Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help

James Putnam: on 3/16/17 at 3:33am UTC, wrote Dear Anonymous, "This is the beginning of a series of theorems, which give...

Anonymous: on 3/16/17 at 2:01am UTC, wrote [equation] This is the electric displacement in vacuum for the photon,...

Quantoid: on 7/15/10 at 13:01pm UTC, wrote Interesting that Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of QM also suggests...

Barry Weprin: on 6/26/10 at 22:05pm UTC, wrote That the present moment is the function of wave collapse is I think "right...

amrit: on 5/29/10 at 8:21am UTC, wrote If there is no time in the universe, this does not mean universe is without...

Georg S: on 5/14/10 at 20:52pm UTC, wrote Hello, just a remark to the wording: as the present “crystallizes”...

Constantinos: on 4/28/10 at 4:08am UTC, wrote Breaking Views! Please read and comment! ...

Steve Dufourny: on 4/23/10 at 16:00pm UTC, wrote Hi Amrit, Thanks , I like you know your works, I find them physicals and...

December 13, 2017

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

amrit wrote on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 19:44 GMT
Dear Dr. George Ellis,

physical time is not part of space, space is timeles. Time is run of clocks in space. With clocks we measure flow of change in timeless space.

We can only talk about "flux of change" and "flux" of psyhological time through which we experience flux of change in timeless space. There is no "flux" of time in the universe in which change run.

Universe is timless, as Godel already explained.

yours amrit

attachments: Time_is_run_of_Clocks_in_Timeless_Universe_FQXI.pdf

report post as inappropriate

amrit replied on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 20:01 GMT

here is article that discuss difference between physical time that is run of clocks and psychological time “past-present-future” that is the basic frame of the mind through which we experience change in the universe

attachments: In_what_way_are_related_Psychological_Time_and_Physical_Time_SORLI_2010.pdf

this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate

amrit replied on Apr. 9, 2010 @ 07:24 GMT
Observere is a function of cosmic space and idea of biocentricity is too partial to be aqdequate picture of the universe.

yours amrit

attachments: 1_Observer_is_a_function_of_Fourdimensional_Timeless_Space__for_WEB.pdf

this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate

amrit replied on Apr. 11, 2010 @ 08:59 GMT
Reading discussion here I see people still think in terms change running in the universe in space and in time, in so called space-time.

This thinking belongs is now developed into vision the change run in space only and with time (with clocks) we measure them.

yours amrit

attachments: Analysis_of_Relation_between_Spacetime.......pdf

this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 20:32 GMT
The photon has to make a decision: ripple or bullet. I wonder if this decision is always accurate? In other words, if you put the slit in front, the photon should always chose "ripple". Unfortunately, you don't know until after a few hundred photons. Can you fire a very short burst of photons, and then decide at the last second (picosecond) if the slit is in front or in back? Ripple or bullet.

I think that the photons are faster than we are. If you pre-program an experiment to choose slit in front or in back, you give the answers for the test to the universe, in advance.

Human beings are too slow to prove that the universe reacts to our decisions. But if we were quick enough, we could fool the burst of photons into making the wrong decision.

report post as inappropriate

amrit replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 21:26 GMT
Jason, photon behave in a way we expect,

in double slit experiment is wave,

in photoelectric effect is particle.

yours amrit

this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate

Karl Coryat wrote on Apr. 9, 2010 @ 01:48 GMT
Fascinating. I invite those interested to consider the biocentric universe, which suggests that the act of biological observation is the driving agent behind the crystallization described in this article: Wavefunctions remain wavefunctions unless a biological observer seeks information about it. This can cause the apparent particle "collapse," with the outcome occurring probabilistically. If no information is sought, the quantum remains uncertain and no particle appears.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Apr. 9, 2010 @ 03:17 GMT
This program is likely not sufficient. Quantum gravity and holography means that concepts of locality are approximations. An event can occur in two entirely different places and times. For this reason the entire spacetime cosmology we observe may be equivalent to a spacetime quantum fluctuation in a black hole or a virtual wormhole interior in some other universe.

A string which falls towards a black hole will be observed to time dilate, Lorentz contract, and splay out over the horizon of the BH. This splaying out can be seen in the elongated shape of galaxies in Einstein lenses! So a string approaching a black hole gets wound around the black hole, and frozen there. Now if an observer waits long enough Hawing radiation will begin to destroy the BH as it radiates away. This will destroy the string over time and transform it into another string (or strings) which escape the black hole. However, for an observer who falls into the black hole with the string nothing particularly strange happens to the string at the horizon --- nothing at all strange is observed to happen. However, as the string approaches the interior region of near infinite curvature we call a singularity, there the tidal forces start to pull the string apart and merge it with the singularity. I will avoid for now the physics of what happens there (very strange actually), but the string is transformed or destroyed in the interior. So two observers record very different results for this string! One says it is destroyed by Hawking radiation on the horizon, the other says it is destroyed by the interior region. The whole notion of locality with quantum gravity is gone! An assumption which has been used in quantum field theory is removed, think of it as excess baggage or some obstruction to progress.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Eclairer replied on Apr. 11, 2010 @ 02:53 GMT
If you're familiar with Susskind and 't Hooft's idea about Black Hole Complementarity (BHC) (which deals with the idea you just described), you know about the holographic qualities of the BH. The basis for it is that there is a layer of "horizon-atoms" (what they're composed of is undetermined as far as I know) that create a layer called the stretch-horizon (as defined by Susskind, specifically, not the general term) that is so hot any matter approaching disintegrates like a drop of ink in a pool. The layer is said to be only about a Planck's length thick. But getting straight down to business, BHC dictates that just as you must choose to measure particle or wave properties with photons, you must choose to either record results from outside the horizon or inside, that those things can never accurately be measured at the same time but that they complement each other as pieces of information. Hence, Black Hole Complementarity.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 11, 2010 @ 03:09 GMT
Right, and the two observers, FIxed Distance Observer (FIDO) and the FREeling Falling Observer (FREFO) record the fate of the string very differently. The FIDO says the string is quantum radiated out on the stretched horizon and "destroyed," while the FREFO says the string is "destroyed" by the interior. There are some gaps here, but the BHC does tell us that locality of events is not a general property of the universe.

The big gap here is we don’t know how the string is transformed by the singularity in a way which is complementary to how the string is quantum tunneled off the horizon as Hawking radiation. The singularity is a form of D-brane which is dual to the stretched horizon, or its NS5-brane equivalent. This is an open area, which Susskind and Lindesay admit in their book.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Apr. 11, 2010 @ 03:40 GMT
Reason being, you can't observe that action from outside the horizon. Heisenberg's microscope applied to the situation dictates that at that distance, it would require such high-energy photons that it would disrupt the information falling to the horizon, creating a large black hole that would then require low-energy photons creating a very blurry image.

report post as inappropriate

Karl Coryat wrote on Apr. 9, 2010 @ 05:53 GMT
I was surprised that the (linked) paper did not mention the relational interpretation. RQM would have the particle going through both slits as a wave, and then when an observer measures "which slit," he becomes correlated with the particle and receives path information, destroying the wave nature of the particle. No causality acting on the past required. If I'm not mistaken, though, RQM would predict that if the experiment could be set up such that a second, independent observer interacted with the particle but did not receive which-path information, that observer #2 should see the particle act like a wave. Someone should try that....

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Apr. 9, 2010 @ 19:07 GMT
Wave or particle? Ripple or bullet? Single slit or double slit? Causality...

From our perspective, photons behave ambiguously; like they avoid deciding what they are until the last moment, until an experiment forces them to reveal themselves.

In Newtonian mechanics, everything knows where everything else is. In reality, it's like the universe is secretive, it doesn't like to give information; even to other parts of the universe. Quantum waves looks like attempts to evade the question.

report post as inappropriate

french EvreLoire wrote on Apr. 10, 2010 @ 19:23 GMT
It's true. Just think that the universe (space-time) same the tree. the nodes go to the différents directions to potentiels life-events = paralels universes. You understand me ?

I'm just a Frenchy that like physik and astronomy.

Bye. Good brainstorming.

report post as inappropriate

Zephir wrote on Apr. 10, 2010 @ 19:56 GMT
In AWT the simplest model of space-time is the water surface (gradient of matter density in general). The space dimensions are formed by directions parallel with surface plane and the time dimension is formed by direction perpendiculat to it. This explains (between others), why time dimension has always an "arrow", while the spatial not, why travel in time is much more diffilcult/dangerous then the travel in space, etc...

Inside of multidimensional foam forming real space-time things may get slightly more complex, but they're still remain imaginable.

In AWT the time goes forward for objects smaller then the wavelength of CMB and backward for larger objects. It's a result of geometrical perspective of observation through quantum foam penetrating the vacuum.

report post as inappropriate

Eclairer wrote on Apr. 11, 2010 @ 02:15 GMT
You can't test light's wave properties and particle properties at the same time anymore than you can pinpoint an elementary particle's position while you're calculating velocity. That's a whole different ballpark, but that's why the experiment of "tricking" the photons didn't work and it's called Complementarity.

The Crystallized Block Universe... Makes sense, honestly. It seems obvious to me, that the true present (the very moment you consciously experience, second-to-second) can not be fully analyzed until it has already happened. That's just logic. If you see a dog running out into the road and a car coming at it, you can't say it was hit by car until it has already been hit, and as soon as it has been hit (or not), it is the past and therefore verifiable.

In terms of particle physics, the reason why the photons arrive at different times is because, quite simply, waves and particles do not travel at the same speed. However the present can't influence the past, not in terms of perceived events, it can only change the way past information is viewed. The passing of real time (which is witnessed through entropy) is undeniable, measurement is relative.

report post as inappropriate

paul valletta replied on Apr. 11, 2010 @ 08:55 GMT
"It seems obvious to me, that the true present (the very moment you consciously experience, second-to-second) can not be fully analyzed until it has already happened. That's just logic."

And just as important is the fact that there is information "missing" from any "moment" analyzed?

The natural degrade rate for past events are what seperates the past from the present, all memory of events have to have some finite bit/it of info missing, how else would one know what is real and what is fantasy?.. better wording should be reality is 100% accurate in all measure attempts, the closer one gets to measure the "now_moment"..the accuracy increase. Try and measure 1 second "ago" and this is where everything from that moment/then has moved in time to such a degree one cannot locate whats being measured.

Interestingly, once "now" has occured like stated, you cannot measure 100% of anything, some part of what you try to measure will be smeared out in time, away from the present. Decay rates for matter are all time related, certain elements remain in the "now" at a slower rate, whilst others appear and dissapear with no fleeting glances.

Now here is the crunch factor?..if any particle has an extended life away from "now"(there exists a past where as far as we are concerned particles are then present) then, it can no longer have the same decay rates as current elements, all present and past elements are driven by Entropic values emmbedded witthin the decay rate?..the periodic table is the calander of universal change!

With regard to the measure and measure, humans are themselves a type of interference, by the act of measure! Does the photon know when it is being interfered by a human being or by non human devise's?..think about that consequence ;)

report post as inappropriate

paul valletta wrote on Apr. 11, 2010 @ 09:10 GMT
Dont forget that if everything happened all at once, that is to say that everthing is always in the "now",how is 1 second to be(future), created, some things we cannot locate in the present/now must be in the near_future, creating the spacetime pathway we will arrive in?

We cannot always locate everything, somethings are no longer needed by the present time, whatever is not here in the now, is busy creating the future!

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Apr. 11, 2010 @ 13:38 GMT
Dear Paul Valletta

Now, past, future, present belongs to the mind.

Universe is timeless, change run in space only. Clock/time is a device to describe change. Read attentively my article on file attached.

Imagine tree is falling in the forest.

Tree is falling in space only and not in time.

With clock/time we measure duration of tree falling.

Tree is falling in sequences t0, t1, t2,……….tn. Numerical order of this sequences we measure with clocks. Numerical order of tree falling exists without measuring it.

Duration of tree falling exist only when measured.

Duration of an event is result of measurement.

Clock/time is a measuring device for material change i.e. motion in the universe that itself is timeless.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate

paul valletta replied on Apr. 11, 2010 @ 15:27 GMT
I do understand that you can replace "time" with any other material "measure" object, for instance if you jump from a building and take ten seconds to fall to ground. You can just replace the seconds with, say 50 crates of apples (the apple boxes measuring the distance only). Now you can do the same with the falling tree, there can be no "time" reference of it falling, just a distance, again using boxes of pears if one wishes. Thus tree falls not t0,t1't2...AF, but 1 box, 2 box 3 box...etc.

Distance between ground and top of tree is so many boxes high in 3-D space, the problem is that you can replace the measuring devise with apples, oranges..pears or jars of peanut butter, but there is only ONE time?

I prefer that the 5th Dimension, 6-D, finitum, is of the mind, that way I know what is relative to my reality, or my spacetime?

report post as inappropriate

amrit replied on Apr. 11, 2010 @ 19:38 GMT
Paul fundamental unity of time (with which me measure change that run in space

only and not in time) is Planck time.

yours amrit

this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Apr. 13, 2010 @ 17:39 GMT
Kate Becker's parody of spacetime should enjoy all those who not yet entirely lost contact to reality. I see no present between what we call past, i.e., the frozen into unchangeable reality, and what we may expect, predict, prepare on an open scale called future.

I do not agree with the essay when it blames symmetry of "microphysical laws" for the lets mildly say "current theoretical physics". While physics deserves a study how Einstein was perhaps influenced by Boltzmann's ideas and his religious background, already Ritz agreed with him to disagree in 1909 and died. I would appreciate anybody who has a compelling reason for the impossibility to maintain some essentials of relativity when abandoning the burden of an a priori given future.

Maybe, Ellis is too much a well educated in the negative sense physicist. I would already abstain from uncommented use of words like worldline and spacetime. I agree with him in that there is no time-symmetry and time-reversibility in the microworld. I also argue that the not yet existing future must not be considered a reasonable mathematical object. Ellis correctly adds that a quantum measurement process is not reversible.

Ellis mentioned various concurring candidates for a remedy: collapse of the wave function, many worlds, multiple histories, many fingered time, interpretation as an approximation, and even braking of an given symmetry. He looks for an interpretation inside quantum interpretation. Presumably he is or at least would be correct in that: Such attempts are doomed to fail altogether. Why did Ellis obviously fail to convey this message to the community of physicists?

It is not quite clear to me whether and if so how Ellis himself authorized the blog "The Crystallizing Universe". I cannot appreciate the the "elegant" idea to explain the transition from possibility to reality as change from quantum potentiality of a complex wave function into a single observed reality. Why did he and Rothman not learn from Wheeler's experiment? Heisenberg was most likely simply wrong when he attributed reality to observation instead the other way round. I envision a much simpler explanation of the duality between wave and particle: ripple-shaped bullets that extend unidirectionally over a coherence length with just a single tail. Is there any reason to imagine a particle like a point or a small ball? Maybe, cloud chambers were rather misleading.

By the way, I feel cheated by the word PET which suggests that positrons definitely exist. Actually, the method is based on dipole-pairs of photons.

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 16, 2010 @ 21:40 GMT
In topic 617 a more plausible explanation of the double slit experiment has been offered. Are there any objections?


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 17, 2010 @ 16:53 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

I decided to reply here in the hope for provoking serious objections by experts who missed what we discussed in topic 617. Let me briefly describe how I understood your argumentation:

You referred to a pattern measured with a detector by Hitachi showing many subsequently measured single points of detected single photons behind a double slit. The density of these points forms the interference pattern to be expected for electromagnetic waves. The points were so far interpreted as evidence for single point-like particles.

If I understood you correctly, you are arguing that any single photons does not hit only a particular point of the area of the detector but the whole area. The obstacle causes a phase shift resulting in an interference that utters itself in higher or lower probability of responding points. I do not know how the detector works and I guess the measured points indicate multiplied secondary emission.

Can you please confirm or correct this description?

If I correctly understood this random discrete response to photons of continuous extension, then the peculiar measurement by Gompf et al. becomes understandable: Single-photon counting is superimposed by a random behavior of the detector.

When I did not appreciate your wording "stop the weirdness" in connection with a simple mathematical proof, I was not offended. I merely anticipated those who will not take you seriously.

Studying the original scriptures, I realized that Planck's energy quanta go back to the assumption of N oscillators each of which has a given frequency f, cf. Ann. Phys. 4, 553, 1901 "On the Energy Distribution in the Blackbody Spectrum" where Planck derived from entropy S the energy density U=hf/(exp(hf/kT)-1) as his Eqn11.

Perhaps the late Planck was wrong when he wrote in 1943: "... trying to fit the action quantum into the system of classical physics. But it seems to me that this is not possible."



report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 17, 2010 @ 18:41 GMT
Hello dear Eckard,

It's very interesting.

The photons, if my memmory is good, can have a number of photons of all frequencies but c restc constant and the total system no .

The pression and the volumes still are essentials and foundamentals .

The total energy and the total number can be seen , constant or not.

It 's very relevant when an atom absorbs and re emits the frequences or not ??? hihihi The kinetic energy seems in the rationality.

The pauli principle, if I remenber, does not hold for photons.

It's there it's still interesting with spheres and sphericals fields and coordonates.

If the rotation is inserted ,it's very relevant too about the momentum.

A BEC can be applied of course , the sphericalization of referentials facilitates many things .

I have seen a beautiful method of Lagrance multipliers where we see the equilibriums and the entropy of the system .

The Planck radiation equation is interesting evidently.

I consider the system of photons like the gravitational system for the number, of course the rotations imply the specificity.

An important thing I beleive is what the gravity do not change its number, and the light can be fractalisable .The gravity is only in the mind for the understanding of the fractalisation.It's interesting in my humble opinion because we can fractalize really the light and thus we shall find the different volumes of the quantum uniqueness.We can see the synchro or the effetcs of the gravity on the system for an evolutive point of vue.

The thermodynamical parameters of course permits to see the different steps.

But for results, it's necessary to have a system of real fractalisationn and too the captors of evolution in gravity systems.

The spherical superimposings are thus in a dance of frequencies, rotations, and informations thus, there the volume is esential .

I have a big unknown which makes me crazzy with a stirling approximation and some substitutions, but I have problems for the distribution of fractalisation because I superimpose the gravity and the quantic finite number .And of course 1 rests like it is and the others no, but the difficulty is for the synchro of rotating volumes of spheres implying mass, a parameter of evolution is necessary , if not all is difficult , like a limit.

But if the correct fractal of a volume of sphere is made, it's possible .

But Of course we don't know the ultim code in the gravity studied.

A possiblity is to insert a system well studied which polarises and has its frequences of evolution , thus we can extrapolate the correct serie, but of course we don't know how will be the fractalization of the light.

It's a real puzzle, but I will arrive ....I hope .This number makes me crazzy.

Very best Regards


report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Apr. 21, 2010 @ 08:47 GMT
Ten Reasons to restitute Concept of Time in Physics with Concept of Numeric Order

1.with clocks we measure numeric order t0,t1,t2…tn of physical events

2.t1 is “before” t2 equivalently as number 1 is before number 2 Special Theory of Relativity fourth coordinate X4 is spatial to:

X4 = i x c x tn

4.numeric order of physical events runs in a timeless space

5.fundamental unit of numeric order is Planck time tp

6.velocity v of a physical event is derived from numerical order tn: v = d/tn

7.frequency of a physical event is derived from numerical order tn:

frequency = 1/tn

8.numeric order of events running in timeless space has no duration

9.a sense of duration is result experiencing numeric order of events through the psychological time past-present-future

10.symbol t in physics represents numeric order tn

Out of developing concept of space-time into the concept of timeless space where with clock we measure numeric order of t0,t1,t2…tn physical events follows:

1.paradox of time travel is resolved. No time travel is possible. One can travel only in space.

2.paradox of twins is resolved. Both grow older in a timeless space.

3.Zeno problems of motion are resolved: motion happens in space only and not in time

4.for immediate physical events as EPR and others numeric order is zero: tn = 0

5.for physical events which happening requires “tick” of a clock numeric order is more than zero the Planck scale information and energy transfer is immediate. Numerical order of events at Planck scale is zero: tn = 0 the photon scale information and energy transfer has velocity c, numeric order tn is more than zero the larger scale then photon information and energy transfer has velocity lower than c, numeric order tn is more than zero

report post as inappropriate

Captain Physics wrote on Apr. 21, 2010 @ 14:56 GMT
So now there are two mechanisms that give direction to the arrow of time - wave function collapse and generation of entropy. Put them together into one model and get a really nice publication.

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Apr. 21, 2010 @ 20:54 GMT
Hi Captain,

there is no "arrow of time". Physical change run in a timeless universe. Arrow of time is what here we call " numeric order".

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Apr. 22, 2010 @ 20:42 GMT
Hi Amrit,

I agree.

You see the evolutive space time but I ask me how many people sees it really.

I discussed about that with Jayakar who works with the backround time.

When Einstein spoke about the space time, it's important to insert the evolution,it's essential even.Like that we can have different durations correlated with the evolutive space and mass.

It's like a taxonomy of the time correlated with mass and space evolution.

People has difficulties to accept our actual constant duration.Irreversible in the physicality and only different in its steps of evolution.In all moment of the evolution, the duration is constant, perhaps different in its periodicity but constant.

Just a thought



report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Apr. 22, 2010 @ 20:59 GMT

material change have no duration, they have only numeric order that runs in a timeless space.

Yours Amrit

attachments: According_to_the_Formalism_d__v_x_t__Spacetime_is_Timeless.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 23, 2010 @ 16:00 GMT
Hi Amrit,

Thanks , I like you know your works, I find them physicals and spirituals.

Thanking you for the sharing.

Best Regards


report post as inappropriate

Constantinos wrote on Apr. 28, 2010 @ 04:08 GMT
Breaking Views!

Please read and comment!

Quoting from the article The Crystallizing Universe by Kate Becker, describing the enigmas of the double-slit experiment,

"Imagine a laser shooting photons toward a screen. Between the laser and the screen is a thin wall with two tiny slits in it. (This is an old physics workhorse called the double-slit...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georg S wrote on May. 14, 2010 @ 20:52 GMT

just a remark to the wording:

as the present “crystallizes” from the past.

A crystal crystallizes from the melt/solute.

I. e. from the chaotic (liquid) phase.

So Your sentece above should read:

"as the present "crystallizes" from the future.



report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on May. 29, 2010 @ 08:21 GMT
If there is no time in the universe, this does not mean universe is without motion. We relate time with motion what is wrong. Numerical order of change in the BLOCK UNIVERSE we measure with clocks.

attachments: 1_Block_Universe.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Barry Weprin wrote on Jun. 26, 2010 @ 22:05 GMT
That the present moment is the function of wave collapse is I think "right on" . I see the universe as a time machine in which the present moment is generated by the"knitting together" or wave collapse of the sub-atomic world. Our universe is thus brought into existence, the present moment is continually being created by the actions underlying atomic structure. This creates the sense of time flow that we experience. Actions in our world are merely relativistic events taking place on the backdrop of the continually created universe, much as we see an image projected on a movie screen.

report post as inappropriate

Quantoid wrote on Jul. 15, 2010 @ 13:01 GMT
Interesting that Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of QM also suggests that space-time is "crystalising" as standing waves are set up in the interference pattern generated from advance and retarded waves. As waves propagate backwards and forwards in time, each standing wave that forms (looking to us like the path of a particle even though there were only waves) creates a new bit of the past.

Maybe it helps to reduce the number of dimensions. Suppose we are two-dimensional creatures on a sphere. Space is the surface of the sphere, and time is the third dimension directed from the centre of the sphere outwards. As time passes the sphere grows. To us it seems that space is expanding, as the surface area increases. The past is the crystalised mass of the "inside" of the sphere. The future is the empty space outside the sphere.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 02:01 GMT

This is the electric displacement in vacuum for the photon, when it travel along the x axis. No physical wave is purely transversal or purely longitudinal, even in vacuum. All waves have both components, longitudinal and transversal. Photon's wave implies a density of linked electric charge, that is a wave of linked charge density. This is the beggining of a series of theorems, which give as a result all relativistic and quantum postulates. And give the theoretical value of the fine structure constant, without using any experimental data.

report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 03:33 GMT
Dear Anonymous,

"This is the beginning of a series of theorems, which give as a result all relativistic and quantum postulates. And give the theoretical value of the fine structure constant, without using any experimental data."

Is this possible? Yes! Can it be correct? I don't think so. I don't yet know your theorems; however, 'givens' cannot serve the goal unchallenged. I like this subject and will respectfully follow it. I know that truth is the ultimate goal.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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