = f + ix + jy + kz + LE + iLsx + jLsy + kLsz
Ot = - t - ibx - jby - kbz - Lm - iLpx - jLpy - kLpz
for proportional length and proportional proportional mass. make them squared.)
-Area c2 = - G2/c2 m2
This is in accordance with Hawking:
Area = 16pi G2/c4 m2
except for the 16pi!
But I don't know what to do with 16pi. Maybe my model is incomplete. Maybe factors like 2 pi 4pi 8pi 16pi have to be incorporated. I don't know how to figure this out. And it wil make the octonions a bit uggly.
So I can use some help to find this out.
Except for this issue I dare everyone to find inconsistencies in my model so that my model can be prooven wrong.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Georgina: Peter said "From those two we found that the proportional gravitational constant G = iL." How does this aid comprehension?
proportional velocity v/c is used in the Lorenz factor. Because of my octonion model of gravity, all quantities of the gravitomagnetic system have been made 'proportional imaginary quantities'. Als those proportional imaginary quantities are relativistic. And with relativistic I mean both: special and general relativity. The consequences are gigantic! special and general relativity are fused into one closed system! So if you use equations with proportional quantities: The laws of physics that satisfy the demands of general relativity take the mathematical form in which all coordinate quantities other then space coordinates exactly play the same rol as the three space coordinates.
In my model proportional area and proportional mass-squared have the same 'imaginary' unit (both are negative). (You can do it yourself just take a look at my octonions:
Of = f + ix + jy + kz + LE + iLsx + jLsy + kLsz
Ot = - t - ibx - jby - kbz - Lm - iLpx - jLpy - kLpz
for proportional length and proportional proportional mass. make them squared.)
-Area c2 = - G2/c2 m2
This is in accordance with Hawking:
Area = 16pi G2/c4 m2
except for the 16pi!
But I don't know what to do with 16pi. Maybe my model is incomplete. Maybe factors like 2 pi 4pi 8pi 16pi have to be incorporated. I don't know how to figure this out. And it wil make the octonions a bit uggly.
So I can use some help to find this out.
Except for this issue I dare everyone to find inconsistencies in my model so that my model can be prooven wrong.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Jason,
I'm not sure that I said particles exist on some kind of brane although I may have said that it could be thought of in that way.
Regarding the hyper-drive idea, I really don't know what to say other than it seems too abstract and radical for me to contemplate. Even if such a theory were a good representation of reality I do not see how such a ship with components that break the laws of physics as we experience them could be constructed within the space that we inhabit. It is not my cup of tea, so to speak. However there are scientists who take such radical ideas seriously and perhaps it is a question of encountering like minded individuals who wish to explore such realms of possibility.
'Frontiers of Propulsion Science' explores warp drives, gravity control
report post as inappropriate
I'm not sure that I said particles exist on some kind of brane although I may have said that it could be thought of in that way.
Regarding the hyper-drive idea, I really don't know what to say other than it seems too abstract and radical for me to contemplate. Even if such a theory were a good representation of reality I do not see how such a ship with components that break the laws of physics as we experience them could be constructed within the space that we inhabit. It is not my cup of tea, so to speak. However there are scientists who take such radical ideas seriously and perhaps it is a question of encountering like minded individuals who wish to explore such realms of possibility.
'Frontiers of Propulsion Science' explores warp drives, gravity control
report post as inappropriate
Georgina,
I think it's important to pursue one's passion, you yours, me mine, etc. I don't expect to be able to convince hard core string theorists with my ideas. However, I believe there is an interest in these ideas.
Peter,
I thought I was the only one introducing ratios of the speed of light and gravitational constant because I'm the only one considering the existence of a second space-time/brane with twice the speed of light; also a 3rd, 4th, etc...
I believe these additional space-times exist right along with this space-time. We don't notice them because we are made of particles that come from this brane/space-time.
I have been working on an interface between two branes; I am calling it a Transaction Surface unless a better name comes along. In trying to figure out how it worked, it made me wonder just how much energy it wouuld take to generate a gravity wave or a vibration in space-time.
report post as inappropriate
I think it's important to pursue one's passion, you yours, me mine, etc. I don't expect to be able to convince hard core string theorists with my ideas. However, I believe there is an interest in these ideas.
Peter,
I thought I was the only one introducing ratios of the speed of light and gravitational constant because I'm the only one considering the existence of a second space-time/brane with twice the speed of light; also a 3rd, 4th, etc...
I believe these additional space-times exist right along with this space-time. We don't notice them because we are made of particles that come from this brane/space-time.
I have been working on an interface between two branes; I am calling it a Transaction Surface unless a better name comes along. In trying to figure out how it worked, it made me wonder just how much energy it wouuld take to generate a gravity wave or a vibration in space-time.
report post as inappropriate
Peter,
I was looking over the various blogs. I see I'm not the only person discussing velocity ratios. Pardon me.
report post as inappropriate
I was looking over the various blogs. I see I'm not the only person discussing velocity ratios. Pardon me.
report post as inappropriate
Jason
I do not doubt that certain audiences will be very interested in your many ideas.
I do not understand the necessity to hypothesise that the speed of light of each of these branes would be different. Although I realise it does not prove that it could not occur, beyond our current powers of observation, there is no evidence for light speed greater than c. Why should light speed be different in these different branes of 3D space? Is there any scientific reason to hypothesise this difference? Or are you trying to create a universe in which a hyper-drive would work?
I have previously contemplated the medium of space separated into hypothetical 3D space slices or "branes" along another spatial dimension, for the sake of comprehension. While it is actually likely to be continuous with matter separated in each "brane" layer by energetic limits. That is to say it would require too much energy gain or loss to move between branes or layers. The layers themselves are not actual layers but they are a means of comprehending the energetic spatial separation of matter.
report post as inappropriate
I do not doubt that certain audiences will be very interested in your many ideas.
I do not understand the necessity to hypothesise that the speed of light of each of these branes would be different. Although I realise it does not prove that it could not occur, beyond our current powers of observation, there is no evidence for light speed greater than c. Why should light speed be different in these different branes of 3D space? Is there any scientific reason to hypothesise this difference? Or are you trying to create a universe in which a hyper-drive would work?
I have previously contemplated the medium of space separated into hypothetical 3D space slices or "branes" along another spatial dimension, for the sake of comprehension. While it is actually likely to be continuous with matter separated in each "brane" layer by energetic limits. That is to say it would require too much energy gain or loss to move between branes or layers. The layers themselves are not actual layers but they are a means of comprehending the energetic spatial separation of matter.
report post as inappropriate
In regard to my former post: I think I understand.
-Ac2 = - (G2/c2) m2
'Area' is not the same quantity as 'surface area of a sphere'.
Surface area of a sphere = 4 pi radius2 = 4 pi radius2 (ordinary sphere)
Surface area of a sphere = 16 pi mass2 = 4 pi (2 mass)2 (black hole (Hawkings))
I wonder where this '2' came from. In case that the '2' is derived from the escape velocity (John Michel)
then Hawkings is incorrect because John Michels escape velocity is not relativistic. This non-relativistic escape velocity is also used in the Schwarzshild metric as factor
)
The relativistic version is
)
(derived in the same way the Lorenz factor is.)
So we can make 2 modifications: Surface area of a sphere = 4 pi mass2 (Hawkings + modification). The Schwarzshild metric can also use a slight modification. And I don't know yet what this modified Schwarzshild metric will do with the singularities.
But the important message is that mass2 and radius2 are dual (I call it 'periodical'). You can choosse either mass2 or radius2, the equation remains equally valid.
In my octonion model of gravity there are a lot of dual (periodical) quantities. For example 'proportional time' (-tc2) is dual with 'proportional valention' (-val/c2) and 'proportional instant' (L inst Gc) is dual with 'proportional energy' (L E Gc-3) in which 'L' is an imaginary unit. This duality arises from the periodical character of the imaginary units.
'Proportional energy' (L E Gc-3) and 'proportional mass' (-L m Gc-1) are not dual.
This because E = -mc2 (a slight modification: the minus sign).
Interesting: duality in classical relativistic mechanics.
Think about it.
If the proportional imaginary quantities are incorporated into quantum theories, then special and general relativity are automatically included in those quantum theories.
report post as inappropriate
-Ac2 = - (G2/c2) m2
'Area' is not the same quantity as 'surface area of a sphere'.
Surface area of a sphere = 4 pi radius2 = 4 pi radius2 (ordinary sphere)
Surface area of a sphere = 16 pi mass2 = 4 pi (2 mass)2 (black hole (Hawkings))
I wonder where this '2' came from. In case that the '2' is derived from the escape velocity (John Michel)
then Hawkings is incorrect because John Michels escape velocity is not relativistic. This non-relativistic escape velocity is also used in the Schwarzshild metric as factor
The relativistic version is
(derived in the same way the Lorenz factor is.)
So we can make 2 modifications: Surface area of a sphere = 4 pi mass2 (Hawkings + modification). The Schwarzshild metric can also use a slight modification. And I don't know yet what this modified Schwarzshild metric will do with the singularities.
But the important message is that mass2 and radius2 are dual (I call it 'periodical'). You can choosse either mass2 or radius2, the equation remains equally valid.
In my octonion model of gravity there are a lot of dual (periodical) quantities. For example 'proportional time' (-tc2) is dual with 'proportional valention' (-val/c2) and 'proportional instant' (L inst Gc) is dual with 'proportional energy' (L E Gc-3) in which 'L' is an imaginary unit. This duality arises from the periodical character of the imaginary units.
'Proportional energy' (L E Gc-3) and 'proportional mass' (-L m Gc-1) are not dual.
This because E = -mc2 (a slight modification: the minus sign).
Interesting: duality in classical relativistic mechanics.
Think about it.
If the proportional imaginary quantities are incorporated into quantum theories, then special and general relativity are automatically included in those quantum theories.
report post as inappropriate
Got it! I will picture Minkowski space time as road kill and sympathise with Einstein not being able to recognise his beloved creation. Thank you Lawrence for your explanation. Now I understand what you meant by "the manifold" and I do not want a stack of road kill. How silly that original suggestion must have sounded. I only want spherical layers 3D space for ease of comprehension and explanation.
Peter,
It is not surprising to me that mass and radius have the connection that you have found (assuming a uniform density) but it does surprise me that you have not found a similar connection between energy and mass.
Why E=-mc^2? Does that make sense to you? Does the - denote direction or just because you are considering the mass moving along an imaginary axis? Could it be -E=m^c2 then? I ask because I have been saying that mass energy is loss of universal potential energy as there is progression along the 4th dimension and that this loss of energy provides the energy that "powers" the universe.
report post as inappropriate
Peter,
It is not surprising to me that mass and radius have the connection that you have found (assuming a uniform density) but it does surprise me that you have not found a similar connection between energy and mass.
Why E=-mc^2? Does that make sense to you? Does the - denote direction or just because you are considering the mass moving along an imaginary axis? Could it be -E=m^c2 then? I ask because I have been saying that mass energy is loss of universal potential energy as there is progression along the 4th dimension and that this loss of energy provides the energy that "powers" the universe.
report post as inappropriate
Incidentally I wonder if the brain uses some algorithm similar to Minkowski space-time to analyse the visual data input. The biological analysis from observation would then fit with the Minkowski space-time because similar mathematical analysis is being conducted. One voluntarily by mathematicians and the other subconsciously by the involuntary brain processes of the organism.This would potentially make special relativity and artefact of the analysis rather than a true reflection of underlying objective reality. Unlike general relativity which does appear to relate to the quaternion structure of the universe and the distribution of matter. Just a thought.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Hi Georgina,
Proportional mass and prop radius are not dual, but prop mass2 and prop radius2 are. Prop mass2 and prop radius2 are minimizing quantities. They come from the same table with other minimizing proportional quantities like prop mass-centre motion, prop action and the product (prop time * prop length) used in string theory. There are 8 different minimizing quantities. You can invent more, but they all will have a dual partner.
To be true, I had my doubts with E = -m2 because sometimes I mix up proper mass, coordinate mass and proportional mass.
Minkowski used proportional time 'ict' next to length 'l'.
At speed of light: ict = length.
Likewise: Energy = (ic)2 m = -mc2
The relationship between energy and mass you must see as follow:
In math class we learned:
But in physics you must see a and -a as different quantities.
And from the square-root we only have one solution:
[equation]\sqrt{E^2} = E
\sqrt{-m^2} = -m[/equation]
The equation with coordinate quantities is: (E)(E) = (-mc2)(-mc2).
Taking the root: E = -mc2
I think that this in accordance with the 'positive energy theorem'. And if we choose energy to be positive then mass must be negative and we will have next to the 'positive energy theorem' the 'negative mass theorem'.
But if I am correct with E = -mc2, then it doesn't matter if you write it like -E = mc2. That is a matter of choise, but if you do, then you must do it for all the other proportional quantities.
But in regard to your question it might be interesting that the energy of a gravitational field is unambiguously negative. (See "The inflationary universe" by Alan Guth, appendix A: "Gravitational energy")
report post as inappropriate
Proportional mass and prop radius are not dual, but prop mass2 and prop radius2 are. Prop mass2 and prop radius2 are minimizing quantities. They come from the same table with other minimizing proportional quantities like prop mass-centre motion, prop action and the product (prop time * prop length) used in string theory. There are 8 different minimizing quantities. You can invent more, but they all will have a dual partner.
To be true, I had my doubts with E = -m2 because sometimes I mix up proper mass, coordinate mass and proportional mass.
Minkowski used proportional time 'ict' next to length 'l'.
At speed of light: ict = length.
Likewise: Energy = (ic)2 m = -mc2
The relationship between energy and mass you must see as follow:
In math class we learned:
But in physics you must see a and -a as different quantities.
And from the square-root we only have one solution:
[equation]\sqrt{E^2} = E
\sqrt{-m^2} = -m[/equation]
The equation with coordinate quantities is: (E)(E) = (-mc2)(-mc2).
Taking the root: E = -mc2
I think that this in accordance with the 'positive energy theorem'. And if we choose energy to be positive then mass must be negative and we will have next to the 'positive energy theorem' the 'negative mass theorem'.
But if I am correct with E = -mc2, then it doesn't matter if you write it like -E = mc2. That is a matter of choise, but if you do, then you must do it for all the other proportional quantities.
But in regard to your question it might be interesting that the energy of a gravitational field is unambiguously negative. (See "The inflationary universe" by Alan Guth, appendix A: "Gravitational energy")
report post as inappropriate
Hi Georgina,
Other than the mysterious dark energy composing a majority of the gravitationally relavent mass of the universe, no, there is no real proof of branes with a larger value of c.
However, I believe that this much is certain. If anybody in the universe or multiverse is flying around space at some FTL velocity, then they have to be using a technology that looks similar to what I have described. In other words, if a hyperdrive is possible, then it will probably look something like what I've described.
I already tried a standard space inside of a hyperspace approach before. The problem with it is that it's not very helpful when trying to figure out a hyperdrive physics. However, if we assume, and I admit this is the easiest assumption to make a hyperdrive physics mathematically easy to work with; if we assume there are "slices" or space-times: c, 2c, 3c, 4c,...100c..., then it is relatively easy to contemplate conserved interactions between our c-space-time, and a 2c_space-time. Since the mass-energy of our space-time is unable to interact with a c2-space-time, then what can we do? I want to hypothesise the existence of a "transaction surface". This transaction surface passes energy E1 from c1_space into c2_space. E1=E2, so energy is conserved. Then, lots of interesting stuff you won't be interested in.
report post as inappropriate
Other than the mysterious dark energy composing a majority of the gravitationally relavent mass of the universe, no, there is no real proof of branes with a larger value of c.
However, I believe that this much is certain. If anybody in the universe or multiverse is flying around space at some FTL velocity, then they have to be using a technology that looks similar to what I have described. In other words, if a hyperdrive is possible, then it will probably look something like what I've described.
I already tried a standard space inside of a hyperspace approach before. The problem with it is that it's not very helpful when trying to figure out a hyperdrive physics. However, if we assume, and I admit this is the easiest assumption to make a hyperdrive physics mathematically easy to work with; if we assume there are "slices" or space-times: c, 2c, 3c, 4c,...100c..., then it is relatively easy to contemplate conserved interactions between our c-space-time, and a 2c_space-time. Since the mass-energy of our space-time is unable to interact with a c2-space-time, then what can we do? I want to hypothesise the existence of a "transaction surface". This transaction surface passes energy E1 from c1_space into c2_space. E1=E2, so energy is conserved. Then, lots of interesting stuff you won't be interested in.
report post as inappropriate
Ok Jason I understand you are working back from the assumption that faster than light travel exists.Creating the kind of universe that allows that to happen. It is a big assumption.
I think the problem may be to do with how we think about space and distance and time. Our notion of speed does not apply to a 4th spatial dimension in the quaternion arrangement,in my opinion. Speed is always a ratio of distance divided by time. If a distance is moved along the "time" dimension then we have distance divided by distance or time divided by time which will always be 1. I am not talking about an artificially created space-like representation of the time dimension because as it is not just another vector dimension. One could potentially move along this dimension without breaking the rules for faster than light travel.I have been suggesting that there is space "ahead" and "behind" along that dimension. The unseen material universe, rather than the EM image illusion seen within 3D space.
Jason its not exactly that I am not interested in your ideas but I do not want to get carried away into complicated speculative ideas that do not pertain to my own experience when the physics and biological simulation of of everyday reality is still not fully modelled.
report post as inappropriate
I think the problem may be to do with how we think about space and distance and time. Our notion of speed does not apply to a 4th spatial dimension in the quaternion arrangement,in my opinion. Speed is always a ratio of distance divided by time. If a distance is moved along the "time" dimension then we have distance divided by distance or time divided by time which will always be 1. I am not talking about an artificially created space-like representation of the time dimension because as it is not just another vector dimension. One could potentially move along this dimension without breaking the rules for faster than light travel.I have been suggesting that there is space "ahead" and "behind" along that dimension. The unseen material universe, rather than the EM image illusion seen within 3D space.
Jason its not exactly that I am not interested in your ideas but I do not want to get carried away into complicated speculative ideas that do not pertain to my own experience when the physics and biological simulation of of everyday reality is still not fully modelled.
report post as inappropriate
Hi Georgina,
I agree about not wanting to get caught up in complicated and speculative ideas. I've been trying very hard to boil it down to very simple speculative ideas. Also, thank you for recognising that I am working back from an assumption.
I have to admit that I trust the speed of light before I trust the clock. Just to talk about this space-time, I think of time as being regulated by, or potentially could be regulated by a laser at a known freuqency. I trust the lengths in my reference frame more than I trust moving lengths. I also trust energy consrevation.
Also, it is my personal belief that how we "philosophize" mathematical physics is tricky and subject to error; however, it can also provide an excellent way, in my experience, to figure out what is relavent and important to think about. I've tried my best to make everything as straightforward and simple as possible. I didn't want to hide any magic behind the uncertainty. I've defined everything. You might not like my definition of n space-times with speeds of light ranging from c, 2c, 3c ... nc; however, to build a hyperdrive theory, I have to start somewhere.
report post as inappropriate
I agree about not wanting to get caught up in complicated and speculative ideas. I've been trying very hard to boil it down to very simple speculative ideas. Also, thank you for recognising that I am working back from an assumption.
I have to admit that I trust the speed of light before I trust the clock. Just to talk about this space-time, I think of time as being regulated by, or potentially could be regulated by a laser at a known freuqency. I trust the lengths in my reference frame more than I trust moving lengths. I also trust energy consrevation.
Also, it is my personal belief that how we "philosophize" mathematical physics is tricky and subject to error; however, it can also provide an excellent way, in my experience, to figure out what is relavent and important to think about. I've tried my best to make everything as straightforward and simple as possible. I didn't want to hide any magic behind the uncertainty. I've defined everything. You might not like my definition of n space-times with speeds of light ranging from c, 2c, 3c ... nc; however, to build a hyperdrive theory, I have to start somewhere.
report post as inappropriate
Jason, I appreciate you keeping it simple. Having made this start how will it be possible to build something with components that break the laws of physics as we experience them within our reality? It seems that you wish to break the one most reliable law of physics and then use the consistency of the proposed physics as validation of the proposal. If you must break the law it seems that there must be a way to do this without it being a violation but legitimate avoidance. How are you going to do that in such a way that the unlawful physics can be used within our experienced space without violation of the constant speed of light that is experienced and has been validated?
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Peter,
You said "But if I am correct with E = -mc2, then it doesn't matter if you write it like -E = mc2. That is a matter of choise, but if you do, then you must do it for all the other proportional quantities. But in regard to your question it might be interesting that the energy of a gravitational field is unambiguously negative."
Yes I think it is very interesting. I think that rest mass energy and loss of universal potential energy are directly related. It is that loss of energy that also gives the experience of time and gravitation. However I would consider kinetic (and the 4th dimensional equivalent promotional energy to be positive.)This change in spatial position energy only exists because potential(stored energy) energy has been released. As it is being released rather than gained it can be considered as negative energy. Kinetic energy and promotional energy are just the observable manifestation of release of potential energy. If no separate term for motion or change in spatial position energy was used, then all energy release, which necessarily gives rise to change in quaternion spatial position, would be negative and all energy stored positive. Incidentally I have not read the inflationary universe by Alan Guth, thank you for the reference. Perhaps I should read it, but I would not expect to be persuaded with regard to inflation.
I don't think there would be a problem with the other proportional quantities being given the reverse sign. It would seem to make more sense to me if proportional mass and proportional area were both positive. Proportional velocity and speed of light would be positive. That sounds reasonable to me.
I am not a mathematician. Lawrence would know if your mathematics is correct.If it can do what you say then it may be very useful.I don't like Minkowski space-time, it seems to be a complicated distorted approximation. It is still a distorted approximation when "completed" but perhaps it is a significant improvement.
Lawrence what do you think?
report post as inappropriate
You said "But if I am correct with E = -mc2, then it doesn't matter if you write it like -E = mc2. That is a matter of choise, but if you do, then you must do it for all the other proportional quantities. But in regard to your question it might be interesting that the energy of a gravitational field is unambiguously negative."
Yes I think it is very interesting. I think that rest mass energy and loss of universal potential energy are directly related. It is that loss of energy that also gives the experience of time and gravitation. However I would consider kinetic (and the 4th dimensional equivalent promotional energy to be positive.)This change in spatial position energy only exists because potential(stored energy) energy has been released. As it is being released rather than gained it can be considered as negative energy. Kinetic energy and promotional energy are just the observable manifestation of release of potential energy. If no separate term for motion or change in spatial position energy was used, then all energy release, which necessarily gives rise to change in quaternion spatial position, would be negative and all energy stored positive. Incidentally I have not read the inflationary universe by Alan Guth, thank you for the reference. Perhaps I should read it, but I would not expect to be persuaded with regard to inflation.
I don't think there would be a problem with the other proportional quantities being given the reverse sign. It would seem to make more sense to me if proportional mass and proportional area were both positive. Proportional velocity and speed of light would be positive. That sounds reasonable to me.
I am not a mathematician. Lawrence would know if your mathematics is correct.If it can do what you say then it may be very useful.I don't like Minkowski space-time, it seems to be a complicated distorted approximation. It is still a distorted approximation when "completed" but perhaps it is a significant improvement.
Lawrence what do you think?
report post as inappropriate
Georgina,
Now you're getting it! Physics, speed of light/relativity, is still in effect. My strategy was to avoid violating the laws of physics in the following way. Einstein described the first space-time. Standard model particles emerge from the first space-time (c1-brane). I am interpreting dark energy to mean energy that does not radiate energy/light that we can see or detect. It is convenient to describe dark energy as energy-matter that exists on a c2-brane. A hyper-drive theory requires that FTL has to be possible somewhere. I am suggesting that it's possible on a c2-brane (c3, c4...). c1 photons and c2 photons do not, in general, interact. But they do contribute to gravity; that's the only way we can observe dark energy.
It would be nice to be able to observe FTL signalling of some sort. Since we can only see the gravitational effects of dark matter, I'm not sure if we can detect superluminal events on a c2-bran through gravity. My theory suggests higher accelerations, g2=g1(c2/c1)^2.
You asked how we can ever build something that appears to violate the laws of physics. I think what you mean to ask is how do we build something that can interface between a c1-brane and a c2-brane. At the moment, I have only speculative ideas of how this can be done. It would be necessary to discover something that is far beyond human experience/comprehension. We could have to discover a naturally occuring multi-brane or multi-space object. It would be a crystal or material made of multi-space, made of c1,c2,...branes, that are interwoven into some kind of matrix or crystal. It would cause energy to be transmitted between branes. Such a material would appear to violate Conservation of Energy. Instead, it would simply transmit energy between branes. I'm not sure if such objects have much energy/mass content themselves. The huge energy requirements that the Einstein equations require for curving space do not apply here. The interweaving of multi c-brane space would most certainly introduce new physics, and new limitations for possible spatial anomalies.
report post as inappropriate
Now you're getting it! Physics, speed of light/relativity, is still in effect. My strategy was to avoid violating the laws of physics in the following way. Einstein described the first space-time. Standard model particles emerge from the first space-time (c1-brane). I am interpreting dark energy to mean energy that does not radiate energy/light that we can see or detect. It is convenient to describe dark energy as energy-matter that exists on a c2-brane. A hyper-drive theory requires that FTL has to be possible somewhere. I am suggesting that it's possible on a c2-brane (c3, c4...). c1 photons and c2 photons do not, in general, interact. But they do contribute to gravity; that's the only way we can observe dark energy.
It would be nice to be able to observe FTL signalling of some sort. Since we can only see the gravitational effects of dark matter, I'm not sure if we can detect superluminal events on a c2-bran through gravity. My theory suggests higher accelerations, g2=g1(c2/c1)^2.
You asked how we can ever build something that appears to violate the laws of physics. I think what you mean to ask is how do we build something that can interface between a c1-brane and a c2-brane. At the moment, I have only speculative ideas of how this can be done. It would be necessary to discover something that is far beyond human experience/comprehension. We could have to discover a naturally occuring multi-brane or multi-space object. It would be a crystal or material made of multi-space, made of c1,c2,...branes, that are interwoven into some kind of matrix or crystal. It would cause energy to be transmitted between branes. Such a material would appear to violate Conservation of Energy. Instead, it would simply transmit energy between branes. I'm not sure if such objects have much energy/mass content themselves. The huge energy requirements that the Einstein equations require for curving space do not apply here. The interweaving of multi c-brane space would most certainly introduce new physics, and new limitations for possible spatial anomalies.
report post as inappropriate
I happened to look in here and saw I was called to answer something. Relativity theory tells us that everything is moving the speed of light. Even if you are sitting still you are moving along some direction outside of 3-dim space at the speed of light. We ordinarily call this direction time, If you watch something moving with a velocity v relative to spatial directions, the it too is moving the speed of light, but with spatial and temporal coordinates mixed. This is the nature of timelike intervals.
The distance in four dimensions is
ds^2 = c^2dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2,
where this distance is also a proper time. Now divide by ds^2
1 = c^2(dt/ds)^2 - (dx/ds)^2 - (dy/s)^2 - (dz/ds)^2
Now we use chain rule with dx/ds = (dx/dt)(dt/ds) and factor out the (dt/ds)^2 to get
1 = [c^2 - (dx/dt)^2 - (dy/dt)^2 - (dz/dt)^2](dt/ds)^2.
If the spatial velocities are zero dx/dt = dy/dt = dz/dt = 0, then this means you are moving along the time direction at the speed c. If you observe something moving at a spatial speed v, then this motion is seen as a mixture of along space and time with again the speed c. This is more on the timelike interval
It is strange to think that everything is in fact moving the speed of light. However, light moves along a spatial direction at the speed of light as well as at speed c along the time direction so that its proper interval or distance is zero. This is the null interval
Anything thought to be moving faster than light will have come interesting properties which are fundamentally different. One can always find a frame where FTL motion is infinitely fast, or with zero velocity along the time direction. This is the tachyon with an imaginary mass, or for a warp bubble a negative mass-energy wrapped up in a spacetime curvature. This case for a spacelike interval things are fundamentally different from the first case. For various reasons there are no continuous or finitely extendable transfomrationw which can bridge timelike and spacelike intervals.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
The distance in four dimensions is
ds^2 = c^2dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2,
where this distance is also a proper time. Now divide by ds^2
1 = c^2(dt/ds)^2 - (dx/ds)^2 - (dy/s)^2 - (dz/ds)^2
Now we use chain rule with dx/ds = (dx/dt)(dt/ds) and factor out the (dt/ds)^2 to get
1 = [c^2 - (dx/dt)^2 - (dy/dt)^2 - (dz/dt)^2](dt/ds)^2.
If the spatial velocities are zero dx/dt = dy/dt = dz/dt = 0, then this means you are moving along the time direction at the speed c. If you observe something moving at a spatial speed v, then this motion is seen as a mixture of along space and time with again the speed c. This is more on the timelike interval
It is strange to think that everything is in fact moving the speed of light. However, light moves along a spatial direction at the speed of light as well as at speed c along the time direction so that its proper interval or distance is zero. This is the null interval
Anything thought to be moving faster than light will have come interesting properties which are fundamentally different. One can always find a frame where FTL motion is infinitely fast, or with zero velocity along the time direction. This is the tachyon with an imaginary mass, or for a warp bubble a negative mass-energy wrapped up in a spacetime curvature. This case for a spacelike interval things are fundamentally different from the first case. For various reasons there are no continuous or finitely extendable transfomrationw which can bridge timelike and spacelike intervals.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence,
Black hole entropy, information content versus surface area, and holographic universes tend to imply, to me, that the universe treats "information" as fundamental. While information may be nothing more than the "measurable differences" (quantum numbers), information about those quantum differences can only transmit at the speed of light. We should be able to agree that if some event happens one light year away, that this event's occurrence will not be distinguishable from the background noise for at lease one year - this is assuming normal physics, nothing speculative. There are events occurring all the time, big and small. Evidence of that event, under commonly accepted physics conditions, evidence of any event can travel no faster than the speed of light.
In my interpretation, that is what a space-time really means. It's not that you and I move at the speed of light through time. Instead, it means that the universe can only become aware of our instantaneous activities at the speed of light. The universe itself tends to process this information, at every location in space, only as fast as it can receive the information (at the speed of light). The brane that our universe exists in, signals information at the speed of light. That is the absolute nature of our universe: computing information that arrives from its source.
I merely speculate about another brane that, for unknown reasons, velocity of light is higher, 2c in my thought experiment. In this hypothetical 2c or c2-brane, information transmits twice as fast as it does in our universe. Consequently, time can flow twice as fast. It's like a hypothetical universe with a faster microprocessor that can transmit and process information twice as fast.
A tachyon is only a definition; no tachyon has ever been detected. I simply offer another way to define an FTL particle. We're not getting anywhere with imaginary masses. Let's try defining a second brane with a faster speed of light, but in most other respects, is just a variation of standard model physics. The advantage of such a thought experiment is that, if nothing else, it gives us something to compare our own universe with. What are the consequences of having a universe that can transmit information faster?
report post as inappropriate
Black hole entropy, information content versus surface area, and holographic universes tend to imply, to me, that the universe treats "information" as fundamental. While information may be nothing more than the "measurable differences" (quantum numbers), information about those quantum differences can only transmit at the speed of light. We should be able to agree that if some event happens one light year away, that this event's occurrence will not be distinguishable from the background noise for at lease one year - this is assuming normal physics, nothing speculative. There are events occurring all the time, big and small. Evidence of that event, under commonly accepted physics conditions, evidence of any event can travel no faster than the speed of light.
In my interpretation, that is what a space-time really means. It's not that you and I move at the speed of light through time. Instead, it means that the universe can only become aware of our instantaneous activities at the speed of light. The universe itself tends to process this information, at every location in space, only as fast as it can receive the information (at the speed of light). The brane that our universe exists in, signals information at the speed of light. That is the absolute nature of our universe: computing information that arrives from its source.
I merely speculate about another brane that, for unknown reasons, velocity of light is higher, 2c in my thought experiment. In this hypothetical 2c or c2-brane, information transmits twice as fast as it does in our universe. Consequently, time can flow twice as fast. It's like a hypothetical universe with a faster microprocessor that can transmit and process information twice as fast.
A tachyon is only a definition; no tachyon has ever been detected. I simply offer another way to define an FTL particle. We're not getting anywhere with imaginary masses. Let's try defining a second brane with a faster speed of light, but in most other respects, is just a variation of standard model physics. The advantage of such a thought experiment is that, if nothing else, it gives us something to compare our own universe with. What are the consequences of having a universe that can transmit information faster?
report post as inappropriate
I was explaining this idea to my girlfriend in very layperson terms. The universe gossips at the speed of light. THE UNIVERSE GOSSIPS! When a white dwarf explodes, the universe "gossips" about it at the speed of light, and usually in all directions. What does the universe do with this gossip information? It includes this information in the quantum calculations that occur everywhere, all the time.
What is the difference between transmitting information and gossiping? Answer: who you're explaining it to.
report post as inappropriate
What is the difference between transmitting information and gossiping? Answer: who you're explaining it to.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence: "Relativity theory tells us that everything is moving the speed of light."
This is interesting, It sounds logical!
So what is the problem I often read about in popular books that Yang-mills theory describes only particles that are moving with the speed of light? And then I suppose that they imply that mass particles are not moving with the speed of light. Yang-Mills theory only describes massless particles. So mass is the problem according to them. And therefore they are looking for the Higss, the particle that gives other particles their mass.
Lawrence, You say that also mass particles are moving with the speed of light. So what is the problem Yang-Mills theory is talking about?
Why doesn't Yang-Mills theory describe particles with mass?
Grtz, Peter
report post as inappropriate
This is interesting, It sounds logical!
So what is the problem I often read about in popular books that Yang-mills theory describes only particles that are moving with the speed of light? And then I suppose that they imply that mass particles are not moving with the speed of light. Yang-Mills theory only describes massless particles. So mass is the problem according to them. And therefore they are looking for the Higss, the particle that gives other particles their mass.
Lawrence, You say that also mass particles are moving with the speed of light. So what is the problem Yang-Mills theory is talking about?
Why doesn't Yang-Mills theory describe particles with mass?
Grtz, Peter
report post as inappropriate
There are several meanings to moving at the speed of light. I posted the metric for Minkowski flat spacetime above, which I write again
ds^2 = c^2dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2.
Now let us suppose I set dx = (dx/dt)dt = vdt = 0. The proper interval is then
ds^2 = c^2dt^2.
So in the frame of any particle it is moving a distance s at the speed of light. We might interpret...
view entire post
ds^2 = c^2dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2.
Now let us suppose I set dx = (dx/dt)dt = vdt = 0. The proper interval is then
ds^2 = c^2dt^2.
So in the frame of any particle it is moving a distance s at the speed of light. We might interpret...
view entire post