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.

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

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

FQXi FORUM

February 20, 2018

Nice article Kate.

To Lee Smolin and Steve Giddings,

A quantum gravity could recognize gravitation as a probability group consisting of all possible past-like states, i.e., all states of greater average density than the present. This is Boltzmann in nature. If the arrow of time is caused by a greater number of disordered states compared to ordered states, then cosmologically speaking we should recognize there also exists the set of all states more ordered or more dense than the present, a group which probabilistically at least attempts to create large-scale order or density, in a sense pulling time backwards. Quantum gravity would thus be seen as the pull of all possible histories trying to recreate themselves. Clearly gravity is trying to recreate the dense past. It follows even that gravity is a measure of time traveling backwards, while expansion is time traveling forwards (quantum expansion).

Further, if we update Boltzmann's notion of more states of disorder, particularly considering accelerating expansion, we need to introduce the ultimate singularity of zero as a possible state in the direction of the future. We then consider past states to be positive in reference to that zero, and calculate the probability influence of all possible histories versus all possible futures (including with future-like possible states the negative or inverse set of possible states beyond zero), in order to calculate the strength of gravity and expansion. In principle the equal sets of states balanced on zero predicts time inevitably ends at zero, as popularized by Caldwell in the Big Rip scenario.

As it turns out, as we approach the empty space singularity it is also necessary to consider the consequence of time reaching zero, as the event is governed by the structure of state space near the zero singularity, i.e., an ever decreasing measure of states which are zero-like (similarly true of the past singularity). We can in this model realize that accelerating expansion is a product of the absolute stability of the true vacuum, with all this leading us toward a timeless perspective of the whole multiverse, where zero is the timeless quantum superposition of all universes.

In the future we will necessarily realize the simple fact that the universe is not simply moving from order to disorder, but rather from the order of a positively dense past, through a temporary transition of disorderly states, to end in a state of high order, i.e., absolute zero, perfect symmetry, the true vacuum, empty space, maximum entropy, implicate order, the infinite, and my favorite: everything forever.

Gevin Giorbran

http://everythingforever.com

report post as inappropriate

To Lee Smolin and Steve Giddings,

A quantum gravity could recognize gravitation as a probability group consisting of all possible past-like states, i.e., all states of greater average density than the present. This is Boltzmann in nature. If the arrow of time is caused by a greater number of disordered states compared to ordered states, then cosmologically speaking we should recognize there also exists the set of all states more ordered or more dense than the present, a group which probabilistically at least attempts to create large-scale order or density, in a sense pulling time backwards. Quantum gravity would thus be seen as the pull of all possible histories trying to recreate themselves. Clearly gravity is trying to recreate the dense past. It follows even that gravity is a measure of time traveling backwards, while expansion is time traveling forwards (quantum expansion).

Further, if we update Boltzmann's notion of more states of disorder, particularly considering accelerating expansion, we need to introduce the ultimate singularity of zero as a possible state in the direction of the future. We then consider past states to be positive in reference to that zero, and calculate the probability influence of all possible histories versus all possible futures (including with future-like possible states the negative or inverse set of possible states beyond zero), in order to calculate the strength of gravity and expansion. In principle the equal sets of states balanced on zero predicts time inevitably ends at zero, as popularized by Caldwell in the Big Rip scenario.

As it turns out, as we approach the empty space singularity it is also necessary to consider the consequence of time reaching zero, as the event is governed by the structure of state space near the zero singularity, i.e., an ever decreasing measure of states which are zero-like (similarly true of the past singularity). We can in this model realize that accelerating expansion is a product of the absolute stability of the true vacuum, with all this leading us toward a timeless perspective of the whole multiverse, where zero is the timeless quantum superposition of all universes.

In the future we will necessarily realize the simple fact that the universe is not simply moving from order to disorder, but rather from the order of a positively dense past, through a temporary transition of disorderly states, to end in a state of high order, i.e., absolute zero, perfect symmetry, the true vacuum, empty space, maximum entropy, implicate order, the infinite, and my favorite: everything forever.

Gevin Giorbran

http://everythingforever.com

report post as inappropriate

"My heart leaps up when I behold A rainbow in the sky."

William Wordsworth-- My Heart Leaps Up

[url:http://fqxi.org/community/data/articles/Searching_For

_the_Golden_Spike.pdf]‚ÄúIf an energy dependent speed of light is

seen,‚Äù says Smolin, ‚Äúthat would be dramatic

confirmation of quantum gravity.‚Äù[/url]

This is a central position that Lee Smolin speaks from?

One should then be able to construct from what is around him, differentiates the methods he will choose from those other scientists who choose to work other processes of quantum gravity.

Understanding these views in opposition then tell us a different story then the one Lee proposes. What are these views in opposition then?

Lee Smolin:

[url:http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/02/21/oos-and-bbs

/#comment-204859]I suspect this reflects the expectation many people have that time is not fundamental, but rather emerges only at a semiclassical approximation in quantum cosmology. If you believe this then you believe that the fundamental quantities a quantum cosmology should compute are timeless. This in turn reflects a very old and ultimately religious prejudice that deeper truths are timeless. This has been traced by scholars to the theology of Newton and contemporaries who saw space as ‚Äúthe sensorium‚Äù of an eternal and all seeing god. Perhaps the BB paradox is telling us it is time to give up the search for timeless probability distributions, and recognize that since Darwin the deep truths about nature cannot be divorced from time.

The alternative is to disbelieve the arguments that time is emergent-which were never very convincing- and instead formulate quantum cosmology in such a way that time is always real. I would suggest that the Boltzman Brain‚Äôs paradox is the reducto ad absurdum of the notion that time is emergent and that rather than play with little fixes to it we should try to take seriously the opposite idea: that time is real.[/url]

Trying to find the basis of the argument is then essential between the differences of Lee's Approach versus others in quantum gravity.

attachments: compton_scatter.gif

report post as inappropriate

William Wordsworth-- My Heart Leaps Up

[url:http://fqxi.org/community/data/articles/Searching_For

_the_Golden_Spike.pdf]‚ÄúIf an energy dependent speed of light is

seen,‚Äù says Smolin, ‚Äúthat would be dramatic

confirmation of quantum gravity.‚Äù[/url]

This is a central position that Lee Smolin speaks from?

One should then be able to construct from what is around him, differentiates the methods he will choose from those other scientists who choose to work other processes of quantum gravity.

Understanding these views in opposition then tell us a different story then the one Lee proposes. What are these views in opposition then?

Lee Smolin:

[url:http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/02/21/oos-and-bbs

/#comment-204859]I suspect this reflects the expectation many people have that time is not fundamental, but rather emerges only at a semiclassical approximation in quantum cosmology. If you believe this then you believe that the fundamental quantities a quantum cosmology should compute are timeless. This in turn reflects a very old and ultimately religious prejudice that deeper truths are timeless. This has been traced by scholars to the theology of Newton and contemporaries who saw space as ‚Äúthe sensorium‚Äù of an eternal and all seeing god. Perhaps the BB paradox is telling us it is time to give up the search for timeless probability distributions, and recognize that since Darwin the deep truths about nature cannot be divorced from time.

The alternative is to disbelieve the arguments that time is emergent-which were never very convincing- and instead formulate quantum cosmology in such a way that time is always real. I would suggest that the Boltzman Brain‚Äôs paradox is the reducto ad absurdum of the notion that time is emergent and that rather than play with little fixes to it we should try to take seriously the opposite idea: that time is real.[/url]

Trying to find the basis of the argument is then essential between the differences of Lee's Approach versus others in quantum gravity.

attachments: compton_scatter.gif

report post as inappropriate

There is a recent media presentation by Lee Smolin WRT problamatic Time? having my own views on Time and Space, I glanced in on Lee's lecture. Very interesting the way he stipulates in lecture 1, the fact: "Time has no Quantity" or observational substance as I like to call it.

I beg to differ.

But why is it Time for observers, actually has a function that, determines a Reality? example if I may, from the Big-Bang to Now, events occured, and from an appointment book, between 12:00 pm 12:01 and 12:02 somethings are going to occur, like your phone rings.

The moments between the Big-Bang and Now, if viewed as a "length of Time", are quite different from the moments between 12:00 and 12:02, one can ask this:Which example has the most moments?, can the experience of time from the Big-Bang to Now, be crammed into the available moments of 12:00 and 12:02 ?

If one thinks about the notion of time, then one can conclude that from the big-bang to now, these moments keep expanding, or specifically moments keep adding to this timeframe. The same moments are added to 12:00 and 12:02.

All the particles that exist between two moments OF time, are the quantities that define a real moment as opposed to a virtual moment. Can particles be in two seperate moments at once? ;)

Let me just add another spanner I like to throw around now and again, the only area/volume of space, that has NO Time value attached to it is the perfect Vacuum. a perfect vacuum has no moments contained, without particles to collide, evidence of time dissapears.

Now one can decompose a container that has a lot of particles, or just one single particle will suffice?..then as one decompose's matter, the observational time paramiter wanes, one can cross the divide of GR and QM by the particle number itself.

One can view Quantum Mechanics , by particle reduction process, as a function that promotes a Vacuum, particle dispersion is time dispersion!

Only the Vacuum has a no/zero spacetime quantity, if a particle enters a vacuum, then TIME is transfered to the vacuum by the particles themselves, thus particles are quantities of Time.

A field is nothing more than a 2-dimensional level of Vacuum Space.

Particles have moments of existence, they ARE the moments in Time.

P.S the golden spike is the 3-Dimensional particle, that transcends moments to a given space?

report post as inappropriate

I beg to differ.

But why is it Time for observers, actually has a function that, determines a Reality? example if I may, from the Big-Bang to Now, events occured, and from an appointment book, between 12:00 pm 12:01 and 12:02 somethings are going to occur, like your phone rings.

The moments between the Big-Bang and Now, if viewed as a "length of Time", are quite different from the moments between 12:00 and 12:02, one can ask this:Which example has the most moments?, can the experience of time from the Big-Bang to Now, be crammed into the available moments of 12:00 and 12:02 ?

If one thinks about the notion of time, then one can conclude that from the big-bang to now, these moments keep expanding, or specifically moments keep adding to this timeframe. The same moments are added to 12:00 and 12:02.

All the particles that exist between two moments OF time, are the quantities that define a real moment as opposed to a virtual moment. Can particles be in two seperate moments at once? ;)

Let me just add another spanner I like to throw around now and again, the only area/volume of space, that has NO Time value attached to it is the perfect Vacuum. a perfect vacuum has no moments contained, without particles to collide, evidence of time dissapears.

Now one can decompose a container that has a lot of particles, or just one single particle will suffice?..then as one decompose's matter, the observational time paramiter wanes, one can cross the divide of GR and QM by the particle number itself.

One can view Quantum Mechanics , by particle reduction process, as a function that promotes a Vacuum, particle dispersion is time dispersion!

Only the Vacuum has a no/zero spacetime quantity, if a particle enters a vacuum, then TIME is transfered to the vacuum by the particles themselves, thus particles are quantities of Time.

A field is nothing more than a 2-dimensional level of Vacuum Space.

Particles have moments of existence, they ARE the moments in Time.

P.S the golden spike is the 3-Dimensional particle, that transcends moments to a given space?

report post as inappropriate

Particle reduction equals Dimensional reduction. The more dimensions, the more particles, and as a consequence more Universe's (other than the golden spike one)..ask any stringtheorist why more dimensions means more particles, and less dimensions mean more 2-D fields!

Colliding two "3-D particles" together should reduce the structures dimensionally, thus a lot of 2-D quantitites appear (remember you cannot actually observe a 2-D field, you are made from 3-D bits!), thus QM is the geometric dimensional reduction of a observational 3-D componant to an unobservable 2-D field componant.

Well obviously breaking up a 3-D bit needs a hammer, if you use another 3-D bit as this hammer then there are a number of converging energies that should amount to 6 Quarks.

Now trying to reduce a single proton, without a hammer, or specifically without a colliding factor, is where the really interesting results occur, because Time cannot exist without particles, the question of True or False vacuum, or collapsed wavefunction becomes very very relevant.

report post as inappropriate

Colliding two "3-D particles" together should reduce the structures dimensionally, thus a lot of 2-D quantitites appear (remember you cannot actually observe a 2-D field, you are made from 3-D bits!), thus QM is the geometric dimensional reduction of a observational 3-D componant to an unobservable 2-D field componant.

Well obviously breaking up a 3-D bit needs a hammer, if you use another 3-D bit as this hammer then there are a number of converging energies that should amount to 6 Quarks.

Now trying to reduce a single proton, without a hammer, or specifically without a colliding factor, is where the really interesting results occur, because Time cannot exist without particles, the question of True or False vacuum, or collapsed wavefunction becomes very very relevant.

report post as inappropriate

This is very interesting, having a little idea of the authors work, this is apt [linkhttp://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0724]here[link].

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Lee Smolin [url:http://asymptotia.com/2007/03/23/questions-and-answers-

about-theories-of-everything/#comment-35339]Mar 27th, 2007 at 8:23 am[/url]

"For one thing the existence of the string landscape has been, at least for me, a great stimulus to revising the notion of time in quantum cosmology. Beyond that the context in which the role of time in quantum cosmology has to be discussed is that of attempts to formulate background independent theories, to the extent that efforts are made to construct a manifestly background independent framework for string theory in the compact case-with no asymptotic symmetries or boundary conditions, the problem of time has to be confronted."

It certainly can be confusing.

[url:http://www.interactions.org/quantumuniverse/q

u/questions/q6.html]What is Dark Matter?[/url]

"Quantum physics has revealed a stunning truth about ‚Äúnothing‚Äù: even the emptiest vacuum is filled with elementary particles, continually created and destroyed. Particles appear and disappear, flying apart and coming together, in an intricate quantum dance. This far-reaching consequence of quantum mechanics has withstood the most rigorous experimental scrutiny. In fact, these continual fluctuations are at the heart of our quantum understanding of nature."

I looked for the alliances struck and what else could Lee have assumed?

An asymmetrical valuation possibly? see attachment 2

attachments: kochmv.gif, against_symmetry1.jpg

report post as inappropriate

about-theories-of-everything/#comment-35339]Mar 27th, 2007 at 8:23 am[/url]

"For one thing the existence of the string landscape has been, at least for me, a great stimulus to revising the notion of time in quantum cosmology. Beyond that the context in which the role of time in quantum cosmology has to be discussed is that of attempts to formulate background independent theories, to the extent that efforts are made to construct a manifestly background independent framework for string theory in the compact case-with no asymptotic symmetries or boundary conditions, the problem of time has to be confronted."

It certainly can be confusing.

[url:http://www.interactions.org/quantumuniverse/q

u/questions/q6.html]What is Dark Matter?[/url]

"Quantum physics has revealed a stunning truth about ‚Äúnothing‚Äù: even the emptiest vacuum is filled with elementary particles, continually created and destroyed. Particles appear and disappear, flying apart and coming together, in an intricate quantum dance. This far-reaching consequence of quantum mechanics has withstood the most rigorous experimental scrutiny. In fact, these continual fluctuations are at the heart of our quantum understanding of nature."

I looked for the alliances struck and what else could Lee have assumed?

An asymmetrical valuation possibly? see attachment 2

attachments: kochmv.gif, against_symmetry1.jpg

report post as inappropriate

You know you have problems with the directions you have been giving for links right?

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Our being conscious and alive in conjunction with the fundamental experience of our growth and becoming other than we are IS unification in physics. Dreams span/bridge and balance interior and exterior space, thereby fundamentally and theoretically unifying physics/physical experience. Let's be honest FQXi.org.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.