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

January 19, 2018

ARTICLE: The Cosmic Family Tree [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Dr. A. Cannara wrote on Jan. 7, 2012 @ 00:28 GMT
That the universe has elements related by causality is not new. That causality is limited by interaction distance is not new. Only Special Relativity is 'new'. Lucretius, ca 50 AD described in a wonderful poem how the ancients viewed the universe's particulate structure. That, over 2000 years ago it was common to think of the universe as composed of "atoms" (from the Greek), which interacted continually to give all the flexibility and evolution observed in Nature, should be humbling to folks claiming new insights today. The ancients had no computing assistance. They did have observations & minds as good as ours.

Perhaps reading the recent book "The Swerve" will enlighten readers * researchers.

By the way, this comment interface is absurdly difficult to read because of an inconsiderately small font. And the yellow buttons below are unreadable. Maybe each letter is a "leaf" in the universe?


report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jan. 8, 2012 @ 04:04 GMT
Dr. A,

It seems to me that western thought is biased toward content, while eastern thought is biased toward context. A modern analogy would be nodes and networks. We see the object as primary and the action as secondary. We like "things;" Gods, singularities, particles, atoms, etc. Yet is seems all these entities incorporate and are incorporated within larger and smaller networks of activity. Not that I would go over to an entirely contextual understanding of reality, but possibly some fundamental dichotomy.

It would create a profoundly different concept of reality. An example is that singular entities are defined by shared experience, be it individual organisms, groups, such as nations or religions, or simply single objects. Consider how religions and nations define themselves by this singular narrative construct. Even cosmology is convinced the entire universe constitutes a single meta-narrative, from the Big Bang birth onward. Which is based on the assumption that light is fundamentally a particle that can only be redshifted by recession of the source. Since radiation expands and mass contracts, could this particulate nature of light be a consequence of its interaction with the detecting apparatus, not how it actually expands from the source?

The larger, contextual reality is a tapestry of interweaving narratives/actions, in which any single action is balanced by the non-linear reaction of the other actors in this context. Time is not so much a movement from past to future, as the changing configuration of what is physical existent, such that future potential becomes past circumstance.

So maybe we are looking at it from too narrow a perspective. Maybe those discrete units are just the warp and weave of some deeper fabric of causality and connectivity?

report post as inappropriate

Dr. A. Cannara wrote on Jan. 7, 2012 @ 00:29 GMT
Make that 50BC for Lucretius.

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Jan. 7, 2012 @ 19:53 GMT
the bridge between GR and QM is insight "Universe is eternally here and now"

space-time is only a math model it is not fundamental arena of the universe

yours amrit

attachments: New_Insights_in_SR__accepted.pdf, New_understanding_of_time_measuring.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Jan. 10, 2012 @ 16:32 GMT
@amrit, You accept the Planck length and time as the grains of our space/time, they may be untill now, but perhaps in the future we will be able to point out the real granularity of our reality, I made the same proposals in my essay , but more recent inforamtions from the INTEGRAL's IBIS instrument the graininess of space is of the order of 10^-48cm. My opinion is that accepting the grainines of space and time is the priciple.

keep on thinking free


report post as inappropriate

Karl Coryat wrote on Jan. 7, 2012 @ 20:48 GMT
I'd like to see Rideout's causal set theory applied in a purely relational manner (a la Rovelli), as a set of causal correlations that are fundamental things-in-themselves, as opposed to the spacetime points serving that function. Doesn't he have to make a special accommodation for EPR if spacelike points aren't elements of the causal set?

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Jan. 8, 2012 @ 14:55 GMT
Meditation EHAN is an individual research method designed especially for “science oriented” people. With meditation EHAN you will discover your “Being” your “True Nature” which has its origin into “Eternally here and now”. My 22 years research on time confirms that time we measure with clocks is a numerical sequence of changes that run in space. Time is not 4th dimension of space, time is merely a numerical sequence of change that run in space which is “eternally here and now”. We humans are experiencing change through the linear time “past-present-future” which exists only as an inner psychological time. In meditation EHAN spontaneously happens that psychological time brakes down, one directly experiences change run into eternally here and now. This experience is giving us insight of the real nature of the universe and ourselves which reaches far beyond religious, national, racial and any other identification of our mind.

yours amrit


report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev replied on Jan. 17, 2012 @ 16:11 GMT
Dear Amrit,

I have experienced the singularity that you have experienced too with EHAN meditation. Who am I? I am here and now, I is forever.

I put forth a mathematical proof of our true being, please see

zero = i = infinity



report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 9, 2012 @ 17:28 GMT
The biggest potential fly in this ointment I might see is this involves a finite element cut-off on scale. This may lead to dispersive effects with radiation across great distances. The FERMI and INTEGRAL measurements of different wavelengths of light from GRBs failed to find dispersion. This constrains the range of physical theory and it may rule out this sort of quantum gravity.


report post as inappropriate

Ellie Kesselman wrote on Jan. 10, 2012 @ 01:20 GMT
The "family tree" paradigm of the universe is described as having:

"10240 leaves -one for every point in spacetime- and growing with every passing moment"

Have causal relationships, or lack thereof, already been established for this "tree of leaves"/ network, or is that the goal of the project? If not, how was the quantity 10240 determined to be as the number of points existing in space time?

I tend to view things as a static block, and have some trouble grasping this causality idea. Thank you to anyone who might be inclined to clarify this for me!

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Jan. 10, 2012 @ 17:16 GMT
As I indicated to Amrit above, the grainines of our Universe is a sound principle to start thinking with. This graininess however can be of another size as the for now considered smallest items the Planck length and time.

We are talking however here about two elements the sapce and the time, if we start with the quantum of time and treat it as the building block of your causal set that is attached to the quantum of space, then you can wonder if the same quantum of time is of application for all the other 10^240 building blocks, if so we create the so called "block universe". If not every quantum of space has its own time grain with the possibillity of being the origin of its own causal set, then it is a lot more difficult to imagine everything eveolving without becoming chaotic, so lets apply Occams Razor and apply the same time for the whole shebang.

Her we enter the principle of the theory causality, because if we consider the collection of space quanta in that very time quantum, who can prove that another space quantum with another time quantum is forming a causal set ?

Imagine now all the possible space/time moments (quanta) as probabilities assembled in a fifth dimension (Total Simultaneity, no to be confused with Einsteins absolute simultaneity) we can now even imagine that every space quantum has its own time quantum (the origin so called of paralel worlds), everything is possible and it is our consciousness that creates out of this total probability a causal universe that is logical and understandable to us.

keep on thinking free


report post as inappropriate

Ellie Kesselman replied on Jan. 30, 2012 @ 04:11 GMT
Thank you, Wilhelmus. That was nicely written. I think it was a response to my inquiry. It served the purpose of clarifying for me. And being just a little emotionally inspirational.

You keep on thinking free too, okay?

~~ lux et veritas ~~

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 10, 2012 @ 17:37 GMT
"a continual process of becoming" sounds like Brouwer who was considered by Fraenkel as the revolution to be hindered as to prevent a huge heap of rubble.

While constructivism/intuitionism is often seen as an alternative to Hilbert's formalism, I consider my criticism of Cantor's set naivety a more radical one.

Moreover, I never enjoyed SR, Star Trek, Big Bang, and other science fabrications. "Einstein showed that our idea of simultaneity—that two distant events can occur "at the same time"—is fundamentally flawed". Didn`t he just postulate this?

Paul Marmet was perhaps as stupid as am I when he wrote: "The velocity of light is c with respect to what? The principle of mass-energy conservation requires that light moves at a constant velocity WITH RESPECT TO AN ABSOLUTE FRAME".

What about the impressive number of leaves, I vaguely recall somewhat elder different numbers and a children`s good night song "God the Lord did count them all, in order to not loose a single one".

Anyway, hundreds of opponents signed a statement and a petition concerning Big Bang and twin paradox, respectively. Do not close your eyes and ears but check all relevant arguments.

Incidentally, wouldn't a family tree of how the idea of spacetime arose and how it was questioned be at least equally important?


report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Jan. 11, 2012 @ 16:17 GMT
Echard, it is indeed impossible to create or accept an absolute referential frame, so any length of space, lapse of time, or velocity is always a reference to our conscious awareness of objects and rythms that "seem" to be stable, but in fact they are not. So the constant velocity of light is just a imagination of our limited minds, in the middle ages we were convinced that the earth was the center of the universe, it was our benchmark, benchmarks however are always changing like the so calles constants that we seem to observe in our universe, still thinking that we are the center of it.

Talking about 10^240 units of our universe is trying to understand it and comparing it with a Planck volume, however this Planck volume is also referential to other "measurements" that we made in our little circle of consciousness, it does not help, it only indicates how much we still are not aware of.

So measuring time and space in Planck units is not the definite way of describing our universe.

At first I made the same error, by accepting that I could use this reference as a solid absolute frame, it is not, but I learned that our universe as we are aware of has limits, and as we have no deeper insight we continue to use this measurement. The most important fact however is that I accepted the LIMITS, and accepted that these limits are variable.

Now for the granular nature of the universe, I do not think it is neccerry to accept that it is, by accepting the limit of our 4D causal universe you could also accept that after this limit we enter another scale, a scale with other properties, perhaps no longer causal (and avoid infinities)

As a matter of fact this limit (wherever it may be) can be crossed everywhere in the three dimensions, and everywhere in time, so you could also imagine that at every point in the universe we reach the same new scale, this scale being perhaps another dimension. (so where string theorists enter enrolled dimensions, we just eneter ONE new dimension.

This new unknown dimension we enter is the specific "block universe (absolute simultaneity) at that very time quantum.

So now at each limit point in our 3D universe we enter each moment in another block. All these blocks in our observable universe together form the time lines and can form probable time lines that become comprehensible for our consciousness.

keep on thinking free


report post as inappropriate

JK wrote on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 20:08 GMT
Spacetime also leads, via the Minkowskian geometry, to block time. The Reitdijk-Putnam argumnent is a rigorous proof of that. In block time, all events are inevitable (both past and future in our viewpoint). If one accepts spacetime - some don't, but these researchers must do - this makes causality unreal, and at best a part of an illusion - it exists only within an illusion that gives the appearence of motion through time. See this essay.

The premiss of this research about the fabric of spacetime simply doesn't work in the wider picture. They need to question causality before they start calculating in a way that uses it. Best wishes, JK

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 21:22 GMT
Jonathan Kerr (JK),

You did not comment on my comment on your essay:

"You concluded "block time and the accompanying picture must be false". You correctly realized that the block-time view is rooted in an observer-dependent perspective considering "the same event in the past for one observer but in the future for an other one"."

Didn't you read my essay ? I do not accept future spacetime as reality.

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan Kerr wrote on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 21:40 GMT
I should add that recently attempts have been made to escape from the block universe picture, which contradicts many other areas of our view of the world. These attempts include the 'crystallising block universe' and other ideas bringing in the wave function collapse of quantum theory, as a way of changing future to past. But they go on looking like fix-up attempts, not just because they tend to fail to address time dilation, but because in Minkowski spacetime, if you believe it to be completely correct, the difference between past and future is entirely observer-dependent, and related to relative motion only. This is hard to square with these ideas.

In my essay, I've argued that even a minor false assumption in the Minkowskian geometry, for instance about simultaneity at a distance (beyond the light cone, outside the space in which causal links apply) could be enough to remove block time. Attempts to keep both spacetime and the distinction between past and future are fix-up attempts, and they don't work.

There's a need to face up to what our physics is telling us - that there's an error in the spacetime geometry. It's not totally surprising that there may be an error there - we depend on untestable assumptions about time for that geoemetry, but we don't understand time.

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan Kerr wrote on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 21:43 GMT
Hello Eckard, our posts crossed. Thanks for your kind comments on my essay, I'll read yours. Best wishes, Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Nov. 8, 2013 @ 23:53 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

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.