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 forums@fqxi.org 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
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

DURGA DATTA.: on 6/28/16 at 12:29pm UTC, wrote Balloon inside balloon theory , which we also call parallel universes do...

DURGA DATTA.: on 6/28/16 at 12:26pm UTC, wrote Balloon inside balloon theory , which we also call parallel universes do...

Bruzote: on 2/2/15 at 16:11pm UTC, wrote Ah-ha! We finally have mathematical proof. Our universe IS "turtles all the...

Anonymous: on 11/9/13 at 17:50pm UTC, wrote Baggott[Farewell to Reality: How Fairy-Tale Physics Has Betrayed The Search...

KHALID MASOOD: on 5/13/12 at 20:03pm UTC, wrote A CHALLENGE TO THE END OF TIME THEORY I have independently created “TIME...

KHALID MASOOD: on 4/30/12 at 10:58am UTC, wrote SAVING TIME [Time Cosmology: Time to re-study Time.] Created and Written...

amrit: on 4/29/12 at 8:51am UTC, wrote Report on our research ...

amrit: on 4/5/12 at 13:12pm UTC, wrote SR in a 3D space ...



FQXi FORUM
November 24, 2017

ARTICLE: The End of Time [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Sridattadev wrote on Jun. 28, 2011 @ 19:48 GMT
Dear Lowe,

I have been trying to convey this very simple absolute truth about our inner most self that you have put forth in scientific terms. All answers lie in the answer to a simple question

who am I?

I am a verse, I is the uni, put together the universe.

There is only "one" singularity in the relativistic universe,

there is only "singualrity" in the absolute universe and we are all in it.

0 = infinity

absolutely nothing = relatively everything

I am one of our kind I is every one of all kinds.

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 30, 2011 @ 08:23 GMT
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,757145,00.h
tml

Monday, Dec. 14, 1936: "Other causes for the redshift were suggested, such as cosmic dust or a change in the nature of light over great stretches of space. Two years ago Dr. Hubble admitted that the expanding universe might be an illusion, but implied that this was a cautious and colorless view. Last week it was apparent that he had shifted his position even further away from a literal interpretation of the redshift, that he now regards the expanding universe as more improbable than a non-expanding one."

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/redshift.html

David A. Plaisted: "This suggests that the red shift may be caused by something other than the expansion of the universe, at least in part. This could be a loss of energy of light rays as they travel, or A DECREASE IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT..."

Is this "DECREASE IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT" realistic?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 30, 2011 @ 08:44 GMT
See also:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1009/1009.0953v1.pd
f

Observational evidence favours a static universe, David F. Crawford, Sydney Institute for Astronomy, School of Physics, University of Sydney

"The common attribute of all Big Bang cosmologies is that they are based on the assumption that the universe is expanding. However examination of the evidence for this expansion clearly favours a static universe. (...) Curvature cosmology (CC) is a static tired-light cosmology where the Hubble redshift (and many other redshifts) is produced by an interaction of photons with curved spacetime called curvature redshift."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w6777w07xn737590/fulltex
t.pdf

Astrophys Space Sci (2009) 323: 205211, Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law, Wilfred H. Sorrell

"Based upon these historical considerations, the first conclusion of the present study is that astronomical evidence in favor of an expanding universe is circumstantial at best. The past eight decades of astronomical observations do not necessarily support the idea of an expanding universe. (...) Reber (1982) made the interesting point that Edwin Hubble was not a promoter of the expanding universe idea. Some personal communications from Hubble reveal that he thought a model universe based upon the tired-light hypothesis is more simple and less irrational than a model universe based upon an expanding space-time geometry."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

sridattadev replied on Jun. 30, 2011 @ 14:17 GMT
Dear Pentcho

Some think that universe is expanding

some think that universe is contracting

some think that universe is eternal

I know that the universe is what I wants it to be.

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 29, 2011 @ 05:27 GMT
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/d
p/0486406768

"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann

"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

What if Einstein had not "resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas"? Has David Lowe ever considered this scenario?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 29, 2011 @ 05:52 GMT
http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=
article&id=64&Itemid=66

Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star. He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall back."

Was Stephen Hawking right in rejecting the idea that light could be slowed down by gravity by referring to the Michelson-Morley experiment? If not, and if the speed of light does vary with the gravitational potential, can this explain e.g. Arp's "intrinsic" redshift?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Karl Coryat replied on Jun. 29, 2011 @ 23:31 GMT
The Hawking quote is taken out of context. The question at the end is one that might have been asked in the late 19th century. In the article, Hawking goes on to describe general relativity as the resolution for the problem of light apparently "slowing down" in strong gravitational fields. In other words, it doesn't; like everything else it follows the curvature of space, and when space is sufficiently curved, light can make a U-turn, even at full speed.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 30, 2011 @ 05:23 GMT
Karl Coryat wrote: "In the article, Hawking goes on to describe general relativity as the resolution for the problem of light apparently "slowing down" in strong gravitational fields. In other words, it doesn't..."

In all versions of Einstein's relativity light does slow down in a gravitational field (for lack of space, I am only giving a quotation):

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variab
le.htm

"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page 93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Farhad wrote on Jun. 29, 2011 @ 12:47 GMT
Interesting ideas but too many and far in between. Don't seem to have the beauty, elegance and physical groundedness that ideas like for example relativity and the uncertainty principle had.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jun. 29, 2011 @ 14:16 GMT
Copied from my post in the "crystallizing universe" forum:

Suppose that spacetime and the wave function are identical, in the sense of a Hilbert space plus time, rather than a complete Euclidean 3-space plus time as in general relativity. One would then have an n-dimension extension of general relativity, as well as access to the hyperbolic space where string theory and holography originate -- that's what my "time barrier" preprint is all about.

There doesn't seem to be any physical principle that would prevent Einstein's general relativity -- which models a universe finite in time and unbounded in space -- from being converted to one finite in space and unbounded in time, as Lowe (et al) have it.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jun. 29, 2011 @ 14:22 GMT
It's possible, though doubtful, I'll get the links right on the first try! Here's the correction: "time barrier"

report post as inappropriate

Bashir Yusuf replied on Jul. 5, 2011 @ 22:55 GMT
Dear Tom,

I have just downloaded your preprint "time Barrier", It seems thoughtful, although I am still reading it.

I also think that it relates to may essay, and would like that you check it, since I think you may probably understand the most.

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/794

Best wishes,

Bashir

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jun. 29, 2011 @ 15:50 GMT
This might be interesting from a formal perspective. Certain equivalencies between conformal field data on the boundary of an anti de Sitter spacetime and information on the horizon of a BTZ black hole it contains might provide some insights into current problems.

If you have a spherical cloud of particles falling towards a central gravity field, such as a black hole, the spherical cloud becomes prolate ellipsoidal, or cigar shaped. If you are on a co-moving frame with this you would see galaxies at antipodal points moving away (red shifted) and galaxies along an equatorial plane normal to the antipodal points moving towards you. These galaxies would be blue shifted. This would be the main signature of living in a spacetime described on the largest scale by a Schwarzschild metric. There is no data to support this sort of model.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Jun. 29, 2011 @ 20:52 GMT
Why can't FQXi give 103 grand to someone like this:

http://www.fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristo
v_WaveMotion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf]http://www.fqxi
.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristov_WaveMotion_45_154_
EvolutionWavePackets.pdf

Hasn't anyone studied the history of theory evolution enough to realize that when the extrapolations get ever more bizarre, it's time to review the assumptions. One more patch on an outdated program doesn't cure the cause of the confusion, only some of the symptoms.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jun. 29, 2011 @ 20:57 GMT
That didn't load as a link;

http://www.fqxi

.org/data/forum-attachments/2008
CChristov_WaveMotion_45_154_

EvolutionWavePackets.pdf


report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jun. 30, 2011 @ 16:01 GMT
What history book are you getting this stuff from, John?

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jun. 30, 2011 @ 17:11 GMT
Tom,

Which do you wish to consider: Epicycles comes to mind. Economic bubbles provide a very similar example of feedback loops blowing up.

It's not as though science hasn't studied these processes in detail. Complexity Theory comes to mind. The most common parable would be "The straw that broke the camel's back." It isn't that the initial error or overstepping which causes the major problems, but the continuation of the error without correcting it.

You seem to give the impression that any logic not expressed in a mathematical construct is fatally contaminated by "philosophy" and any which is, is validated by this method.

report post as inappropriate


DLB wrote on Jul. 4, 2011 @ 17:58 GMT
"Hasn't anyone studied the history of theory evolution enough to realize that when the extrapolations get ever more bizarre, it's time to review the assumptions. One more patch on an outdated program doesn't cure the cause of the confusion, only some of the symptoms."

Very well put. There are two ways to do physics. Assume a theory to be essentially right and make provisions or corrections to account for inconsistencies between its predictions and observations, or reexamine the axioms of said theory to find the root of the problems. I chose the latter for my own work.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jul. 4, 2011 @ 18:34 GMT
DLB,

The irony here is that physics considers itself to be the leading edge of intellectual progress. In which case, it should consider every premise open to reconsideration in light of further observation. Instead, it exhibits characteristics of an entrenched bureaucracy, in which defense of the central canon is paramount.

Truth be told, physicists are human.

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 4, 2011 @ 21:02 GMT
DLB,

Many here choose to reexamine the axioms. This seems even more necessary when the two major models, general relativity and quantum mechanics have incompatible axioms. Clearly something new is needed, rather than slavish devotion to models that work fairly well in their areas of application, but not at all in other areas.

John,

You are correct to say:

"We obviously need models to work from, but we still need to recognize they are models. You get lost in the territory without a good map, but you still recognize it as a map. If the map and the territory start to diverge [an anomaly], it is frankly delusional to say it is the territory which is wrong."

The response was: we have no "Theory of anomalies" so can say nothing about them.

You hit the nail on the head with: "...the model is the enunciation of our knowledge, but science is about pushing, testing and expanding knowledge and thus the model. If it's all about the model and not what is being modeled, then it's religion, not science."

Belief in a model as the only 'reality' *is* religion. It is a religion of maps, ignorant of real territory. The nature of religion is possession of truth, and any disagreement with the possessor is labeled 'personal opinion'. As you quote, "belief systems ... separate the true believers from the uninitiated. Either one accepts the model in whole, or one is excluded from the community."

Personally I believe that what is being demonstrated is the difference between mathematicians and physicists. In math the model is everything, in physics the model is merely a map.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 5, 2011 @ 14:44 GMT
DLB,

"... find the root of the problems. I chose the latter for my own work."

What truly foundational questions do you deal with? Are you aware of NPA?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Jul. 5, 2011 @ 03:44 GMT
Edwin,

The problem seems to be that models can be manipulated by omission, in ways which reality doesn't allow, because models are by definition reductionistic, but reality is not.

report post as inappropriate


Bashir Yusuf wrote on Jul. 5, 2011 @ 12:55 GMT
Dear All,

The winning essay of this contest concludes that nature is digital (discrete).

And now, I wonder following;

Isnt the photon the Nature most elementary particle, and the Light its Gravitational interaction?

Hasnt the nature same fundamentals?. Particles?

I have tried to explore a broad area in physical science in different aspect and compare to existing...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Bashir Yusuf wrote on Jul. 5, 2011 @ 21:59 GMT
There is an intereting article from Nature(adress below)

Physics of life: The dawn of quantum biology

"The key to practical quantum computing and high-efficiency solar cells may lie in the messy green world outside the physics lab" Philip Ball

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110615/full/474272a.html

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jul. 6, 2011 @ 01:44 GMT
Bashir,

Are photon really particles, or the smallest measurable quantity of light? It seems this idea of entanglement really means that two quantities of the same element are being added together, rather than actual particles. It would make much more sense in the biological context as well.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 6, 2011 @ 04:58 GMT
Dear John, dear physicists,

I am a bit disappointed because I cannot see how the discussion relates to the article. Also, I did not get responses to my direct questions e.g. to DLB, RLO and concerning Hubble.

In principle, I share your critical view. What about particles and waves, I would like like to know from physicists to what extent my naive engineer's wave view needs corrections.

May I translate spin-up and spin-down into the two opposed to each other polarization or circular polarization with left and right chirality? If so then how.

Doesn't a field similar to the the transversal field of a dipole antenna extend symmetrical or anti-symmetrical to the left and the right half-sphere? May I imagine these two halves entangled? May I consider PET based on such pairs?

Couldn't I conclude from such coherence that decoherence is a phenomenon that cannot be ascribed to the single pair of particles but to interaction with its surrounding molecules?

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 6, 2011 @ 23:31 GMT
Hi all,

Dear Eckard, Happy to see your posts. I speak a little on APS linkedin, there are several interstings articles. With a person I discussed about the climat. Could you come on Aps please or could you say me why the simulations utilize a system incompressible as liquid and the mathematical serie is correlated at this incompressiblility. It's not possible in this line of reasoning to simulate correctly the chaotics parameters. I have some ideas but that seems so difficult and complexs for the encoding of mass and then the encoding of all rotations.But in logic we can predict but we are youngs also at the universal scale,I said on APS it's for the future.

"May I translate spin-up and spin-down into the two opposed to each other polarization or circular polarization with left and right chirality? If so then how." SPINING SPHERES ALWAYS dear Eckard lol

It could be cool if you come on APS linkedin also.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Jul. 6, 2011 @ 09:59 GMT
Eckard,

I'm not the best qualified to answer. I do think the conceptual structure will have to change though. I think the idea of coherence vs. decoherence might also be considered in terms of linearity, vs non-linearity. Linearity is energy in the sense that lines of force/coherence line up, while decoherence is mass, where they all lock up and stabilize.

report post as inappropriate

Bashir Yusuf replied on Jul. 7, 2011 @ 01:22 GMT
Dear John, Eckard, and Steve

A photon is a particle elementary of the Nature. The Photon is the lightest/smallest particle type, which every thing (whole universe matter) is made of. And the Light is its effect (gravitational force interaction).

Terminology confusion;

The term "Atom" which we still use, had meaning of the Natures fundamental particle as the word origin was 'indivisible” and latter became divisible for several time and still seems to be

The term of "elementary particles", is still in a situation of undetermined stage, which may give bit confusing meanings.

I have been facing problem with terms, and realized that, we should be always aware with the change of term, time to time and its usage in different fields (even the native one).

What I means is that from the beginning (just after Big Bang moment) there was only extremely large number free photons (elementary particles) latter they clustered into bigger spheres due to gravitational force, and these resulted bigger spheres clustered also into bigger spheres and .... The phenomenon of the Gravitational force at this chain of clusters seems now to be scalar. In other words photons Gravitational force (influence) is what we know as Light and it is the smallest scale of the G force, and its also a mirror image the effect that a photon may have

There is something like "kissing spheres" at initial moment of each spherical clustering. One may also think that this spherical Lattice–like may be two forms, namely "Body Centered" (BC) and "Face Centered" (FC) due the quantity of sphere kissing initial moment. Note that some numerical characteristics here such us Odd and Even numbers of spheres, Charged and Neutral because of number of clustered photons.

The elementary particle is that which responses the elementary charge and that is the photon. Since Light is (Gravitational) wave the photons/particle can interact by influencing. In general the overall particles interactions in both statically and dynamically creates complex systems

I think the best way to get a good insight is to ask; What combinations/sequence are possible if one throw large number spherical and homogeneous balls that have attracting force at empty free space?.

Eckard

the attachment is some previous question I have tried. I think there is something relevant to your question think your question under the title "charge and the Nature of Gravity" If not, we will take a closer look and descuss.

best wishes

Bashir

attachments: 1_Bashir_Quantum_Mech_and_Relativity_Theory.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 8, 2011 @ 20:46 GMT
Hi Bashir,

Happy to see you on the blogs and forums, it's cool that.

I read your post and as you know I like spheres. Logic lol that said, i have a question? do you consider a photon as a single particle or a entanglement ?

ps after the BB .....first fractalization of the main sphere with a pure finite number and a serie of correlated volumes ...implying a finite serie of spheres(a photon in logic Bashir and then it's not a single particle) after this step it's a multiplication in my line of reasoning of this ultim entanglement and its number, finite implying in a simplistic vue the space.after the rotations make the rest and permit to differenciate hv and mass but they have the same quantic number in my line of reasoning. What do you think Bashir? and what is this number(it's my headache that lol all days i search a serie to calculate this number the same for hv, m and the cosmological number of spheres(moons,stars, planets, BH....and the UNIVERSAL CENTER the serie you see Bashir id between 1 and 1 but between wawww it's the rock and roll of sciences jimmy hendrix and led zep in the physics lol?

Regards

steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 9, 2011 @ 14:58 GMT
Dear Bashir,

My theory of spherization is always copied , that becomes ironic, many people wants my recognizing. I am tired by all that. The sphere theory there, a new model of spheres here, and others still there, oh my god, and all that for what? the vanity, the monney, I become crazzy.It's irriting and frsutrating. Already that in belgium people stole me , and that continues, it's crazzy. What a world. Have you seen on net. It's incredible the human nature.Sad and bizare. I become crazzy.

Even in Belgium people doesn't respect me and steal me.

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Bashir Yusuf wrote on Jul. 7, 2011 @ 18:03 GMT
John,

Here is the attachment.

Have a fun,

Bashir

report post as inappropriate


Bashir Yusuf wrote on Jul. 7, 2011 @ 18:28 GMT
John,

I appologize that the file was too large to upload. Now you can download from this URL instead;

http://www.chronos.msu.ru/EREPORTS/brooks_einstein.p
df

Have a fun,

Bashir.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jul. 8, 2011 @ 03:21 GMT
Bashir,

I did read through it, but haven't had the time to fully unravel the relationships. Eventually the relationships between the attraction of gravity and the expansion of light will be better understood. My problem isn't with the basic science, but the flights of fancy which have grown up in the gaps in our knowledge.

report post as inappropriate


J.C.N. Smith wrote on Jul. 11, 2011 @ 15:36 GMT
Returning for a moment to the substance of this article, I must admit to being totally baffled/puzzled by one statement made in the article.

"Because the expanding bubble that we call home is embedded in a finite universe, there is a limit on the number of different configurations it might have, says Lowe. Like a Rubik's Cube, it can only be arranged and rearranged so many ways before it begins to repeat. In 50 billion years or so--just a few multiples of the current age of the universe--the number of options open to our bubble may dwindle so far that 'things would break down into some kind of quantum pixels,' Lowe says."

If I'm reading this correctly (and the fact that no one else has raised this point leads me to suspect that I'm not) Lowe is suggesting that there may be no more than three or four conceivable ways for the configuration of the approximately 10^80 or so atoms in the universe to unfold/evolve? This comes across at first blush as constituting a deplorable failure of imagination! What am I failing to understand here?

report post as inappropriate

Dan T Benedict replied on Jul. 11, 2011 @ 19:48 GMT
J.C.N. Smith,

The wording of the phrase: "In 50 billion years or so--just a few multiples of the current age of the universe--the number of options open to our bubble may dwindle so far that 'things would break down into some kind of quantum pixels" is rather poor. The term "our bubble" will be essentially meaningless then, since: "By then, cosmic expansion will have overcome the gravitational and electrostatic forces that bind our everyday world together, and the subatomic particles that used to be you will be scattered across the universe, terminally out of touch with each other".

The article is referring to the concept (in the Standard Model of Cosmology) of the reduction of information available to observers in the distant future of a universe undergoing accelerated expansion. Since each subatomic particle will be "terminally out of touch with each other", they will each reside in their own cosmic bubble, i.e. universe. The number of configurations of these future bubbles is a problem for a complete theory of QG or TOE, but undoubtably are very much limited compared to the number of configurations available to the currently observed universe.

Dan

report post as inappropriate

J.C.N. Smith replied on Jul. 11, 2011 @ 21:44 GMT
Dan,

Thank you for the clarification. Yes, I'd have appreciated it if this had been explained more clearly in the article. So then I gather that you (and others) are saying that all this could happen in the relatively brief span of a mere 50 billion years or so from now? Yikes. Maybe it's time to get serious about buying that retirement beach house after all? Carpe diem!

jcns

report post as inappropriate

Dan T Benedict replied on Jul. 11, 2011 @ 23:04 GMT
JCNS,

Yes indeed, with the universe's foot on the accelerator, the end is near. However, I continue to work on the details of a variant of the Standard Model that is cyclic due to the nature of black holes. Unfortunately, this does not give us a way out since the phases of the different cycles of the cosmos are distinct and separated from each other via the light barrier.

Dan

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Dec. 24, 2011 @ 18:10 GMT
Recent physical research on time suggests that time is not a physical reality in which humans perceive changes. Time measured with clocks is merely a numerical sequence of changes that takes place in quantum vacuum. Humans experience this constant flow of numerical sequence of change in the frame of psychological time, i.e. “past-present-future”. In physical reality, the past, present, and future exist only as a mathematical numerical sequence of change taking place in quantum vacuum; time as a numerical sequence of change as measured with clocks is exclusively a mathematical quantity. We humans perceive this mathematical numerical order of change with our senses, then it is processed within the framework of linear psychological time “past-present-future”, and finally it is experienced. The physical time that we measure with clocks is exclusively a numerical sequence of physical change, while the linear “past-present-future” time is exclusively a psychological reality contained in the human mind.

attachments: Relation_between_psychological_time_and_physical_time.pdf

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Feb. 6, 2012 @ 19:44 GMT
By 1949, Gödel had produced a remarkable proof: “In any universe described by the Theory of Relativity, time cannot exist”. Recent research on time suggests that the universe does not take place in time as a physical dimension, on the contrary, time that is measured with clocks takes place in the universe as a numerical order of universal change. In universe, time is exclusively a mathematical quantity.

Gödel’s insight into the unreality of time as a physical dimension in which changes take place finds its confirmation in the point of view that time as measured with clocks is exclusively a mathematical quantity. Time is paradoxical: it has no physical existence; however, it exists as a mathematical quantity that is measured with clocks.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Apr. 5, 2012 @ 13:12 GMT
SR in a 3D space

http://physicsessays.org/doi/abs/10.4006/0836-1398-25.1
.141

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Apr. 29, 2012 @ 08:51 GMT
Report on our research

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-four
th-dimension-space.html

attachments: From__Time_to_Timelessness__Sorli_2012.pdf

report post as inappropriate


KHALID MASOOD wrote on Apr. 30, 2012 @ 10:58 GMT
SAVING TIME

[Time Cosmology: Time to re-study Time.]

Created and Written by KHALID MASOOD



TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING is The Time Universe Theory.



I propose, only Time exists in the Universe. Only Time exists and all that exists is Time.

At the heart of physical sciences is physics, and at the heart of physics is Time. The Universe itself or the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


KHALID MASOOD wrote on May. 13, 2012 @ 20:03 GMT
A CHALLENGE TO THE END OF TIME THEORY

I have independently created “TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING”.

My main research interests are Physics, Modern Cosmology , Philosophy, Particle physics, Relativity, Time, Theory Of Everything and Economics.

My interests are very broad, extending from origin of the Universe and the origin of life, to the deeply philosophical.

I like to...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 9, 2013 @ 17:50 GMT
Baggott[Farewell to Reality: How Fairy-Tale Physics Has Betrayed The Search For Scientific Truth] and even more spot-on Unzicker-Jones[Bankrupting Physics: How Top Scientists Are Gambling Away Their Credibility] critiques shame physics’ shameless rock-star media-hype P.R. spin-doctoring veracity-abandoning touting sci-fi “show-biz” trending viral exacerbated by online social networks...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Bruzote wrote on Feb. 2, 2015 @ 16:11 GMT
Ah-ha! We finally have mathematical proof. Our universe IS "turtles all the way down"! :-)

report post as inappropriate


DURGA DAS DATTA. wrote on Jun. 28, 2016 @ 12:26 GMT
Balloon inside balloon theory , which we also call parallel universes do indicate an ever re cyclic, re bounce scenerion . That is end of one epoch and start of another epoch with new set of laws. Therefore the end of time has never been contemplated. If you are interested to know more, please read the attached paper .

report post as inappropriate


DURGA DAS DATTA. wrote on Jun. 28, 2016 @ 12:29 GMT
Balloon inside balloon theory , which we also call parallel universes do indicate an ever re cyclic, re bounce scenerion . That is end of one epoch and start of another epoch with new set of laws. Therefore the end of time has never been contemplated. If you are interested to know more, please read the attached paper .

attachments: 3_New_Physics_with_Emergent_Gravity_Mechanism._1.doc, 3_I_Think_Dr._Datta_Makes_A_Valid_Point_-_an_Astronomy_Net_Blackholes_Forum_Message22.htm

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.