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

Display:
 all posts
 member posts highlighted
 member posts only

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

Jason Wolfe: on 8/28/20 at 7:57am UTC, wrote Hi Steve, My idea about the wave function being a captured graviton allows...

Steve Dufourny: on 8/27/20 at 19:55pm UTC, wrote we see a little bit the same about the expanding gravitons like main...

Jason Wolfe: on 8/27/20 at 19:51pm UTC, wrote The luminiferous aether, taking it out of the realm of alchemy and...

Steve Dufourny: on 8/27/20 at 18:29pm UTC, wrote In fact , all is a question of positive energy and negative energy but...

Steve Dufourny: on 8/27/20 at 16:35pm UTC, wrote A sure thing is that we need this balance and we have had proofs with...

Steve Dufourny: on 8/27/20 at 16:15pm UTC, wrote that implies also that we don t know about this time , dirac and feynman...

Steve Dufourny: on 8/27/20 at 16:12pm UTC, wrote what I try to explain is that this antimatter is necessary because we need...

Steve Dufourny: on 8/27/20 at 16:01pm UTC, wrote the same for your aether , you consider a luminiferous aether like main...



FQXi FORUM
September 22, 2020

CATEGORY: Ultimate Reality [back]
TOPIC: The Nature of Time [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Feb. 15, 2019 @ 16:59 GMT
I'm opening up this thread, following requests from users, as a place to discuss general questions and ideas about the nature of time.

Enjoy!

Bookmark and Share


Eric Aspling wrote on Feb. 15, 2019 @ 18:25 GMT
I'd like this to be an open discussion about ideas. I'm posting my thoughts here because this has to do with the nature of time. These thoughts don't seem to answer any questions. They have helped me come to grips with the tough topics and maybe could generate some fun discourse (maybe not).

Understanding the Irreversibility of Time Using Gates.

I’m a graduate student attempting...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Feb. 15, 2019 @ 17:07 GMT
Eric,

"Does this quantum computing system not apply to the universe?" It does not, because the entire concept of a "quantum bit" is a figment of the imagination. The observed seemingly "weird" quantum behavior is that of a single, classical bit, AS DEFINED BY SHANNON, not the physics community, which has never understood Shannon.

"Reality seems merely a series of measurement gates..." That is correct. Once you understand what Shannon's capacity theorem is actually all about, it becomes clear that quantum theory is not a theory about "matter" at all, it is a theory about the "measurement of matter" only. The ancient Greek philosophers made a distinction between "being" (things as they are - Reality as it is) and "seeming" (things as they appear - Reality as it seems). Physicists have always simply assumed that quantum theory is a theory of "being", but from the perspective of Shannon, it is a theory of "seeming", a theory about the interactions (such as measurements) between things, rather then about the things per se.

Consider this

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate

Eric Aspling replied on Feb. 15, 2019 @ 20:28 GMT
Thank you for your comments Rob.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali replied on Feb. 15, 2019 @ 20:39 GMT
Hi Eric,

Thanks for this. I have deleted the copy of your message from the "Alternative Models" thread, so that it can continue here.

Hi Rob,

Having deleted Eric message from the other thread, I also just moved your reply to Eric from the "Alternative Models" thread over to here (and deleted the post you put here pointing to that reply), so that the discussion can move here.

I hope that nothing has been lost in the process.

Bookmark and Share


Jim George Snowdon wrote on Feb. 15, 2019 @ 19:25 GMT
We are inclined to assume that time exists, as the result of being immersed in the Earth`s rotational motion. The Earth`s rotational motion`s surface speed at the Equator is roughly 1,000 miles per hour. Endlessly flying along at 1,000 miles per hour, along with everything around us, inclines us to assume, that time exists as some kind of force or thing.

We are within the Earth`s rotational motion. Rotational motion itself is perfectly matched to our time measurement system, since our time measurement system is based on the period of the Earth`s rotation. We use the Earth`s period of rotation as the baseline measurement to measure time passing. Our clocks do not actually measure time passing, our clocks measure duration elapsing.

There is no such thing or force as time. What we do have is motion in our timeless Universe. What we do have is duration elapsing. There is no co-existing past(s) or future(s) somewhere else. There is only the present, the now, the state of duration elapsing.

There is no possible time travel, since there are no other times to travel to.

Motion itself does not create time. The Earth`s rotational motion is the fundamental physical mechanism responsible for maintaining our confusion about the nature of time.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jim George Snowdon replied on Apr. 25, 2019 @ 02:16 GMT
We would be inclined to assume that time did not exist, as some kind of force or thing, if the Earth did not have it`s rotational motion.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 25, 2019 @ 02:50 GMT
Jim, I agree with a lot you have written here but have two disagreements. I think it is helpful to separate what is happening -Now and what is experienced as the present. Also, even if the Earth did not rotate there would still be other changes happening. Timing does not have to be with a 12 or 24 hr clock. It can be done with a sand or water clock. All that matters is that the change used is regular, not varying in rate. I.e. the duration of the intervals of the chosen timing method are the same as each other.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jim George Snowdon replied on Apr. 29, 2019 @ 17:45 GMT
This is a paragraph from my one page essay in the first FQXi essay contest, "The Nature of Time." The essay is titled, "Things Happen". It`s the last entered essay in that contest, entry dated December 4th, 2,008.

"The basis of our shared illusion, is our rotating planet. Our natural state in reality, is to be travelling at a surface speed of 1,600 kilometers per hour. Our time systems are based on this motion. At the root of our deception, we take this motion as our time. As the world turns, we see the real and constant effects of that motion in seamless concert with our clocks. This constant evidence of change validates our clocks, and our clocks mark the passage of time. We live on our clock, it`s motion is our time. The marriage of the physical rotational motion, with our systems of time keeping, sets the stage for the illusion to occur. The ingredient that creates the illusion of time, and binds us to it, is our consciousness."

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Rick Lockyer wrote on Feb. 15, 2019 @ 21:45 GMT
IMHO time is a complex value. Our mechanical clocks and our sense of time passing are purely real axis phenomena. I would agree the only quality of time relevant to mathematics is differential time. We can only know or sense now, but this does not speak to time’s existence. It must be accounted for in our mathematical physics dimensionally as degrees of freedom on an equal basis with spatial dimensions within the enveloping algebra.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 17, 2019 @ 06:35 GMT
Why are physicists happy with the paradoxes (logical inconsistencies) of special relativity? I believe that it is primarily due to the numerous experimental results that show 'time dilation'. Einstein built multiple times into his inertial frames; automatically destroying the intuitive understanding of absolute time as universal simultaneity and replacing it with "the relativity...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 17, 2019 @ 08:46 GMT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-akILbzjhc

SR was accepted long before 1971 or even the Myon speculation. Why? Perhaps the 100 Autoren were ignored in 1932 for propaganda reasons.

I consider Einstein's intentional nonsensical "synchronization" the central root of time dilution and all that.

EB

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 18, 2019 @ 03:44 GMT
One more paradox from

http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/MuonRelativity.htm ?

"they use time dilation from one direction and length contraction from the other! It’s hard to say whether the presenters are aware of their inconsistent logic or if they are just reciting it with a straight face."

Pre-Relativistic Doppler effects on apparent length and apparent time depend on the sign of v.

With 1971 I referred to an experiment that might have overlooked the Sagnac effect.

Where are the many experimental confirmations of SR?

EB

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 25, 2019 @ 00:39 GMT
Edwin,

Maybe, the answer is Max, Max, Max, and once again Max. Maxwell's aether worried the community. Max Abraham firmly believed in it. Max Planck and Max von Laue supported Einstein's utterly mistakable interpretation of the principle of relativity as Relativity. Max Born built a bridge via Stern/Gerlach to the also multi-paradoxical mechanical interpretation of quantum physics.

While I admit, my suspicion concerning the Stern/Gerlach experiment might be unfounded, I maintain: The fundamental logical inconsistency of Einstein's 1905 relative two-way velocity is definitely inacceptable to me.

I realized that even prominent opponents of Relativity overlooked or swallowed it.

You are attributing gamma to energy. This might be the most reasonable way out, no matter whether or not you are correct in all other details.

EB

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 19, 2019 @ 14:05 GMT
About this time it is for me a link with this space respecting this general relativity.It is like a duration correlated with the rotating sphères probably.Now of course we know that we can decrease our internal clocks due to this special relativity when we reach c.It is also a good Tools this special relativity permitting to rank the evolution of our universe because more we go far in space more we return in the past for the observer.Time and space are linked and are foundamentals ,regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eric Aspling wrote on Feb. 21, 2019 @ 12:16 GMT
Hi Georgina,

This post was simply to express why the illusion of time seems to progress directionally based on quantum gates and the way they can transform quantum information. Ensuring the unitarity and thus reversibility of quantum gates that go unmeasured doesn’t give any new information toward understanding how to interpret the wave function.

It does however link the evolution of entropy in the universe to a preferential time direction (2nd law of thermo). It also spreads some light on how the system behaves this way. The measurement problem could answer why it behaves this way but the statement that observed time has preferential direction is not novel, but it is highly debated.

I have yet to hear a philosophical argument that there are two versions of time one that has preferential direction and one that does not. Not only making the argument, but applying it to reality was what I attempted to do here.

When the mathematics become developed to answer the measurement problem, the current “shut up and calculate” methods will be emergent out of the theory. Thanks,

Eric

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Feb. 21, 2019 @ 14:36 GMT
Eric,

"This post was simply to express why the illusion of time seems to progress directionally.."

The answer is obvious, if you disregard "conventional wisdom" and think about the following:

It is all about "seeming" rather than "being".

Imagine you have a machine with a "start" button. As soon as you press that button, time will run in reverse, throughout the entire cosmos, for exactly five seconds, and then resume running forward.

No observer ANYWHERE would EVER notice! It is ENTIRELY unobservable. Because the first thing that happens would be returning the cosmos to the state immediately before the button was pushed - and that includes removing/erasing all memory of the past "future" that was just reversed.

In other words, "time-reversing" is entirely unobservable, even in principle, even when it happens. That is why it has never been observed. We could all be repeatedly taking two-steps forward in time, followed by one-step back, and there is no way for us to ever observe that fact, because true time-reversing, erases all information about its very occurrence - by definition.

"The measurement problem could answer why it behaves this way..." Exactly. There is nothing left, no "forensic evidence" to ever be measured - the process of time-reversal always removes all detectable evidence of itself. It has nothing to do with quantum theory.

Only an observer "outside" of our cosmos and its reversals in time, could ever observe such reversals. But we are not such observers.

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 21, 2019 @ 21:15 GMT
Eric, I'm not sure how you can address (to paraphrase) the illusion of time progressing in a directional manner, when the quantum gates you mention can only be considered as a tally of mathematics performed. Is the seeming uni-directionality a illusion? Or is it assumed to be an illusion by accepting the mathematically sanctioned time reversibility of classical mechanics and relativity? If the background in which all processes are happening is the configuration of all that exists and the change in that configuration is foundational passage of time, time is not reversible and the dirrectionality not an illusion, but a metaphor. If instead one considers the sequence of products from measurement or observation occurring within the afore mentioned background, they too are not reversible. That providing the perceived "direction" of time.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eric Aspling replied on Feb. 23, 2019 @ 16:20 GMT
Hi Georgina,

The "illusion" is simply a catch phrase associated with the debate about temporal direction. The argument is usually centralized about unitarity in quantum mechanics. Basically stated that if a quantum gate is Unitary then there exists a law that takes a state 1 to state 2, and there must also exist a law that takes state 2 to state 1. Quantum gates that are not measurements, are required to be Unitary. Measurement gates are not required to do this. Certainly, this is a conundrum that is hence to be solved mathematically by understanding the measurement problem.

My solution to thinking about the debate is that both of these things exist independently of each other. Quantum Mechanically, there does exist a notion of unitarity that is absolute. However, there is also directional time that we experience through measurement. No real mathematics or physics gets accomplished but a sort of entertaining philosophy can be drawn from the example.

Eric

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 26, 2019 @ 04:33 GMT
Eckhard has read and grasped my paper Everything's relative… and remarked above that

"Attributing gamma to energy… might be the most reasonable way out" [regardless of whether I'm correct in all other details.]

The Fizeau experiment [among others] is still not physically understood, so my details of such may or may not be correct, nevertheless the energy-time model versus the space-time model yields intuitive physical explanations of experiments without the inconsistencies of special relativity (the 'paradoxes').

Having spent almost 2 years arguing these points with excellent physicists, including two of Feynman's students, I am very aware that relativity has been pushed into countless areas of application. The application of gamma to relativistic energies is significant, but time-dilation experiments are the basis of most relativists' faith in SR.

I have become convinced that focusing on many details, while necessary, is distracting, and that it is better to focus on the root false premise – Einstein's introduction of multiple time dimensions into the problem at the 'definition-of-terms' level, and since all theoretical arguments are then framed in these terms (i.e., inertial reference frames) then the falsehood permeates every logical argument thereafter.

Einstein complemented the introduction of his false premise of multiple times with his imaginary invention of perfect, weightless clocks, that somehow magically measure time in each time dimension. With real physical clocks, based on mass and inertia, the increase in relativistic mass causes clock's inertia to increase, and since every real clock depends on inertia this provides a universal explanation of 'time dilation' in all SR experiments.

My best to all,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 20, 2019 @ 04:09 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Let me guess: You are hoping for more attention to your 57 pages paper „Everything’s relative, or is it?“. Did you therefore refuse discussing just selected details at FQXi ? Can you please guide me to forums that are better suited?

Being a German, I understand “or is it” in the cautiously doubting naïve sense of “oder etwa nicht”. Having...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 20, 2019 @ 19:48 GMT
Dear Eckard,

When I began ~2 years ago I believed special relativity was simple. I no longer believe that. Over a year’s effort produced ‘Everything’s Relative, or is it?’ and I hope to soon publish another 6 months follow on effort. I often spend 2 to 3 hours face to face with quite competent physicists (all older) and know how very hard it is to “unlearn” Relativity concepts.

Einstein embedded his false premise (multiple times) in his definition of inertial reference frame and formulated all of his principles and postulates in terms of inertial reference frames. Thus the game is lost before it begins. One accepts his false premise or one cannot discuss relativity. This leads to length contraction, relativity of simultaneity, etc.

I claim gamma is an inertial factor, applied to mass, NOT velocity, whether in particle physics or in inertial clocks. This causes real clocks to slow down because their increased inertia resists the restoring force (accel) common to all oscillating systems, and accounts for ‘time dilation’.

The gravitational field has energy and is physically a real ‘medium’ in which light can propagate. This ‘ether’ equivalent establishes a preferred frame, canceling Einstein’s “no preferred frame” as the basis of “space-time symmetry”.

I wish that you and I could meet face-to-face. It would be enjoyable and far more efficient than these comments. My opinion is that reading the essay four or five times would be necessary to understand well the alternate theory.

Thank you for suggesting that my theory is correct.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 20, 2019 @ 19:50 GMT
“1) Einstein hid his false premise in the definition of inertial reference frame and then based all axioms on this”.

I rather directly attribute his key mistake to the obvious misuse of Poincarè synchronization based on two reference frames.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Kjetil Hustveit wrote on Mar. 2, 2019 @ 17:34 GMT
I always find it fruitful to try to explain the universe in a completely background independent way. How to explain everything without time, space and forces and matter? I think some of the equations from loop quantum gravity may hint about something as they don't take time into account. Time, as almost everything else must somehow be emergent from a very simple ground structure. And time like everything else must be local. Such that I experience my own time, exactly like you, when reading this experience your own. Although the difference is way too small to notice.

I think what we eventually experience as time is a result of a really simple mechanism. If we take a really broad view of what the universe is we can say it is a huge heap of lumps of information that is related to each other. When some relation changes, time ticks. Each change of relation is not completely deterministic - there is always some random element, hence time has a direction. The cause of the change can be thought of as a point of action, something that instigates a change. The total number of these points is by the way the total energy in the system.

These ideas leeds us inevitably to ponder upon if conservation of energy is a fundamental property or if it is a result of a higher order error correction algorithm like, say spacetime. Anyhow it is indeed fortunate for the stability of the universe that we have a maximum speed limit and a swift mechanism for decoherence.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alex Rhatushnyak wrote on Mar. 4, 2019 @ 06:57 GMT
Bird's-eye view of time and evolution

is in the attached single-page document.

See also:

https://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/226

attachments: bev_otae.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Mar. 5, 2019 @ 03:45 GMT
Hi Alex, what exactly did you want to draw our attention to at the fQxi page address mentioned? I've looked at the page but don't know what it is I should be 'seeing'. Could you give a very brief summary of the linked one page document. I don't know you and do not know that the link can be trusted. I am interested if you have a novel way of thinking about time. I'd say time is my primary interest.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Alex Rhatushnyak replied on Mar. 5, 2019 @ 13:31 GMT
> Could you give a very brief summary of the linked one page document.

Georgina, it's already a very very brief summary,

but here it is again in PNG format instead of PDF.

attachments: bev_otae.png

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 5, 2019 @ 21:21 GMT
Alex,is there nothing you can say about it? Is this the same as Max Tegmark's bird's eye view of the universe or something different? Is it looking at space-time from the outside or a different kind of time? What assumptions must be made to envision the birds eye view? How is this helpful?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ilgaitis Prusis replied on Mar. 18, 2019 @ 12:11 GMT
To Erick, Georgina and all.

Now I read your discussion about reversibility of time. You all are right. The problem is that there are several types of motion. The time is only characteristic of motion. So there are several types of time. The time is irreversible in the irreversible motions. For example, accelerating expansion of Universe. It is absolute time, independent from other motions and irreversible. The time is reversible in the reversible motions, for example, different waves. It is local time. More in: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331440555_About_Arr
ow_of_Time

Ilgaitis

attachments: About_Arrow_of_Time.pdf, Pioneer_Anomaly_and_Dimensions_of_Time.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Saibal Mitra wrote on Mar. 10, 2019 @ 22:52 GMT
https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.1615

Each instant of time a new Universe

We present an alternative view of quantum evolution in which each moment of time is viewed as a new "universe" and time evolution is given by correlations between them.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ilgaitis Prusis wrote on Mar. 18, 2019 @ 11:17 GMT
In the nutshell about nature of time.

Time per se does not exist. There is only motion. The concept of time allows you to compare motions. All clocks compare motions. Absolute time is the effect of expanding Universe. Time have 3 dimensions. In the direction from past to future active is only present. The past is no longer, but the future is not yet. The present have 2 dimensions in the cosmic scale distances. More in: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329453486_Pioneer_A
nomaly_and_Dimensions_of_Time

Ilgaitis

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 20, 2019 @ 00:00 GMT
Re “There is only motion”:

Yes, but what causes this “motion”? The laws of physics are merely relationships. The laws of physics attempt to represent change of number via the delta symbol, but they don’t explain why change of number should ever occur. The laws of physics assume change of number, but physics has no explanation for change of number.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ilgaitis Prusis wrote on Mar. 20, 2019 @ 10:46 GMT
Dear Lorraine,

The initial cause of motion is force. The laws of physics are attempts to explain laws of nature. There is no numbers in the nature. The numbers are imagination of human mind. In the nature are merely forcefields and its sources (mass, charge etc). All other arise from mutual action of forces.

Best regards

Ilgaitis

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 21, 2019 @ 02:16 GMT
Ilgaitis,

Re “There is only motion” [1]; “The initial cause of motion is force” [2]:

Yes, a force is a result of a quantum mechanical particle interaction, involving quantum jumps, that changes the motion of particles. But the motion of things is closely related to the question of time: how would we detect time if we never observed motion?

The laws of physics don’t change, so how does physics represent motion, given a frame of reference? Motion can be thought of as a change in the numbers that apply to some of the variables (e.g. position, velocity, acceleration, energy, momentum) in the equations that comprise the laws of physics [3]. These laws don’t ever initiate number change: the laws of physics merely represent number change relationships using the delta symbol. But seemingly all number changes in the universe are initiated by quantum mechanics e.g. the quantum jumps in particle interactions.

So, our sense of time comes from the number changes initiated by (what we call) quantum mechanics.

1. Ilgaitis Prusis wrote on Mar. 18, 2019 @ 11:17 GMT

2. Ilgaitis Prusis wrote on Mar. 20, 2019 @ 10:46 GMT

3. The laws of physics are assumed to represent laws of nature.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ilgaitis Prusis replied on Mar. 21, 2019 @ 10:05 GMT
Dear Lorraine,

Thank you, now I understand that we are talking about different things. You writing about difficulties of quantum mechanics to interpret the time and movement, but I am talking about movement of celestial bodies. In the my case no problems to observe motion of Sun or Moon. My sense of time is based on motion of Sun. There is no need for quantum mechanics.

Do you look at everything from a Quantum Field Theory (QFT) perspective?

QFT, like all mainstream physics, is based on the assumption that space is eternal endless container. It is “free imagination of human mind” (Einstein). This leads to many unsolved conundrums.

I prefer facts: there is expanding Universe with mass and therefore gravity. All other (space, time, etc.) are consequences of that. As a result, all physics puzzles vanish.

Best regards

Ilgaitis

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 22, 2019 @ 00:24 GMT
Ilgaitis,

I probably essentially agree with part of what you are saying:

I would say that space and time are not the most fundamental things that structure the universe: space and time information is derived from other types of information, via information relationships (i.e. law of nature relationships).

Space and time information, and seemingly all other information about the universe, is subjective information, not absolute information. I.e. the categories of information (e.g. “space”, “time”) seem to be somewhat absolute, but the numbers that apply to the categories are not absolute.

Lorraine

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ilgaitis Prusis wrote on Mar. 22, 2019 @ 10:01 GMT
Hi, Lorraine

If I understood correctly you think the information is primary. Everything else (matter, space, time etc) comes from information. If so, there is question: what is information? I have not been able to find the definition of information.

Ilgaitis

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 22, 2019 @ 19:56 GMT
Hi,you can consider informations like codes sent from the center of our universal sphere,the central biggest BH sending primordial informations implying all.The waves particles duality is correlated.In my model of spherisation,I consider quantum sphères sent from this central cosmological singularity and they are'coded'implying'properties'of'matters'and'waves'energy Inside this space time.Informations can be ranked and of course we must differenciate the primordial informations with others kinds. Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 22, 2019 @ 20:01 GMT
The Density also can be studied for the ranking of different informations.The spherical volumes also like the thermodynamics corrélations and QFT.The importance correlated with the sortings,synchros or superimposings so appears and so the ranking.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Mar. 22, 2019 @ 22:19 GMT
Ilgaitis,

Information is all we have about ourselves, our world and the universe. But we know the rest of the world and the universe exists independent to ourselves e.g. because we don’t choose to be maimed and killed in car accidents, and we don’t choose to drown in a tsunami. However, we are not 100% independent of the world and the universe, because we realise that we are part of the world and the universe.

Information is what is represented symbolically e.g. as words, sentences and equations. These symbols representing information are written on paper, spoken as soundwaves, or stored and manipulated in computers (where the representations are re-represented as binary digits). We can assume that, underneath all the representations, is something real: something that is not a representation. Law of nature relationships, mass, velocity, space and time are real. However, it is clear that mass, velocity, space and time are relationships, and relationship between relationships.

As observers, information is our context with respect to the rest of the world. Information is not relationships between things (e.g. observers, chairs and piles of sand are things). Information is relationships between our knowledge of things. If there is such a thing as objectively true information, it is not useful to us: the only useful information is contextual information.

Lorraine

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 23, 2019 @ 10:23 GMT
Hi Lorraine,thanks for sharing your ideas,it is well explained.Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ilgaitis Prusis replied on Mar. 23, 2019 @ 16:35 GMT
Hi, Lorraine

This is the best explanation of the information which I have ever read.

Best regards

Ilgaitis

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 23, 2019 @ 17:02 GMT
It is well explained but we need to rank and differenciate the informations.For example we have primordial informations in our quantum series implying properties.We have the binar informations invented by us the humans and we have informations due to communication and encodings in brains.That permits to better understand the consciousness even in considering the 3 main systems.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Mar. 23, 2019 @ 04:53 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

I asked “how to unlearn Maxwell’s hypothetic (light carrying) medium?”. When Einstein himself uttered: we don’t need the ether, this additionally contributed to massive distrust among the 100 authors who naively focused on paradoxes that are deeper rooted in Maxwell’s hypothesis of a medium analog to air that carries sound. Why was the ether felt as an indispensable credo to Lorentz? Shouldn’t he have realized that acoustic media are subject to various physical influences on the wave speed, e.g. what gas, temperature, pressure, wind, etc. while electromagnetic waves may propagate within empty space with universally constant speed c?

You mentioned (on p. 14) that Einstein referred to “Fizeau’s experiment upon which I [Einstein] based my special theory of relativity”. I overlooked this detail. Can you please give a reference?

More than a decade agoI attended a conference in Pine Mountain which is not too much remote from your residence (in Huntington/Alabama?). Meanwhile I didn’t even leave my home in Magdeburg for properties near Berlin. So there is no chance for a face-to-face conversation.

I am however ready to take issue concerning what I consider to be better explained including the 2c fallacy.

My very best regards

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 23, 2019 @ 18:53 GMT
Correction:

I meant Huntsville, not Huntington.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 26, 2019 @ 18:16 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I don’t believe the analogy of pressure waves in air have much bearing on electromagnetic propagation in a medium.

I include below an interesting quote I just found, the link follows.

“However, there is another indisputable source of gravitational waves that we know about exceedingly well. This source is an electromagnetic wave. The argument is very simple: where there is an electromagnetic wave, there is an energy-momentum tensor. By the field equations of general relativity, wherever there is an energy-momentum tensor, there is a non-vanishing Ricci tensor, hence a non-vanishing Riemann tensor which invariantly characterizes the presence of spacetime curvature. This field of spacetime curvature is necessarily localized within the region of the energy-momentum tensor (one cannot boost from the speed c) and it flows with speed c. So we draw the following conclusion: electromagnetic waves have an intrinsic duality: they are necessarily also gravitational waves. Thus the detection of gravitational waves is the routine of our everyday existence as we detect electromagnetic waves.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5852e579be659442a01f2
7b8/t/586c1b8d893fc03b140b25c7/1483479950312/Cooperstock_201
5.pdf

I do not recall which reference the Fizeau quote came from.

I lived in Huntsville when I worked at NASA, I left to pursue microprocessor design and moved to Silicon Valley. I’ve been on the California Coastside for almost 40 years. I agree that it would be wonderful to meet and discuss things face-to-face, but it won’t happen.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 28, 2019 @ 18:20 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Let me go on preferring to trust in what you ascribed to HH on your page 20: "Michelson's experiment(s)is taken to imply that there is no ether. ... One paradox is (already) too much."

Your Cooperstock paper deters me by using various tensors and the notion spacetime.

While I am not at all interested in em propagation in a medium, AE is ascribed also on p. 20 to state: "Fizeaus's experiments and stellar aberration were the phenomena upon which I most strongly based my theory".

What about your correct attribution of gamma to energy, i.e. v_squared, not to v. I found in the four annus mirabilis papers:

Photonic effect

Brownian motion

Special Relativity

Mass-energy equivalence

nothing that justified SR. On the contrary, the first page of SR indicated to me that AE was aware of the issue v vs. v_squared.

We should deal with more issues in which we agree.

My best regards,

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Mar. 23, 2019 @ 17:25 GMT
“Existence” takes meaning from its logical opposite, nothingness.

Existence from nothingness is not possible because of the rule of non-contradiction.

But, between “existence” and “nothingness”, a dynamic process can happen, which is neither.

So, we have a dynamic process. Starts as a small point. But look out the window and it is a big universe. This process is spontaneous (nobody is pushing) and generating (makes more units of itself, not superimposable= big universe). A spontaneous and generating process is …. An explosive process. The Big Bang was not an event. It was the beginning of a spontaneous process that is still happening right now.

The whole universe is made of this substance-process which, in its simplest form, we call TIME. This is why, as we know, at the atomic and sub-atomic level everything moves, jiggles, vibrates, … by itself.

Dark matter is just this time process clumping on itself and giving the impression (effect) that we interpret as the presence of some unseen dark mass…

See my last essay for more details

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Mar. 24, 2019 @ 22:05 GMT
Steve and Ilgaitis,

Thanks for your vote of confidence in my description of information. But please note that my view of information is not physics’ view of information.

I distinguish:

1) information, which has inherent context with respect to the rest of reality; from

2) A) coded representations of information (e.g. words, numbers, equations, binary digits are coded representations), and B) mathematical calculations of probability performed on coded representations (which results in a number i.e. Shannon information), where both A and B are symbolic representations which have no inherent context with respect to the rest of reality.

I’m saying information is an observer’s subjective experience of relationship and context, where this relationship and context is real: it is not a symbolic or coded representation of relationships and context. Physics is saying that information is objective facts, symbolic representations without context.

Physics’ view of information is muddled, and somewhat mystical, because physics fails to distinguish between information and coded representations of information. Physics usually believes that coded information IS information. And physics contends that numbers that have no context, can have “surprise value” or equivalently “reduction in ignorance/uncertainty”, and that this surprise value is a feature of information.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 25, 2019 @ 00:46 GMT
P.S.

Computers use electricity and integrated circuits on silicon chips to represent zeroes and ones and represent Boolean AND/OR/NOT logic.

In quantum computers, quantum states are used to represent the quantum version of zeroes and ones; and special quantum logic gates/circuits are used to represent a special, looser, quantum logic, which provides the correct solutions with only a calculatable probability.

We use these quantum states to represent a code, so that we can do certain types of mathematical calculations.

But these quantum states are not actually a code. So, notions like the “computational capacity of the universe” [1] are completely misguided.

1. “Computational capacity of the universe” by Seth Lloyd, October 2001, https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0110141

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 25, 2019 @ 19:21 GMT
Hello Lorraine,

You are welcome,I like read your ideas and thoughts.

Best Regards :)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 29, 2019 @ 19:03 GMT
In reply to Eric's original query; there is a precise match!

You appear to be talking about theories of Quantum Gravity or Geometrization, Eric. There is some resemblance with the conditional application of direction in CDT (Causal Dynamical Triangulations), where adjoining geometric segments must have the same time direction. But I see a pretty precise match with a recent paper by Paola Zizzi, which talks about a specific configuration of gates constructing spacetime in the early universe, in the context of a Quantum Growing Network.

Entangled Space-Time is found at arXiv:1807.06433

I hope the paper above is relevant to this discussion. I only discovered this thread today, but I recently submitted a paper for publication on the origin of time. So I think I might have something worthwhile to say. But I will wait until I've looked through the many interesting comments above. I intend to rejoin this conversation in earnest, when I have a little more time to spare.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 29, 2019 @ 19:17 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

Happy to see you again,thanks also for sharing your paper.You are relevant.BestRegards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Mar. 31, 2019 @ 17:52 GMT
the only time is NOW

attachments: 1_How_many_Models_of_Time_do_we_need_in_Physics_-_personal_copy.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 7, 2019 @ 23:40 GMT
Information is not objective [1]. Information is the only possible knowledge that components of the universe can carry i.e. incomplete subjective knowledge of their context within the system.

This contextual information is not about relationships between the components of the system; and obviously, information has nothing to do with binary digits, which have no inherent context, and which can only ever symbolically represent information.

Contextual information is about relationships between categories of knowledge, where “lower-level” categories of knowledge are e.g. mass, position, velocity (speed and direction) etc.

But seemingly, time is a primitive “higher-level” category of knowledge, which can only be acquired via algorithmic analysis of “lower-level” information. Living things acquire sophisticated “higher-level” knowledge about their context, which is necessarily built upon analysis and synthesis of “lower-level” information. But one must ask: what is the use of this “higher-level” information if the information is not associated with “higher-level” outcomes i.e. outcomes that can’t be provided by law of nature relationships?

1. The Quantum Question of an Objective Reality, by Gabriella Skoff, 21st March 2019: “The researcher’s findings suggest … that in quantum physics there is no objective reality; that reality itself is observer-dependent... this conclusion …calls the concept of objective fact—the very pursuit of science itself—into question.” https://projectqsydney.com/2019/03/21/the-quantum-question-o
f-an-objective-reality

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 8, 2019 @ 00:45 GMT
More correctly, time is a “higher-level” category of information, which can only be acquired via algorithmic analysis of “lower-level” categories of information, where the quantities/numbers applying to these categories have changed. The sense of time is due to the sense of change.

Some people would claim that this number change needs no explanation: that (what we would represent as) number change is just what the universe does, end of story. But this type of defeatist attitude is contrary to the spirit of physics. And in fact when looked at closely, number change is quantum: there is no smooth number change in the universe. This raises the question: should the numerical outcomes of quantum events be seen as “higher-level” outcomes, as opposed to the “lower-level” numerical outcomes that are due to law of nature relationships?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 8, 2019 @ 01:21 GMT
Eric Aspling,

Re “Understanding the Irreversibility of Time”:

Algorithmic information IS one-way information.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ilgaitis Prusis replied on Apr. 8, 2019 @ 16:25 GMT
Dear Lorraine,

Your answer is incomplete. Algorithm is sequence of operations in time. There is other way: analog computing. In this case information is distributed in space and one gets result simultaneously.

Best regards

Ilgaitis

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Zhigang Lu wrote on Apr. 10, 2019 @ 03:52 GMT
It is good to see so many thoughts about time here. I have been fascinated by the puzzles in physics and started to think they might all be related to the nature of time. For example, to make sense of wave-particle duality, we can assume that time itself has duality. If time is a complex axis which includes two stages (continuous and discrete), then particle and wave are two natural phenomena we can observe as outcome. And it also answers some ancient paradox about motions, e.g. Achilles and the tortoise, flying arrow etc.

I will explain in details if anyone interested and if it fits to this topic.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Zhigang Lu replied on Apr. 17, 2019 @ 19:59 GMT
Here is some thoughts about time and its duality nature, too long and too much diagrams so I have to put it in the attachment. It is actually kind of "Alternative Models of time" to explain reality, hope my poor English doesn’t bother your reading :)

abstract: Wave–particle duality is an ongoing conundrum in modern physics. Most physicists accept wave-particle duality as the best explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena; however, it is not without controversy.

Albert Einstein once wrote: It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do.

Since the meaning or interpretation has not been satisfactorily resolved, physicists have various views about the nature of duality, which includes Both-particle-and-wave view/Wave-only view/ Particle-only view/Neither-wave-nor-particle view etc.

If there are two kinds of reality at different times, it is easier to make sense of the duality by understanding the nature of time. Could time itself be composed of two aspects as well?

We will raise this conjecture to the status of a postulate, and also introduce the concept of discrete time domain, in which all wave or energy appears to be particles. The theory to be developed is based on the relationships between discrete time observation and continuous motion process. Quantum experiments such as double-slit experiment, Wheeler's delayed choice experiment and Schrödinger's cat etc. are discussed and explained on this postulate.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Zhigang Lu replied on Apr. 17, 2019 @ 20:03 GMT
the attachment

attachments: 1_To_make_sense_of_wave-particle_duality.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 14, 2019 @ 00:14 GMT
Ilgaitis,

Re Ilgaitis Prusis replied on Apr. 8, 2019 @ 16:25 GMT:

We represent law of nature relationships (which represent categories like mass, time and position) with equations, symbols and numbers. A law of nature relationship that is written using symbols on a piece of paper, or symbolically represented within a computer, is a “dead” thing with no power over the universe. In comparison, real law of nature relationships are “living” relationships which have real power and effect in the universe.

Laws of nature don’t operate “in” time. Law of nature relationships connect natural categories like time, energy, mass and position: in the “living” laws of nature, time is just another category of information. So, laws of nature “sit above” time.

We, and computers, take time to work out the results of equations which are meant to represent “living” laws of nature. To calculate the position of a particle in “the next step in time”, will take us, or a computer, many “steps in time” to do the calculation. But “living” law of nature relationships are not performing calculations, they don’t operate “in” time, i.e. they don’t operate in time steps.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 14, 2019 @ 00:15 GMT
(continued from above)

To symbolically represent time steps in the universe you need to use algorithms, and you need to know what the algorithms are meant to represent. As above, these algorithms represent something “living” that has real power and effect in the universe; and these algorithms represent something that “sits above” time, because time is just another category of information in these algorithms. In addition, these algorithms don’t necessarily represent something that is “set-in-stone” like the law of nature relationships are seemingly “set-in-stone”.

Lorraine

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 25, 2019 @ 01:22 GMT
See post “Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 25, 2019 @ 01:16 GMT”, which is a clarification of the above 2 posts.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 15, 2019 @ 00:13 GMT
Are there aspects of the universe that can only be represented algorithmically, and does this relate to the question of Time?

1. Statements like the following represent the type of information that law of nature categories and their associated numbers provide:

Relative speed = 23 (in some system of units)

2. Statements like the following represent higher-level information (this is information about information, where comparisons have been made, and questions asked about more fundamental-level information):

Relative speed > 17 is true

Relative speed = 23 is true

Relative speed has changed

The delta symbol in physics’ equations (that represent laws of nature) represents higher-level information.

3. Are there aspects of the universe that can only be represented algorithmically? These algorithms would necessarily couple higher-level information with “higher-level outcomes” i.e. outcomes that cannot be achieved via laws of nature alone, because laws of nature are not affected by higher-level True/False information. Clearly, higher-level information can have no function, or reason to exist, in the universe unless it is coupled with higher-level outcomes.

Statements like the following represent higher-level information coupled with higher-level outcomes (outcomes that cannot be achieved via laws of nature alone):

IF relative speed > 17 is true, THEN make relative position = 41 (in some system of units)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 15, 2019 @ 00:22 GMT
(continued from above)

4. The above statement represents a genuine change of number for the relative position category. Something new has been added to the system: a genuine change of number, as opposed to a change of number that can be fully accounted for by the law of nature relationship structure, without adding any new numbers to the system. So, the above statement, in the context of the laws of nature, contains a higher-level category of information that could potentially be acquired:

IF relative speed > 17 is true, THEN relative position = 41 AND change is true

This can seemingly also be represented as something like the following:

IF relative speed > 17 is true, THEN relative position = 41 AND time = time + 1

5. So, Time is a higher-level category of information: it represents whether it is true or not that genuine change of number has occurred in other, lower-level, categories of information.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 19, 2019 @ 00:02 GMT
Re Lee Smolin’s public lecture webcast “Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution”, 17 April 2019 [1]:

Theoretical physicist Lee Smolin seems to link people who don’t believe in rationality and evidence (is he perhaps referring to climate-change deniers, or Donald Trump?) with physicists he calls “anti-realists”:

The theory [Quantum Mechanics] these anti-realists [Bohr and Heisenberg] made was not consistent with realism… Now, does this matter?...among the things that we are concerned about…there seem to be a lot of people out there in the world who are gaining or interested in gaining power who don’t believe in rationality, in evidence and so forth… “A simple criterion for science to qualify as postmodern is that it be free from any dependence on the concept of objective truth”. Let that sink in (Smolin and audience members laugh)… “By this criterion…the…interpretation of quantum physics due to Niels Bohr and the Copenhagen school is seen as postmodernist.”

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 19, 2019 @ 00:05 GMT
(continued from above)

Lee Smolin represents a very large group of “realist” physicists and philosophers. They have no physics that can account for a situation in which we (and other living things) can intervene and change the world. So their views logically imply that, because we have never, and can never, intervene and change the world, it is the pure and unaided unfolding of laws of nature that caused plastics to litter the planet, damaging wildlife and ecosystems.

Lee Smolin, and all of us, have acquired “higher-level” [2] knowledge of the world, and yet there is no physics that can account for higher-level knowledge; and there is no physics that can link this acquired higher-level knowledge to outcomes in the world – according to physics the only possible outcomes are those determined by laws of nature. So, according to Smolin’s view of the world, we can’t intervene and make genuine changes to reality (e.g. to avert climate change, and clean up plastic pollution), we just have to hope that the laws of nature, which are based on “lower-level” information, and have no connection to higher-level knowledge of the situation, will somehow fix the problem.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zri9gS1w5ok , quote starting at approximately 19 minutes in.

2. https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3255#post_150459

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 19, 2019 @ 00:27 GMT
P.S.

Re Time:

I'm contending (https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3255#post_150460) that Time IS a type of higher-level knowledge.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 19, 2019 @ 22:42 GMT
Re Lee Smolin’s public lecture webcast “Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution”, 17 April 2019 [1]:

Theoretical physicist Lee Smolin says that a theory (e.g. quantum mechanics) that is complete shouldn’t depend on our intervention. But he is assuming that he already knows what the world should be like: he is assuming that the world is such that elements (e.g. living things) can’t and don’t “intervene” and change the world. I.e. he wrongly assumes that the world is such that, when looked at closely, it is nothing but the unfolding of laws of nature that caused plastics to litter the planet.

Smolin also implies that quantum mechanics must be wrong because the people who formulated the theory had “anti-realist” beliefs. But who would think, for example, that a universe with laws of nature and massy-mass that you could kick would appear out nothing and nowhere? Whatever way you look at it, the foundational aspects of the universe are necessarily “anti-realist”.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zri9gS1w5ok

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Apr. 19, 2019 @ 23:25 GMT
I’m arguing that information doesn’t float in some hypothetical ether. I’m arguing that it is things like particles, atoms and living things that carry/ experience information, including Time information. So, this is the information that particles carry:

1) Categories of information, in the form of law of nature information relationships, which we represent with equations.

2) Quantity/ intensity information, which we represent with numbers that apply to the categories.

3) “Quantum mechanical” information. I’m contending that this comprises higher-level information coupled with outcomes, which can be represented as an algorithmic statement:

3.1) Higher-level true/false conditions and number-change (Time) information

is coupled with

3.2) Higher-level number-change outcomes involving “quantum jumps” of number.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 19, 2019 @ 23:27 GMT
The above post was from me.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 25, 2019 @ 01:16 GMT
Time is like a measure of number jumps. Time is a category devoted to number-jump change in the numbers that apply to other categories of information. While other numbers may go “forward” or “backward”, Time merely records that change has occurred, so it always goes “forward”.

The time category, like the mass and position categories, is an information relationship which we can represent mathematically (or algorithmically in the case of time); and relative masses, positions and times, can be represented by specific numbers. The imaginary set of all possible position numbers is known as “space”, and the imaginary set of all possible time numbers is known as “time”.

So, you have time as an information category (i.e. a relationship), time as a specific number, and time as an imaginary set of possible numbers.

The question is: does a law of nature relationship (like the mass, position and time categories) exist “in” the time that is the imaginary set of possible numbers? Clearly, it doesn’t: the time category is not a number, so it doesn’t exist in the set of possible numbers representing time. But specific time numbers, applying to specific things like particles or people, can be imagined as existing in an imaginary set of possible time numbers.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 25, 2019 @ 01:18 GMT
(The above post is a clarification of the posts “Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 14, 2019 @ 00:14 GMT” and “Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 14, 2019 @ 00:15 GMT”.)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 25, 2019 @ 02:33 GMT
Lorraine, there is a difference between (unmeasured) 'passage of time' and timing, a measurement. Records can be made using timing but 'passage of time' does not require conducting timing measurement in order to occur.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 27, 2019 @ 21:56 GMT
Georgina,

At a fundamental level, time does not exist. The equations of physics, which represent laws of nature, show that at a fundamental level, time does not exist.

The equations of physics show mathematical relationships between categories of information, where mass and position are examples of categories of information. But the equations of physics show that time cannot be represented in a mathematical relationship between fundamental categories of information.

Instead, time is a category that represents change of number for other categories of information: change of number can only be represented by an algorithm; time is information about information, i.e. time is a higher-level category of information.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vesuvius Now wrote on Apr. 26, 2019 @ 01:36 GMT
Here is a new theory of time. It answers a lot of questions.

https://philpapers.org/rec/MERANT-2

Georgina Woodward thanks for your help on a very very early version of the paper, I will put you in the acknowledgements in a future version.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Kuyukov Vitaly wrote on May. 1, 2019 @ 12:01 GMT
Holography the time. Perhaps time can be expressed as



Where S is the entropy of entanglement of an arbitrary closed surface. r is the radius to the surface point. Integration over a closed surface.

This is very similar to the analogy. Time behaves as a potential, and entropy as a charge.

From this formula there are several possible consequences.

1.Bekenstein Hawking entropy for the event horizon. Light cone case





2.Gravitational time dilation. The case if matter inside a closed surface processes information at the quantum level according to the Margolis-Livitin theorem.





3.The formula is invariant under Lorentz transformations.

4.If this definition is substituted instead of time, then the interval acquires a different look, which probably indicates a different approach of the Minkowski pseudometric with a complex plane



Where is the squared length of Planck



Quantum tunneling of noncommutative geometry gives the definition of time in the form of holography, that is, in the form of a closed surface integral. Ultimately, the holography of time shows the dualism between quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity.

attachments: 1_dualism_1.pdf, 1_Quantum_tunneling_approach_of_noncommutative_geometry.docx

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 6, 2020 @ 05:52 GMT
Hi Kuyukov,

The universe (spacetime continuum) is about 150 billion light years across. 13.7billion years ago, at the big bang, it was smaller than a pea (some say it was even smaller, approaching the Planck scale). Yet the speed of light is the speed limit of the universe; in fact, we're told that all inertial frames are subject to the invariance of the speed of light. So how can the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 6, 2020 @ 09:07 GMT
One would imagine that a graviton has gravitational potential energy built into it in the form of eigenstates for momentum. When the graviton is just a wave function, those momentum states are randomized. But when the graviton participates in spacetime curvature, there momentum states are ordered in a way that supports an acceleration of gravity. A quantum entanglement between two photons is actually a graviton with two photons connected to it. If the photons are centrifuged using optical fiber, then the graviton (entanglement) can store a gravitationl potential energy.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Kuyukov Vitaly wrote on May. 1, 2019 @ 12:11 GMT
Holography the time

attachments: 3_Quantum_tunneling_approach_of_noncommutative_geometry.docx

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Kuyukov Vitaly wrote on May. 1, 2019 @ 12:13 GMT
t = Gh $ dS/r

attachments: 2_dualism_1.pdf, 4_Quantum_tunneling_approach_of_noncommutative_geometry.docx

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vesuvius Now wrote on May. 14, 2019 @ 21:17 GMT
Vitaly, in one of your papers you transformed t = i(tau). What is imaginary time? What is it like to go through it? What happens as you go back in time?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jorma Seppaenen wrote on Jun. 4, 2019 @ 16:01 GMT
A View to Time, inter alia

The Big Picture - Universal Time

Carlo Rovelli presented in his book "The Order of Time" the fundamental idea that universe is consisting solely of processes, also matter is a process, chancing by time. Some processes might be reversible, so that of their point of view it makes no difference witch direction time flows. This are not Carlo's...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vesuvius Now wrote on Jun. 25, 2020 @ 21:14 GMT
1. Conspicuously lacking in this whole forum is discussion of McTaggart's A-series and B-series. It is necessary, in my opinion, to understand these to be up to date on the philosophy/physics of time as of 2020.

2. There are recent semi-popular books about time from Smolin, Carroll, Rovelli, and probably some others I am missing, that are interesting.

3. I hope I may be forgiven for referring to two of my own unpublished papers, but I think these might be of interest:

A Mathematical Definition of the Present and its Duration

https://philpapers.org/rec/MERAMD-4

Non-locality in the AB-time interpretation of quantum mechanics

https://philpapers.org/rec/MERNIT

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 12, 2020 @ 20:32 GMT
Maybe if we're lucky, some day a young kid will come along and realize how quantum states are actually properties of spacetime (position, momentum, spin). Then such a kid will realize there is another option to the Einstein equations. This person will figure out that we can manipulate spacetime using entangled photons from lasers.

If the physics community was on the right track, we would have gravitational propulsion by now.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 7, 2020 @ 09:03 GMT
At the rate we're going, it will probably take between 500 and 1000 years for humanity to develop gravity drive propulsion. 500 years minimum to figure how easy it was to unify quantum mechanics with general relativity. ET comes to Earth, plays cat and mouse chase games with the US Navy, but you guys don't care. So what if time is related to entropy. It doesn't actually do anything for you. But if you understood that gravitons have properties of gravitational potential energy; if you understood that quantum entanglement between photons is actually a graviton, maybe you could figure out how to control gravity fields. But for the life of me, I can't figure out what you're looking for.

Jason

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 9, 2020 @ 23:04 GMT
[eq]psi[/eq] = graviton.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 9, 2020 @ 23:07 GMT
[

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 9, 2020 @ 23:07 GMT
psi = graviton

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 9, 2020 @ 23:09 GMT
The graviton is the wave function. The wave function is the graviton.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 9, 2020 @ 23:11 GMT
The graviton is the mathematical solution to the Schrodinger's equation. But physically, it's describing a trapped graviton.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 9, 2020 @ 23:12 GMT
The graviton is the mathematical solution to the Schrodinger's equation. But physically, it's describing a trapped graviton.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 10, 2020 @ 01:23 GMT
This is unification of QM and GR in a nut shell. Gravitons exist. They expand from a point, at the speed of light. If they are captured by charges or particles, they become part of the quantum system and are identically what the wave function is describing. If they escape or avoid quantum systems, they expand at the speed of light, overlap, and become the spacetime continuum.

Unification occurs with the graviton.

Gravity propulsion drives occur using entangled photons.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vesuvius Now wrote on Jul. 11, 2020 @ 17:01 GMT
"The graviton is the mathematical solution to the Schrodinger's equation."

no it's not. you're just throwing ideas out there instead of careful mathematical derivations based on what is already known.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 12, 2020 @ 05:11 GMT
The logic goes like this. Gravitons actually exist. They begin their existence as a point. They expand at the speed of light (which would explain why the speed of light is invariant). One of two things can happen to a graviton:

(1) it can expand forever, overlap with other gravitons, and become part of the spacetime continuum. Or,

(2) it can become captured by particles. If captured, the graviton has quantum states built into it. In the presence of a potential energy of a potential energy, the graviton will conform in the way that a wave function solution to the Schrodinger equation says it must.

The key to unification is that the graviton has quantum states for position, momentum, which gives it properties of space itself.

There is more to say, but that is the idea, if you're interested in discussing a way to unify QM with GR.

There is an experiment that can be performed, if you're interested.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 12, 2020 @ 05:24 GMT
I have to "throw ideas out there" because none of the "careful mathematical derivations" are leading anywhere.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 13, 2020 @ 02:28 GMT
The problem with string theory, quantum loop gravity and all these other mathematically fancy ideas is that they don't actually behave like spacetime, the big bang or modern physics. Instead of moving science forward, these theories are painting us into a corner; worse still, there is no experiment that can prove or disprove these theories. At least with my expanding graviton theory, they actually act like established physics AND there is an experiment that can prove it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Tony Bermanseder replied on Jul. 19, 2020 @ 04:30 GMT
The nature of time is related to timespace being precursive to the nature of space as spacetime.

The dividing 'spacetime mirror' for this is described by M-theory in 11 dimensions forming a boundary for 12-dimensional self-relative Vafa-brane theory on a undefined outside with a defined 10-dimensional string theory on the self-relative inside.

The self-relativity refers to Möbian-Klein connectivity of self-dual onesided surfaces; which in convolution cancel the positive curvature of de Sitter spacetime with the negarive curvature of Anti de Sitter spacetime.

More simply the Quantum Big Bang Singularity (QBBS) becomes defined in Dirac's magnetic monopole at the initial boundary between timespace and spacetime. The Dirac string then conifolds from potential infinity space in well defined initial boundary conditions algorithmically defined from the timespace defining the Planck epoch preceding the QBBS.

Dirac's monopole as the generator for spacetime in the QBBS then manifests as the classical electron and enabling the latter to exchange its point-particular nature in Quantum Field Theory (QFT) and Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) with that of the monopole sigularity.

Details can be found in the attached pdf.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Tony Bermanseder replied on Jul. 19, 2020 @ 04:39 GMT
https://vixra.org/abs/2007.0073

https://cosmosdawn.net/forum/
threads/the-birth-of-god-as-a-superbrane-and-the-creation-of
-the-universe.8801/

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 19, 2020 @ 06:53 GMT
Hi Tony,

Forgive my impatience, but in my opinion, the physics community is focused on endlessly complicated mathematics that doesn't actually lead to an experiment or any new technology.

In contrast, my very simple idea that a graviton exists, actually does lead to an experiment. I think that the graviton will expand from a point, at the speed of light (to make the derivation of special relativity true). I also think that the graviton is actually filled with quantum states for momentum and position. I mean, think about it: The wave function calculation of and are supposed to predict the position and momentum of where a particle is going to be. That is equivalent to saying that the position and momentum quantum states are possible places that a particle can be located and also what its momentum might be. Well those would be necessary properties of space itself and spacetime.

A quantum entanglement between two photons would be a captured graviton. A graviton has quantum states. If a graviton is really the wave function, then there are quantum states in that graviton that can be effected by centrifuging the quantum entangled photons. If you put an optical fiber along the radius of a centrifuge, spin that centrifuge, you can simulate the conditions of a gravity field. When the photons are passed along the optical fiber, they will be redshifted or blueshifted. If there is an entanglement between them, then the entanglement will become "charged" with a gravitational potential energy.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 13, 2020 @ 05:28 GMT
Time dilation is the hint that time is tied directly to the speed of light. The smartest people in the physics community are working on string theory and loop gravity. But neither of those physics theories has ever stopped to consider the conundrum that the speed of light is invariant for all observers. That is why progress in physics is slowing down like a steam powered train that has run out of coal.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 13, 2020 @ 07:22 GMT
I get ignored because the physics community thinks that the laws of physics are made of string theory (wiggling spaghetti) or quantum loops (wiggling rubber bands). But I am arguing that spacetime is made of gravitons that expand from a point, at the speed of light. That gravitons have a geometry that is roughly spherical with volume V = 4/3 piR^3, where R = ct. I don't have to assume the existence of 11 dimensions, I have a graviton that creates spacetime itself. But what do I know? I'm just looking at quantum mechanics, general relativity and the big bang to figure out what they all have in common. What do I know?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 13, 2020 @ 09:54 GMT
You seem to be demonstrating loose association. Putting ideas together which have little if anything to do with each other. Saying a gravitation becomes space-time or a wave-function does not "cut the mustard".

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 13, 2020 @ 10:24 GMT
I would say that you are overlooking the very clues that would lead us to a breakthrough in technology. But just remember, time dilation and length contraction occur because the speed of light is invariant. Something about the mechanisms that evolve time and procedure the dimensional quality of nature is tied to the speed of light. That's the clue.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 14, 2020 @ 07:58 GMT
Hi Georgina,

"You seem to be demonstrating loose association. Putting ideas together which have little if anything to do with each other. Saying a gravitation becomes space-time or a wave-function does not "cut the mustard". "

The physics community has been trying to figure out how quantum mechanics and gravity are unified. But when I offer an answer, you say I'm making loose...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Jul. 14, 2020 @ 17:04 GMT
Q: How can Hubble or Webb see farther back in time than their constituent elements have existed? discuss

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 17, 2020 @ 05:17 GMT
They are not looking back in time but receiving signals that have arrived at their locations. Products are made from the signals which exist in an observer of them's present.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 18, 2020 @ 08:14 GMT
Satellites and observatories can look at light and see events that happened billions of years ago.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 18, 2020 @ 10:41 GMT
They are equipment, they don't really look and see. Observation products are made from the signals received and astronomers or cosmologists make calculations and judgments about what the source objects were and how far away the source objects were,when the 'light' was emitted.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 14, 2020 @ 22:18 GMT
The speed of light is both a clock and a ruler. Speed of light c= wavelength (ruler) * frequency (clock). If gravitons expand at the speed of light, then they tell time and measure distance. Time is actually made of a near infinite number of gravitons that tell time.

Could it be otherwise?4

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 14, 2020 @ 23:30 GMT
Many years ago, I learned a difficult truth to practice. I learned that results matter more than hard work. I have no doubt that creating mathematics for string theory and quantum loop gravity is hard work. But if it's wrong, then the benefits will be missing ( like they are now).

In contrast, if a theory is right, like my expanding graviton theory, then there will be great benefits. The theory will make sense, and there will be an experiment that can test it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Vesuvius Now replied on Jul. 17, 2020 @ 03:53 GMT
A graviton is very well-defined in string theory. In fact one of the great virtues of string theory is that you can't get rid of gravitons!

Meanwhile, "The metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second."

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 17, 2020 @ 05:49 GMT
I am arguing that a graviton begins its existences at a point, and expands at the speed of light in a spherical pattern (much like the big bang) until either it is captured by particles to become the thing that wave functions are describing, or it expands to many light seconds in diameter, overlaps with other gravitons, and becomes part of the spacetime continuum.

The problem I have with string theory is that superstrings, as near as I can tell, are just tiny pieces of spaghetti that wiggle around, but don't act like spacetime. Am I missing something?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Tony Bermanseder replied on Jul. 19, 2020 @ 05:02 GMT
Jason; you are 'missing' the Dirac string.

This prior realm or world is described as the outside boundary of the manifested singularity of the QBBS, with the inside boundary defining physical universe as the fifth of five abstract mathematical singularities and as a one-dimensional entity in transforming its nature as a mathematical point into that of a mathematical line known as a Dirac...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 19, 2020 @ 07:14 GMT
Another advantage of the expanding graviton is that it begs the question: why are gravitons coming from the Planck scale? What is down there?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Tony Bermanseder replied on Jul. 19, 2020 @ 07:49 GMT
What is down there?

The creation of the universe algorithm/program. Look at the pictures, Jason.

attachments: dirac.gif

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 19, 2020 @ 08:07 GMT
In your picture, it mentioned inflatons. I advocate that an expanding graviton hypothesis doesn't need inflatons. If there is one graviton, it will be two light seconds wide in one second. If there are two gravitons that are in contact, they can be 2*(2ct) in diameter in one light seconds. Gravitons overlap to become spacetime, but since the diameter of the universe is really a function of the diameter of gravitons, then it can expand at twice the speed of light. But since they are generated continuously, the universe can get larger faster than the speed of light. Inflatons are not required.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 19, 2020 @ 07:34 GMT
I mean, how hard is it to think of a graviton as something that expands spherically with a radius of x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - ct^2 = 0.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 19, 2020 @ 08:17 GMT
The trick to controlling gravity fields is to make entangled photons redshift and blueshift. The graviton that is between the entangled photons has quantum states for position and momentum that will align. That alignment (from largest to smallest) will cause a gravity field to exist between the entangled photons. Give it a hundred years to perfect the technology, and we will be using space crafts to lift people off the ground with an artificial gravity field.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 19, 2020 @ 08:21 GMT
Time and distance are actually acted directly upon the quantum states themselves (of the graviton). If there is a particle in those quantum states, then that's the time and length it experiences.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 20, 2020 @ 07:02 GMT
Here is an idea to figure out quantum gravity. Calculate the wave function of a photon as it travels down an optical fiber that is placed along the radius of a centrifuge or spinning wheel. That is, if you're ready for new technology.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 22, 2020 @ 23:09 GMT
The Einstein equations should be treated like an equilibrium condition for a spacetime continuum made of a large number (>10^80) of gravitons that are very large (>10^5 km wide).

When gravitons are small, they participate in quantum mechanics as wave functions.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vesuvius Now wrote on Jul. 24, 2020 @ 21:11 GMT
*future* to *present* to *past* A-series

*earlier* times to *later* times B-series

What do people think? My own opinion is that we need *both* series to characterize time.

McTaggart,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_series_and_B_
series

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 25, 2020 @ 00:09 GMT
'Future' 'present' and 'past' can be used as part of a description of observation, and experience. In that case the future is what I call the 'pre-written future', which is electromagnetic radiation (EM), and other potential sensory inputs, in the environment not yet received. After the signal has been received, it can be known that it was prior to that the pre-written future of that observer. The received sensory input is used in the generation of the observer's experienced present.Later the experienced present may be incorporated into memories or records. When the experience/s have been superseded, it could be said to be past. As observers are at different locations, signals from same material events are received at different times giving non simultaneity of observed events (Think of a thunder storm). Earlier and later pertain to a fixed sequence. That applies to material happenings in the environment external to observers.From which the potential sensory inputs are emitted or reflected.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 25, 2020 @ 04:32 GMT
I think the future is a lot like the stock market. It's hard to predict, especially with all that free will involved.

As for time travel, the laws of physics don't seem to allow for it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jul. 28, 2020 @ 14:32 GMT
The vacuum is the soup, a dynamic process we call Time.

The Planck h is the total allowed amplitude of time rate variations

Our whole universe lies inside this h amplitude.

Gravity is a measure of the explosive deficit some structure creates.

Two ways: 1) logical substitution or, how much vacuum the stuff of the structure replaces 2) Shadow deficit; the amount of deficit caused by the structure. Imagine a point like source of light at the geometric center of the structure (electron, proton etc. photon,,) and see if it would project a shadow; place the light in the middle of a linear EM wave = no shadow. Place the light at the center of the proton, a ring wave like a lampshade, big shadow. This explains (?) the difference photon and proton masses.

...??? Proton ring wave ?? see poster at below url at item 16.1 (awfully old website..)

[/ item 16.1 ]

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 28, 2020 @ 14:37 GMT
What is really this vacuum for you and what are for you the foundamental mathematical and physical objects, because you tell us that you see a points of lights or maybe a string in 1D inside these photons and they oscillate to create our reality ? do you consider that the photons are the only one piece of this universal puzzle also ? do you beleive in a kind of dark photon for this universal equilibrium, that needs more details about your thoughts ....Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 28, 2020 @ 14:39 GMT
we need indeed an universal balance for the charges, or protons and electrons or positrons, or matter anti matter or entropy negentropy or cold and heat, personally I consider this DM in the cold and encoded also in our nuclei, what is for you a photon really and what is this DM for you ?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 28, 2020 @ 14:47 GMT
the time is just a duration for me correlated with the motions and probably the rotations in my model, this time seems irreversible respecting the entropical arrow of time, we d have a problem of mass equivalence due to evolution. This time is not a thing that we can check in fact in logic. The vacuum is not really the time but more than this, like the space it is more than this, it is probably made of main codes even and these codes need fuels to create the emergent luminiferous space time, so maybe when the photons and the cold dark matter merge with this coded space withpout motion, they create our geonetries, topologies, matters simply, the time is correlated so with their motions and is relative in function of observations and how we analyse it

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 29, 2020 @ 08:47 GMT
I don't believe in the many world interpretation. There is no empirical evidence for it, and if you think about it, it's ridiculous.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 29, 2020 @ 09:11 GMT
Hi, I beleive the same, I have just spoken about this paper because several general tools are interesting, but I don t agree with the MWI ,regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jul. 29, 2020 @ 10:06 GMT
.... Well, at the moment of creation, there was this process whereby the value of the Planck toggled in order to make place for more stuff... In other words, when the proto-atom was filled, the Planck slid, under constraint, from a normal distribution to a quantized distribution and to, the next Planck value.

For the new process/new Planck value, the proto-atom appeared empty.

It was filled again and so on, x times. So, I believe there are a number of overlapping universes 'above and below" ours with different Planck values (differnt span/aplitude of time rate)... How many ??? This one is pure hunch; around 240 . Some number in Garrett Lisi's E8 and in cristallography...

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 29, 2020 @ 10:14 GMT
Well like you tell, first of all nobody knows what we have like foundamental objects at this planck scale and what is the nain origin of our universe , secondly the model of Lisi is about the E8 and consider the fields and geometrical alg to create the topologies and geonetries with these fields in oscillating points of strings at this planck scale in 1D , it is an assumption not proved , the vaccuum it is the same nobody knows its origin, all what we have like mine are assumptions that we cannot affirm, thirdly the standard seems not complete and we cannot affirm that we have only photons like primoriudal essence and about the begining of this universe, nobody knows what is theis inflation and a before inflation, even the BB is an assumption , to you dear Marcel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 29, 2020 @ 10:18 GMT
I know even a person having developped farer the E8 with 2 E8 and he has created the TGD topological geonetrodynamics and he consider the cosmic strings and his maths are relevant but all this is an assumption but respectable , but it is an assumption because we cannot affirm that the fields are the main origin like if we had only photons and strings inside and oscillations to create our reality, the cosmic strings it is the same it is an assumptions like the 1D towards the 11D

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 29, 2020 @ 10:21 GMT
I am in contact on facebook with this team of Klee Irwin working on this E8 , with Lisi and Ray Ascheim and David Chester more others, I have discussed a lot with them, their model is an assumption because we cannot affirm I repeat the foudamental objects and the main primoridal origin of this universe , the other facebook contact of this TGD is the professor Matti Pitkanen he is relevant but his model is an assumption also, but his maths are very interesting,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jul. 29, 2020 @ 10:25 GMT
I have corresponded with Matti Pitkanen for what, 20 years??? It is still calculations ... I proceed by logic applied to the metaphysical requirements of substance and cause.. Say hi to Matti for me..

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 29, 2020 @ 10:28 GMT
He is relevant in this E8XE8 he has gone farer than the others for me and I respect him and his works a lot , I will tell him hello from you, he lives here in Finland also like me now I have immigrated and I live with Ulla Mattfolk in the forest in a farm and we produce vegetals, Ulla has very interesting general ideas and is a wonderful person

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 29, 2020 @ 10:32 GMT
Dear Marcel, the main problem seems philosophical about this primordial origin, and these foundamental mathematical and physical objects, we have mainly two roads, the fields and oscillations or the particles coded for the main essence and the points,m strings of 3D spheres for the objects, but unfortunally we cannot prove these deep questions due to a lack of knowledges , we cannot see nor these scales nor the philosophical main origin, so all are assumptions simply. But we can try to see the emergent effects and try with maths in correlating the numbers, the fields, the particles, waves and others in a king of probabilistic partition to try to extrapolate the truth but it is so difficult and so beyond our understanding at my humble opinion, we need to know more and utilise the good mathematical tools

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 29, 2020 @ 10:33 GMT
points, strings or 3D coded sphers, sorry I made an error in writing , not of but or

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jul. 29, 2020 @ 10:34 GMT
...You are lucky to have a Ulla; take good care of here. My Lucie is just that and still after 42 years. We had a bubble/party yesterday with my 3 sons and 3 grandchildren.. That's what a grandfathers day job is about...

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 29, 2020 @ 10:46 GMT
Yes indeed I am lucky , I take care of her, I love her a lot, I have immigrated 11 months ago, she is happy also with me, we have the same tastes in life, we are in all humility persons universal and altruist and so we are on the same wave lenght, that helps, we are happy with our animals, sheeps, goats, hens, porcs and all our plants in this forest, we live a happy life, she has 4 children , I wish all the best in your life and a happy life with your familly like grandfather, me unfortunally I have lost all my familly, mother,father, godfather , grandmother are dead, my mother 5 years agon, my godfather a suicide 3 years ago and my grandmother 2 years ago, I am alone with two dogs I was in a kind of depression and so sad, here in finland with Ulla I am a little bit better because my life has been very difficult even when I was a child, I was even adapted and I have known this at the funeral of my mother, my father drunk when I was young and was odd with my mother , he is dead when I was 19 years old, I have been educated in the street also with my friends, more a coma at the age of 21 due to epilepsy when I was at university in second in geology I have stopped it before the third because it was difficult after , it needs one year to be better, I take meds now and it is better, I am sometimes sad due to this past but I am better here with ulla, take care,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 29, 2020 @ 10:48 GMT
lol I write too quickly, adopted , not adapted :)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jul. 29, 2020 @ 10:50 GMT
If you read carefully my poster... you know there are no particles.... just waves, linear or circular. This is 50 years lost looking for little balls, point particles etc. Yet, QM says all is made of waves! Where did the maths go wrong? As for the spheres, I believe they are Wheeler's quantum foam. An initiator creates the sphere centered on (our) h/2 Planck; it breaks into eight quadrants, each quadrant acting as initiator of more spheres. A process Spontaneous and generating = explosive. The BB was just the beginning of a process still happening right now which we call time. We live in it and are made of it. The universe does not Exist per se; it happens.

MM

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 29, 2020 @ 10:55 GMT
We cannot affirm you know, you consider before the hypothetical BB and infinite heat and so after you have considered the photons and their oscillations and so thhat the waves and fields create our reality, it is an assumption, you cannot affirm and for me the particles coded are a better explaination because we can have particles without fields but not the opposite, the problem seems philosophical, I beleive that the main problem is the fashion of strings and a problem of interpretation of the waves particles duality, the fields and waves like main origin futhermore have a big philosophical problem considering the evolution because why we evolve ? and why the oscillations cannot stop the sufferings or others if a thing exists beyond our understanding, my model respects the waves particles duality because these 3D spheres are in motions ortations but oscillate also, but like I told, qwe cannot affirm , nobody can affirm, when we affirm these things it is not a humble compiortment because we need proofs, the waves , fields like origin of all are not proved simply , so maybe you could try to ptove your idea and try also to consider these coded particles and the supermatter that I have explained in this central sphere, it is this the secret for me and the 3 main series of coded 3D spheres

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 29, 2020 @ 11:00 GMT
I insist on the fact that we cannot affirm but we must prove, when we affirm assumptions, it is odd for me, we must dpoubt and try to prove and doubt even about our philosophy , because nobody knows the truth, nor about God or not, nor about the primordial origin of this physicality nor about the foundamental objects, I have remarked that the philosophy of fields, waves like origin come from simply this, the thinkers have considered an infinite heat before this BB and after they oscillate it simply and after so they create the fractalisations with the geom alg of this reality and its topologies, geometries, matters and fields, it is an assumption simply because we don t know if this infinite eternal energy is a heat or a consciousness or others and how this thing that we cannoty define transform and code the E to create this universe, we must be humble and we cannot affirm even if we are all persuaded, we must recognise that we don t know simply, if we affirm, it is a vanitious comportment

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 29, 2020 @ 11:04 GMT
the BB also is an assumption even if we have some interestinmg datas about the CMB and the inflation but we cannot affirm simply still, furthermore there are problems philosophical still about the fact to consider only photons like primoridal essence. We need a deeper logic superimposed to balance all our actual model and its electromagnetism and heat, see well my humble reasoning that I don t affirm about this cold dark matter encoded and permitting to balance

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jul. 29, 2020 @ 13:26 GMT
Steve,

I got your message. So, let`s add IMHO. Still, no particles. The quadrant diagram system shows perfect parity across h/2, structure and charge signs. This explains why quarks can't be isolated.. they are wave quadrants, not particles. It shows, it does not prove... But Quark masses do not add up to the mass of the nucleons..

It is like all the proof are there in the long troubles they have had with both quarks and the magnetic monopole.

Consider this; I posted at CERN Youtube and Perimeter Institute Youtube. There are others people posting all sorts of theories .. they are still there. My posts where removed or not published (moderated off). There could be lots of reasons for this, but then it begs the question. Why?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 29, 2020 @ 13:43 GMT
I got also your message, but you cannot affirm that the particlez are not real, you just consider that all is made of waves, and for me it is not true, we must accept that we don t know and that we cannot prove, you can tell all what you want it is a fact, the particles are a reality , that is why we have our standard model and their origin , if they are fields or particles is not proved, the diagrams don t change the things, it is just your interpretation with waves quadrants, you have not proved what you affirm in fact unfortunally. The waves and fields for me come from the particles because they are in motions and oscillations in a kind of superfluid aether made also of particles so we have contacts, it is only simple than this like when you put a stone in the water, we have an effect and so waves, we cannot have waves without particles, on the other side in a kind of system without motion we can have particles without waves, see well this important difference, the origin for me of this universe is made of particles creating waves and fields, not the opposite, but I cannot affirm, like you you cannot affirm, we have just models hypothetical. Your model is removed maybe simply because it lacks mathematical extrapolations and proofs , I don t know

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jul. 29, 2020 @ 14:19 GMT
...model removed... There are many Nobel prizes and billions spent on the Standard Model... It is not a model that will make people happy... given its ridiculous simplicity... Lets take it as a theory, an educated suggestion. There are many concepts all at once, given for this synthesis.

1- vacuum is Time

2- Planck is a maximum allowed amplitude of time rate variation

3- magnetic field is time rate variation

4- electric field is a line alonh which the time rate changes of direction.

5- particles are ring waves with specific coupling rules

6- energy on a dynamic time background is power

7- electron is the magnetic monopole

8- a unit electrical charge is 4 E lines

they are all integrated into one wave model.

The diagram system works well with pair annihilation/ pair creation/ neutron>proton + anti eV / etc. The causality is in the structures > conservation laws.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 29, 2020 @ 14:39 GMT
I understand what you tell, but the nobel prizes or field medal or others are always given after a proved work mathematically or by experiments. Einstein has had his nobel for a work about the photoelectric effects and not for the GR and SR, the same for Wittem he has had the field medal for a works concrete in maths about the fields, but after the people confound their prizes witht heir models ,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jul. 29, 2020 @ 14:28 GMT
Think about it for 2 seconds. The electron is not a little ball with an electric charge stuck to it.

It is the unit electrical lines charge connected to the structure that generates it by induction, the corresponding unit magnetic charge, the magnetic monopole. The electron is the smallest "particle" and it is just that, a single monopole. IMHO

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 29, 2020 @ 14:40 GMT
Like dirac said , we don t know what is really an electron, we cannot still affirm what they are and why they have their properties, Dirac and Feynman have worked about this, and even they have considered antiparticles differently, one consider a kind of negative energy , the other considered a backward time

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 29, 2020 @ 14:44 GMT
for me it is a serie of 3D pshres having merged due to a serie for the space the main codes and two fuels, the cold DM andf the photons, that permits to create their properties because they become simply what they must become, they are not a single sphere but a serie, and their properties appear due to this fusion of 3 main series, I don t consider these fields and waves like primoridal origin, I consider the particles giving the properties, they distribute their fields and energies in function of their intrinsic codes simply in this space and due to these two fuels, these fuels permit to balance the cahrges but explain also the negentropy entropy, the +-, the heat cold, the gravitation electeromagnetism, this and that, we need a balance at all scales .....

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 29, 2020 @ 14:46 GMT
See that we need an universal balance, see now the relevance if the 3D spheres are a reality at all scales with the senses of rotations....

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 29, 2020 @ 14:52 GMT
see also that these magnetic monopoles are hypothetical particles and correlated with the superstrings still and the branes, for me even If I respect these theories, they are not foundamental and we have no extradimensions of 1D to 11D and no monopole, it comes from these 1D strings still and the photons like main essence and origin, you know , it seems odd to consider the waves, fields like main origin instead of particles coded, like I explained these strings have a big philosophical problems, we can make all the maths that we want that will not change that these strings, branes have many problems, maybe the thinkers must forget this prison of strings and GR and go deeper in considering particles coded simply

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 6, 2020 @ 05:42 GMT
It feels to me like the physics community is suffering it's own version of "creative heat death". They seem to dwell on how the universe will die in 100 billion years or a trillion years. I personally think that physicists should go outside and either scream at God and ask for intervention, or alternatively, go outside at night and beg the ALIENS to abduct them and show them how physics really works. Anything short of that is just a waste of time.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 6, 2020 @ 09:20 GMT
Hi Jason, there is a problem indeed , it is probably due to fact that we have more difficulties now to complete the discoveries, it is more difficult than 100 years ago , we are all persuaded also and our vanity does not arrange the problem, and more also bad habits like the strings even if I respect these works and find several mathematical relevances, maybe we must be simply less focus on our own works and work in team focus on the pure determinism and seraching concrete proofs, we need to know more and be humble also , we know also that the sciences community is divided about God, for me it is essential to consider a kind of god of spinoza, a kind of infinite eternal consciousness creating this physicality and its codes and informations. It seems foundamental to really encircle the global system.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 16, 2020 @ 07:38 GMT
Please forgive my wavering faith in the physics community, but they have only succeeded in making everything complicated, without actually contributing anything new to technology, not since general relativity was created. I was outside tonight, camping, looking at the stars. The wind started to blow, and so I put out the camp fire and went inside the RV. It stirred my imagination and got me thinking about what it would be like if a UFO, alien spacecraft drifted overhead. If the outer hull was covered with LEDs, like a giant flat screen, such a saucer could almost pretend to be invisible in the night sky.

It got me thinking. What if I had a message from the ETs? Humans don't listen to me. I have great ideas that are directly applicable to gravity drive propulsion using entangled photons and centrifuges that can blueshift, redshirt entangled photons. The ideas on this forum don't lead anywhere. Mine do!

You should listen to me before the Aliens take me back for good.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vesuvius Now wrote on Aug. 17, 2020 @ 16:59 GMT
Dufourny et al., this is kind of a classic argument, but I am going to ask it of one of these outspoken physicists next time I meet one. We have the Schrodinger equation, General relativity, and so forth, and--on a first take--we evolve the equations through time. But what *sustains* the universe?? You could say: the universe doesn't need anything to sustain it. But that is just an opinion.

That's all I wanted to say. But Wolfe et al., why don't you put your ideas in a form that the relevant people could easily see they are right (or wrong)?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 17, 2020 @ 17:06 GMT
Well Vesuvius Now, first of all, we are on a transparent platform so put your real name, and secondly develop ideas about the time if it is possible, show us what are you thought about this parameter simple to encircle, it is a simple duration due to motions , and for me we cannot check this time in travelling in time, but if you have a solution, give us your relevant maths innovative and we shall travel in time like in back to the future. Tell us also more about your philosophy about this universe, first of all what are for you the origin of this physicality and why, and what are the foundamental objects and why, after maybe we could go deeper, there it is not sufficient :) the schrodinger equation is simple to encircle like the general relativity , the big question is , must we consider that we have only photons like primoridal essence, and if yes or no, why , to you dear theinker, impress me lol

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 17, 2020 @ 17:11 GMT
and about your philosphy about this universe, explain it in details and prov e its porigin, but you cannot prove nor its origin and why this energy is transforned oin matters, it d be pretentious to affirm to know the truth, you don t know it , the same for the foundamental objetcs, but maybe you could convice me with concrete arguments in physics and maths :) your post is simple and classic for me, but like we are all persuaded and vanitious us the humans, you could develop more maybe ?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 17, 2020 @ 17:25 GMT
it does not exist a lot of relevant general thinkers able to link maths, physics, philosophy with humility in doubting and in detailing their assumptions, Connes and Penrose for me are the best actually with Wilczek, them I will listen them if they come here in explaining their ideas, but unfortunally they are not here on FQXi, the others for the majority try to impress and satisfy their vanity, that can be sometimes relevant in cretivity but we need a pure determinism and skillingfs f

general, it is rare, are you able to be like them ? there I could be impressed with detailes maths and physics, spherically yours

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 20, 2020 @ 09:37 GMT
The Planck scale is where you would find the paranormal. Gravitons emit from the Planck scale, expand into our 3D+1 spacetime, by creating our spacetime.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 20, 2020 @ 10:34 GMT
Dear Jason, I don t beleive in paranormal, I beleive that all is deterministic, of course we have many secrets to add and discover but all probably respect this determinism and rationalism, all seems normal, it is like a kind of God, I consider that this thing utilises a pure deterministic universe , and at this planck scale, considering the main codes, we have also normal and deterministic codes, informations, respecting the rational auniversal axioms, equations and laws. I repeat , of course we have many wonderful things to discover and that will permit to create incredible technologies but the paranormal does not seem logic for me, maybe I don t understand well what you tell by paranormal.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 20, 2020 @ 19:06 GMT
Hi Steve,

By describing the expanding graviton, I claim to be able to describe everything that exists physically with the standard model plus the expanding graviton. The big bang began as a single point from the Planck scale; so it looks to me like spacetime of our universe is an extension of the Planck scale; kind of like adding a room onto a house. The Planck scale is where everything is coming from. I know you are not a religious man or a believer, but I would tell a believer that the kingdom of God exists at the Planck scale.

As for determinism, which I guess from what you're saying is equivalent to a non existence of the paranormal, I don't believe that such cynicism is necessary. I infer your opinion that when we die, we cease to exist. You can infer my opinion that when we die, a part of us still exists as a spirit. I would attribute that to the existence of a spirit, a soul, to fields and form that exists at the Planck scale.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 08:18 GMT
Hi Jason, I am nor a religious indeed, but I beleive in god, like I told you, I have read all the sacred books and philosophies also , I consider me like a rational deterministic christian universalist thinking in a god of spinoza , the bible or the other books for me have been created by humans very smart to check their comportments in utilising the love, the fear, the mystical things and others, I respect the religious, they are free but for me these books are not the real truth, they are just writen by humans , not by god. I don t considere the planck scale like a point but like spheres , for me god has chosen this shape like primoridal essence, and for the BB it is an assumption even if we have several interesting datas with the cosmic microwaves background. About the souls, I beleive that we continue a road indeed and that our uniqueness exists and is transformed, for me when we die , we are in the instant in the central cosm sphere and in the instant resynchronised on an other planet in a small baby ölike all turns, with a correlated evolutive brain, so we continue to nourrish our souls in encodings other informations in other environments and for the paradise, I consider tha we create it, so we are tools of optimisation simply, and we must utilise this consciousness with determinism and love and altruism simply, God exists for me but with determinism instead of religious thoughts , but I am tolerant . all are free to think like they want , take care dear brother human, jedi of the sphere :)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 04:25 GMT
Time is one of my favorite axioms and along with matter, you can make a universe. However, the notion of an infinitely divisible path of time turns out to be problematic. Time simply does not make sense at a singularity like a Black Hole.

There has been mention of the two time dimensions...one reversible as quantum gates and the other time dimension irreversible. The universe continuously changes and those changes are irreversible and form a very slow decay time. However, atoms change very fast and form atomic time as the cesium atom resonance at 9,192,631,770 Hz. Universe decay time is much slower at 0.26 ppb/yr, which is the ratio of gravity to charge forces times the speed of light across hydrogen atom.

Once you accept that there are two time dimensions, the whole universe then makes sense...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 05:32 GMT
I would argue that every graviton is a clock unto itself. As a clock, it performs all of the functions of time upon all of the quantum states within its sphere (literally within its sphere).

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 17:09 GMT
I do like the concept of gravitons as the exchange particle of gravity force, but time emerges from matter action, not just exchange force. A single photon is the exchange particle of charge and has atom sized wavelengths and resonances and so each atom is its own clock in those resonances.

A graviton is just a biphoton that has universe size wavelengths and is the exchange particle of gravity relativity that holds neutral matter together. All atoms today are part of a biphoton graviton since their CMB light still exists and correlates with the exchange photon of their charge bonds.

The two-dimensional time suggested in the first post is an incomplete insight into the true nature of physical reality and therefore of time...but it is a good start...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 17:49 GMT
Not an exchange photon. Why not try to explain the whole of spacetime itself as being made of gravitons that expand from a point, a Planck scale point, to a sphere if radium r = ct? The overlap of all these spheres is what creates spacetime itself. Why an expanding sphere? Because that's what the big bang did. So spacetime itself is made out of gravitons of t > 10 minutes e.g.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 17:50 GMT
"Not an exchange GRAVITON"

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 17:51 GMT
Sphere of radius r = ct.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 19:45 GMT
Aspling's quantum gates are simply atoms with quantum phase and so quantum gate time is equivalent to atomic time and is reversible. His irreversible time comes from wave function collapse, which is equivalent to universe time, which has no quantum phase.

Actually, the universe does have quantum phase, but on the scale of the universe. We are therefore in the collapsing wavefunction that we call the universe and so of course, universe wavefunction decay points the arrow of irreversible time...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 19:58 GMT
I honestly don't know if wave function collapse can be proven experimentally. But if it can, then it's because wave functions are actually trapped gravitons. A trapped graviton can escape its captivity (within a particle system) and continue to expand at the speed of light, with its quantum states having been changed a little bit by its quantum encounter with particles.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Aug. 22, 2020 @ 04:25 GMT
You seem to have a very strange definition of a graviton, which of course is also a wavefunction just like a photon or an atom. A wavefunction is simply a generic term for amplitude versus mass (or equivalent frequency). You should use a different word if your graviton is not a normal graviton...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 22, 2020 @ 09:00 GMT
Hi Steve,

Right out of my Modern Physics and Quantum mechanics book by Anderson, the definition of a wave amplitude is "such that its modulus squared is proportional to the probability of finding the electron (or particle) at position x at time t. We can write a wave function in the form,

[equation]

Although this complex wave function is not directly observable (that is,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 23, 2020 @ 21:37 GMT
Latex is being wonky. I am trying to say that the expectation value for the position of a particle is equivalent to saying that a particle can be in any of these possible places in space, which makes the wave function (as something that exists) a promising candidate of what space itself is made out of.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Aug. 24, 2020 @ 04:33 GMT
Aspling's main theme was in a two dimensional time. As I have showed, this makes sense in matter and action but you seem to be hung up on gravitons, not on a two-dimensional time...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 24, 2020 @ 05:46 GMT
Gravitons have built in relativistic spacetime geometry. The effect of a huge number of gravitons, all expanding at the speed of light, creates spacetime geometry.

The physics community takes geometry for granted.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 24, 2020 @ 08:47 GMT
still you consider that the spacetime is only made of photons, if we have a deeper logic for the main origin, all is a false, imagine that these photons are just a fuel , permitting the electronagntism, the thermodnamics and heat, the fact to obeserve and their speed is constant, so we analyse just the spacetime actually with this, but imagibe that the particles of gravitations have nothing to do with this, I know that it is not easy to change a line of reasoning and that all we are persuaded and vanitious also us the humans, so steve Agnew and Jason, how can you affirm that the GR is the only one piece of puzzle and that these gravitatons hypotehtical are linked and that we must unify the GR and the quantum gravitation with this logic like if the quantum entanglement and the frequences and osccilations of these photons are the answer ? what are your proofs about the fact that the answers are there, you see well that theere are problems of renormalisation with this logic, so why you insist , the best thinkers have tried in this line of reasoning and they have not successed simply, don t loose your time but think beyond the box in consider a deeper logic and a gravitational aether and consider this Dark matter cold ,m you shall see that it acts, I know that it is difficult, it is due to this vanity, but really you shall see that in changing the distances and in respecting the newtonian mechanics, it acts because the main codes are farer and that this electronagntism is just emergent due to these photons encoded giving the bosonic fields,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 24, 2020 @ 11:43 GMT
Steve,

You use the word "vanity" in ways I had never thought possible: vanitious!!

In my view, an expanding graviton has a volume,



The volume is filled with quantum states for position and momentum.

The surface of the expanding sphere has an area,



which is the virtual photon. The Casimir effect, proven to exist, is caused by virtual photons.

If there was any energy available to be transferred by virtual photons, it would excite a virtual photon, and have an energy,



Gravitons fill the universe with position, momentum quantum states, which we observe as spacetime geometry. There is probably some maximum amount of overlap of gravitons that has something to do with the Cosmological constant.

When gravitons collide with particles, they can be adsorbed into the particle system and become part of the wave amplitude/wave function.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 24, 2020 @ 06:07 GMT
Gravitons expand to create spacetime. They are made of quantum states for position and momentum. A black hole is just the case when there is high enough density to create an event horizon from which mass/energy cannot escape. A certain percentage of gravitons can escape from a black hole because they don't have mass/energy, they are just made of position/momentum quantum states. This is why black holes can exist.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 24, 2020 @ 08:50 GMT
So you consider that they are photons and that they are in fact the cause of the expanding universe with different osccilations of these photons, it seems not true , the expansion is just due to a dark energy wich can be seen like a simple antigravitational spherical push from the central cosmological sphere permitting the evolution ,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 24, 2020 @ 11:30 GMT
I think that the surface of the expanding graviton is a virtual photon. If it was energized, then it would be a real photon.

Yes, I would say that the reason that dark energy is observed is because gravitons expand. Just the effect of continually adding new gravitons, expanding gravitons, is enough to cause the universe to continue to expand. It's just like how water coming out of a garden hose will cause the puddle to get bigger.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 24, 2020 @ 11:35 GMT
it is a good idea, but don t forget that if these photons are not the primoridal essence, so we need a different logic superimposed to balance our standard model and the forces electronmagntic at all scales, it is like this that I see this gravitation balancing the heat ....if the cold dark matter is real, that can solve many things

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Aug. 24, 2020 @ 15:31 GMT
There is a two-dimensional time in the universe, one time dimension comes from the collapse of the universe wavefunction, which is made up of gravitons as biphoton and the second time dimension comes from the collapse of the photon wavefunction of the atom. Attached is a sketch of this idea.

It is true that a lot of very smart people have not figured this out yet, but the idea came from Paul Dirac's big Numbers Hypothesis. Dirac abandoned his idea because the galaxy measurements back then seemed to show that the fine-structure constant did not vary in deep space. Now, of course, there are plenty of more accurate measurements that do show variations in the fine-structure constant in deep space. So Dirac was right after all...

Dark matter is a straightforward result of the coupling of moving star decay or radiation. I call it gravitization because it couples moving stars with a vector force just like magnetization couples moving charges with a vector force...there is no need for the dark matter fiction at all. Stars radiate complementary photon dipoles and so stars radiate biphoton gravitons as well. Graviton emission is what couples star motions in galaxy rotation and not dark matter.

Matter-action discrete aether is therefore consistent with many unexplained observations like galaxy rotation, galaxy cluster rotation, fine-structure constant variation in deep space, pulsar decay, IPK decay, 11 year sunspot cycle, coupling of stellar variations in star clusters, and so on.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 24, 2020 @ 17:06 GMT
you affirm things not proved like facts, the gravitons correlated with the biphoton are an assumption, so why you affirm , you could utilise the word maybe or I think that perhaps ....and after you explain but in affirming assumptions, it is not a rational deterministic comportment, I make the same for my theory , I don t affirm and I doubt and I try to prove, where have you proved your assumptions ?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 24, 2020 @ 17:10 GMT
so in resume , don t affirm things not proved, make like all, try to prove by experiments or rigourous mathematical proofs and there we shall agree with you, you have not proved nor your gravitons , nor your ideas about this dark matter , like verlinde modifying this newtonian mechanics, like your ideas about this time, like saidf Feynman, I am smart enough to admit I am dumb, make the same, doubt, don t affirm assumptions and prove them,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 24, 2020 @ 17:17 GMT
ps I work like all about the proof and formalisation of this quantum gravitation that I have reached, and I have considered this DM cold encoded in nuclei and a gravitation like main chief orchestra and I have a fith force even also, I have considered the Dirac large number, I have calculated and oddly it approachs the number of cosmological spheres, that is why I have considered the same number for the 3 finite series of 3D spheres coded, one space and two fuels, and I have utilised the lie groups, alg and derivatives, an intrinsic ricci flow in the main codes for the deformations, geometries and I have correlated with the clifford alg and the topological and euclidian space , more the hiopf fibrations on surfaces to rank the quasi particles andI have quantified this quantum gravitation , because simply the distances must be changed because the main gravitational codes are farer and that it is not an electromagntic force simply, the 3 main finite series of 3D spheres , with this dirac large number when they merge creates this reality, I have many assumptions that I don t affirm me, but be sure this reasoning explains the quantum gravitation at 10 exp - 67 Newton of force , we need a balance +-, matter antimatter, negentropy entropy, cold heat, electromagnetism gravitation, particles antiparticles.... and we have in my model 3 aethers mainly , the luminiferous one, the gravitational one and the space without motion, so the glues are the two fuels, not only these photons, not need of biphotons and strings and gravitons,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Aug. 24, 2020 @ 15:44 GMT
Here is the pic...had to compress it a little more...

attachments: 2Dtime.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 24, 2020 @ 16:30 GMT
an antivers?? from what and why ? and also , since when the shpae of the universe is like this ??? we don t know, even the BB is an assunption even if we have interesting datas with the CMB and the inflation. So let s go deeper, what is this antiverse and why ? and why this shape ? the only anti gravity that I see is this Dark matter , and why the fact to consider only photons ???? it is a common interpretation but you could go farer , think beyond the box, I am curious , what is the main cause of this universe for you, be frank, do you consider a kind of creator or not and why , develop, and what are the foundamental mathematical and physical objects at this planck scale and why , after maybe we could see better,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 24, 2020 @ 16:34 GMT
and for the time, it is not a real dimension, it is just a duration correlated with the motions and rotations, the quaternions can help to encircle this time like a duration, still the problem come from an odd interpretation of the GR and the time, this time is just an irreversible parameter considering the entropy and the evolution, we cannot check it, we can just decrease our internal clocks paradoxally with the equations of einstein, but for this we must go at c and it is still for the observations and if we make this in technology we d have problems,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Aug. 24, 2020 @ 23:10 GMT
Matter-action discrete aether is therefore consistent with many unexplained observations like galaxy rotation, galaxy cluster rotation, fine-structure constant variation in deep space, pulsar decay, IPK decay, 11 year sunspot cycle, coupling of stellar variations in star clusters, and so on.

Just saying this is false is not that useful...you should pick one measurement and give an alternative explanation...that is the way science works. Paul Dirac's Large Number Hypothesis is the origin of matter action...do you doubt Dirac?

I agree that time emerges from a simpler reality and does not exist otherwise.

The universe wavefunction collapse is the universe, but the wavefuction growth is the antiverse. Making the universe precursor a wavefunction leads to the outcome that there is both an antiverse as well as the universe. It is kind of a fun thing that gets rid of the big bang singularity...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Aug. 25, 2020 @ 17:08 GMT
The biphoton of gravity is a fact, not an assumption. Each hydrogen atom is a charge bond due to the Rydberg exchange photon. That hydrogen atom formed at the CMB when it emitted a Rydberg photon that was a phase complement of the Rydberg exchange photon. These are facts, not assumptions. Those two photons have anticorrelated phase, which is also a fact, and form a biphoton.

The strength of gravity today then gives the universe size today by that biphoton. That is a matter-action assumption that is consistent with all other observations, but is a different kind of universe...it is fun to explain something that no one else can explain...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 27, 2020 @ 00:26 GMT
In my expanding graviton model, expansion at the speed of light means that time ( frequency) and length (wavelength) are built into the quantum states. Any particle that exist there is subject to the time being kept by that graviton.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 27, 2020 @ 05:42 GMT
All that "many world's interpretation" of quantum mechanics is also wrong. It's like thinking that your house has 5 rooms, and that every room requires a whole new house. MWI is total baloney. But quantum mechanics does suggest that space itself is made of quantum wave functions. That's also equivalent to saying that space itself is made of wave functions (although the details of how are a little bit illusive).

So basically, the last major breakthrough in physics was general relativity. But hat was a 100 years ago. What have you done lately? Nothin'! You've been staring at black holes which has not given you much to brag about. I saw the picture of a black hole. It looks like a coffee stain.

I have a prediction. In the second term of president Trump, the aliens, the ExtraTerrestrials, will confirm their existence. You will have to learn to live with telepathic beings who are a lot further along scientifically, emotionally, mentally then you are. Won't that be fun! :)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Aug. 27, 2020 @ 15:35 GMT
Once again, you are the one who has nothing...your model does not explain anything. Matter action explains many heretofore unexplained observations:

Matter-action discrete aether is consistent with many unexplained observations like galaxy rotation without dark matter, galaxy cluster rotation without dark matter, gravity lensing without dark matter, fine-structure constant variation in deep space, pulsar decay, IPK decay, 11 year sunspot cycle, coupling of stellar variations in star clusters, and so on.

Your model accepts spacetime singularities, matter action eliminates spacetime singularities like black holes. Current science is just now understanding the neutron equation of state and what happens deep inside of neutron stars. Right now it is a mystery why every neutron star does not collapse into its own black hole.

Matter action has a path for quantum neutron equation of state...work in progress...science is fun...new science is really fun...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 27, 2020 @ 15:49 GMT
unfortunally , all what you tell is an assumption not proved and all your ideas are not innovative, you reapet things known mixed with affirmations not proved, sorry but it is a fact, you have not proved that the DM does not exist, you don t consider foundamental objects and your philosophy general about the origin of this universe and this antiverse is just in your head unfortunally, like all you have just assumpotions and you have not proved them, so maybe you could doubt instead to affirm, it is not like this this that the sciences act, doubt and calculate your assumptions, after maybe we could accept them, at this moment you just discuss and nothing ir really concrete and proved. Too much affirmations not proved simply, me I don t affirm my assumptions, I work on them to prove them, you could make the same Steve Humbly in recognising this like all rational thinkers trying to explain our unknowns.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 27, 2020 @ 15:55 GMT
I know what is a biphoton, I speak about the fact that you consider only photons like primordial essence, and also that you have made the same than verlinde in modifying this newtonian mechanics and so you forget this DM, it is not proved, your antiverse like balance, the same it is not proved, and you don t develop the correlated philosophy, thirdly, you consider gravitons, they are not proved and are hypothetical and 4 what do you consider like foundamental objects, develop, and explain , are they points or strings and why , and what are your geometrical algebras, but there also it is not proved, the nmatter action is not the problem and the bipohotons also, the proofs are the problem about this planck scale, the main codes and the philosophical origin, so you can repeat and tell all what you want, that will not change the fact that all are just assumptions not proved.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 27, 2020 @ 15:58 GMT
your balance is not bad about a kind of antimatter for this universe ,so an antiverse but it is not proved and you cannot affirm simply and I repeat, the same for your ideas about this DM, and the same for your gravitons, but apparently you affrim these thingfs like facts, where are the formalisations and mathematical proofs ?

Bookmark and Share
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.