If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.
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
Joe Fisher: on 5/19/19 at 16:10pm UTC, wrote Dear Steve Agnew, Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly...
Steve Agnew: on 5/18/19 at 22:08pm UTC, wrote Stringy and loop quantum are the two big contenders, but neither has a...
Joe Fisher: on 5/18/19 at 15:48pm UTC, wrote Dear John R. Cox, Thank you for pointing out to us that “Einstein spent...
John R. Cox: on 5/18/19 at 2:20am UTC, wrote That's fair, Steve. Einstein spent the last half of his life trying to...
Steve Agnew: on 5/17/19 at 20:37pm UTC, wrote Since time and space have not worked out very well for science, resolution...
John R. Cox: on 5/17/19 at 19:52pm UTC, wrote Okay, okay Steve and Georgi, my a priori conjecture is invalid, your"s is...
Steve Agnew: on 5/17/19 at 18:52pm UTC, wrote Since your arguments begin with a sphere volume, your apriori assumption is...
Joe Fisher: on 5/17/19 at 16:03pm UTC, wrote Dear John R. Cox and Georgina Woodward, Let us consider Natural VISIBLE...
Joe Fisher: on 5/19/19 at 16:10pm UTC, wrote Dear Steve Agnew, Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly...
Steve Agnew: on 5/18/19 at 22:08pm UTC, wrote Stringy and loop quantum are the two big contenders, but neither has a...
Joe Fisher: on 5/18/19 at 15:48pm UTC, wrote Dear John R. Cox, Thank you for pointing out to us that “Einstein spent...
John R. Cox: on 5/18/19 at 2:20am UTC, wrote That's fair, Steve. Einstein spent the last half of his life trying to...
Steve Agnew: on 5/17/19 at 20:37pm UTC, wrote Since time and space have not worked out very well for science, resolution...
John R. Cox: on 5/17/19 at 19:52pm UTC, wrote Okay, okay Steve and Georgi, my a priori conjecture is invalid, your"s is...
Steve Agnew: on 5/17/19 at 18:52pm UTC, wrote Since your arguments begin with a sphere volume, your apriori assumption is...
Joe Fisher: on 5/17/19 at 16:03pm UTC, wrote Dear John R. Cox and Georgina Woodward, Let us consider Natural VISIBLE...
FQXi FORUM
May 19, 2019
What is information?
Information is context/ relationship: categories of information (like mass, position and time) are relationships, where the relationships can be represented as equations or algorithms. Information is also the numbers that apply to these categories.
Does information “travel”?
Categories of information, e.g. velocity (speed and direction), and their associated numbers, apply to things like particles. Particles “travel”, but information is not like a particle.
Does “nothing—not even information—… travel faster than the speed of light”? Things like particles travel, but information obviously doesn’t travel in the same sense that a particle travels.
report post as inappropriate
Information is context/ relationship: categories of information (like mass, position and time) are relationships, where the relationships can be represented as equations or algorithms. Information is also the numbers that apply to these categories.
Does information “travel”?
Categories of information, e.g. velocity (speed and direction), and their associated numbers, apply to things like particles. Particles “travel”, but information is not like a particle.
Does “nothing—not even information—… travel faster than the speed of light”? Things like particles travel, but information obviously doesn’t travel in the same sense that a particle travels.
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.
report post as inappropriate
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.
"however, it does not make sense to talk about the temperature of a single particle."
That has to go into the same box as [you can't define what a particle is]. So how can you say that? As for the 'illusionary time' or emergent time, that only holds if you assume ( as Eddington contended that we might as well ) that the scale of a span of duration in time, is the same as the scale for a span of seperation in spcae. If you assume that, then you are stuck with Minkowski's Blocktime and the subsequent paradoxes that then pretend.
report post as inappropriate
That has to go into the same box as [you can't define what a particle is]. So how can you say that? As for the 'illusionary time' or emergent time, that only holds if you assume ( as Eddington contended that we might as well ) that the scale of a span of duration in time, is the same as the scale for a span of seperation in spcae. If you assume that, then you are stuck with Minkowski's Blocktime and the subsequent paradoxes that then pretend.
I guess I don't see the issue here, but that may be because I'm an amateur and don't know all the intricacies and all the math. For me, time is not fundamental. It's just a function of physical things happening (e.g., physical change). One could think of physical change as a tally of the number of events that have happened. If there were absolutely no physical change in the universe, there would...
view entire post
view entire post
"...information obviously doesn't travel in the same sense that a particle travels." L. Ford
I think that is a salient point, Lorraine, physics should be about what is physical, and what we use to distinguish that are tools more of the abstract.
With little care one can position two identical bar magnets so that like poles will allow the end of one magnet to be suspended against the acceleration of gravity above the end of the other magnet. Yet F=ma, and for there to be a counter acceleration to gravity, there must be something 'moving'. Whatever it is it is not something which can be siphoned off and collected. What can it be? jrc
report post as inappropriate
I think that is a salient point, Lorraine, physics should be about what is physical, and what we use to distinguish that are tools more of the abstract.
With little care one can position two identical bar magnets so that like poles will allow the end of one magnet to be suspended against the acceleration of gravity above the end of the other magnet. Yet F=ma, and for there to be a counter acceleration to gravity, there must be something 'moving'. Whatever it is it is not something which can be siphoned off and collected. What can it be? jrc
The problem is not philosophical at all. Einstein's relative time, from which idiocies like time travel into the future or "time is an illusion" are validly or invalidly deduced, is a consequence of Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate. Remove the falsehood and the problems with time will disappear.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev
There am no such a thing as time. There are finitely craftily constructed timepieces. The problem am that a sundial supposedly measures a different finite passage of time than a wristwatch does, and a wristwatch supposedly measures a different finite passage of time than an atomic clock does. Time pieces can be stopped and restarted. The only physical irritable fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Albert Einstein ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural guesswork concerning the duality of matter and curved space finitely co-existing. There has never been any empty space. There has only ever been one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Sensible Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher, Sensible Realist
"It just seemed so rock solid and such a striking departure from the way I figured things had to be."
The math is rock solid, unfortunately, the physics is anything but. The math's only connection to physical reality, rests upon a foundation of quicksand - a false premise about the physical world, identified over 40 years ago. For a striking departure from all the absurd interpretations of this phenomenon, see my recent "Socratic Dialog" with Tim Maudlin
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
The math is rock solid, unfortunately, the physics is anything but. The math's only connection to physical reality, rests upon a foundation of quicksand - a false premise about the physical world, identified over 40 years ago. For a striking departure from all the absurd interpretations of this phenomenon, see my recent "Socratic Dialog" with Tim Maudlin
Rob McEachern
I guess I've made this point before, but it bears repeating;
The only problem with understanding time is that we see it in reverse. As mobile organisms, we have a sequential thought process, in order to navigate. Then after a few hundreds of thousands of years narrating our journeys to one another and building civilizations out of the collective knowledge, this past to future sequencing...
view entire post
The only problem with understanding time is that we see it in reverse. As mobile organisms, we have a sequential thought process, in order to navigate. Then after a few hundreds of thousands of years narrating our journeys to one another and building civilizations out of the collective knowledge, this past to future sequencing...
view entire post
Dear John Brodix Merryman,
The only real thing you will ever see in your lifetime no matter in which direction you look am surface. You cannot see non-existing invisible “time in reverse.”
Joe Fisher, Helpful Realist
report post as inappropriate
The only real thing you will ever see in your lifetime no matter in which direction you look am surface. You cannot see non-existing invisible “time in reverse.”
Joe Fisher, Helpful Realist
Joe,
As children, we certainly only see the surface and many people don't get much beyond it, but some of us are curious about what goes on under the surface and what makes things tick. For instance, as a child, we might look out across the surface of the ocean and it doesn't occur to us of what might be beneath the surface, though we quickly get the sense not to go too far in.
As for seeing time in reverse, by looking only at the surface, a similar situation occurs when we look up at the sky and see the sun and the stars flowing across the sky, from east to west. Brilliant and predictively accurate geometric models of these actions, called epicycles, were constructed, based on these observations. When we tried to explain these models, by proposing crystalline spheres to carry the celestial bodies, we overlooked an important detail under our very feet. That it is this ground we are standing on, that is spinning the other way. West to east.
Spacetime is the modern version of those crystalline spheres. As a physical explanation for the very effective mathematical model of Special and General Relativity, it doesn't take into account that this narrative sequence, measured as duration, is effect, not cause. The present doesn't move, the events do.
report post as inappropriate
As children, we certainly only see the surface and many people don't get much beyond it, but some of us are curious about what goes on under the surface and what makes things tick. For instance, as a child, we might look out across the surface of the ocean and it doesn't occur to us of what might be beneath the surface, though we quickly get the sense not to go too far in.
As for seeing time in reverse, by looking only at the surface, a similar situation occurs when we look up at the sky and see the sun and the stars flowing across the sky, from east to west. Brilliant and predictively accurate geometric models of these actions, called epicycles, were constructed, based on these observations. When we tried to explain these models, by proposing crystalline spheres to carry the celestial bodies, we overlooked an important detail under our very feet. That it is this ground we are standing on, that is spinning the other way. West to east.
Spacetime is the modern version of those crystalline spheres. As a physical explanation for the very effective mathematical model of Special and General Relativity, it doesn't take into account that this narrative sequence, measured as duration, is effect, not cause. The present doesn't move, the events do.
John Brodix Merryman,
Every creature with eyes only ever sees surface no matter in which direction each creature’s eyes look, because only one VISIBLE infinite surface has ever existed. White male scientists were completely wrong when they assumed matter and space could co-exist and that there were finite measurable amounts of matter immersed in curved three finite dimensional space. Only one VISIBLE infinite surface has ETERNALLY been occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Sanguine Realist
report post as inappropriate
Every creature with eyes only ever sees surface no matter in which direction each creature’s eyes look, because only one VISIBLE infinite surface has ever existed. White male scientists were completely wrong when they assumed matter and space could co-exist and that there were finite measurable amounts of matter immersed in curved three finite dimensional space. Only one VISIBLE infinite surface has ETERNALLY been occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Sanguine Realist
here is all you should know about time.
attachments: 2_How_many_Models_of_Time_do_we_need_in_Physics_-_personal_copy.pdf
report post as inappropriate
attachments: 2_How_many_Models_of_Time_do_we_need_in_Physics_-_personal_copy.pdf
'Physicists in general, are" more inclined to dismiss passage, flow and the sense of openness of the future as illusions," - ' Jenann Ismael
That may be from an underlying expectation, for the sake of simplicity in mathematical analysis, that time only comes in one flavor. Physically it can be 'flowing' (for want of a better metaphor) but not going anywhere. More like the irreconcilable difference spatially between a cube and a sphere, and the inherent stress there-in between time and space is the origin of energy.
report post as inappropriate
That may be from an underlying expectation, for the sake of simplicity in mathematical analysis, that time only comes in one flavor. Physically it can be 'flowing' (for want of a better metaphor) but not going anywhere. More like the irreconcilable difference spatially between a cube and a sphere, and the inherent stress there-in between time and space is the origin of energy.
Information (e.g. mass, position and time information) seemingly does not float in some abstract ether: information is context; information comes in categories which are relationships between other such categories of information; and category and number information is carried by things like particles and atoms.
But algorithmic information seems to exist in the universe: the equations of physics, which represent laws of nature, rely on the delta symbol, which represents change of number information that can only be derived algorithmically. (Note that, when looked at closely, these numbers don’t change smoothly, they “jump”.)
So, it might once have been thought that, apart from numbers and the symbols representing categories like mass and position, only the following symbols are required: + - ÷ x = to represent law of nature relationships. But in addition to these symbols, the representation of algorithmic information and its outcome requires the following symbols: IF THEN TRUE FALSE, and symbols like: < > . The “hidden” presence of algorithmic information in the equations of physics indicates that higher-level concepts are present in the universe, at a more fundamental level than might have been expected.
report post as inappropriate
But algorithmic information seems to exist in the universe: the equations of physics, which represent laws of nature, rely on the delta symbol, which represents change of number information that can only be derived algorithmically. (Note that, when looked at closely, these numbers don’t change smoothly, they “jump”.)
So, it might once have been thought that, apart from numbers and the symbols representing categories like mass and position, only the following symbols are required: + - ÷ x = to represent law of nature relationships. But in addition to these symbols, the representation of algorithmic information and its outcome requires the following symbols: IF THEN TRUE FALSE, and symbols like: < > . The “hidden” presence of algorithmic information in the equations of physics indicates that higher-level concepts are present in the universe, at a more fundamental level than might have been expected.
(continued)
So, the existence of information which comes in categories and is “carried” by things like particles, and the existence of algorithmic (i.e. higher-level) categories of information, are the link between particles, atoms and molecules on the one hand, and living things on the other hand.
report post as inappropriate
So, the existence of information which comes in categories and is “carried” by things like particles, and the existence of algorithmic (i.e. higher-level) categories of information, are the link between particles, atoms and molecules on the one hand, and living things on the other hand.
May we accept the reasoning by Nicholas of Cusa who was born in 1401 in Kusa, nowadays Bernkastel-Kues at the river Mosel, who inferred from the absence of observable limits to the universe that the universe is endless and has therefore no center?
While Oresme, Buridan and a bit later Kopernikus criticized the geocentric model of Ptolemaios, and science replaced it by the heliocentric one, Cusanus concluded that there is no preferred point of reference in his center-less universe. Doesn’t this mean that Maxwell’s hypothetical light-carrying aether is merely a lazy unjustified analog of a mechanic medium and the negative outcome of Michelson’s experiments in Berlin/Potsdam and later in Cleveland was to be expected?
Isn’t therefore the historical basis of so far still not yet experimentally confirmed hypotheses by Lorentz up to Einstein’s relativity of time shaky if Cusanus was correct?
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
While Oresme, Buridan and a bit later Kopernikus criticized the geocentric model of Ptolemaios, and science replaced it by the heliocentric one, Cusanus concluded that there is no preferred point of reference in his center-less universe. Doesn’t this mean that Maxwell’s hypothetical light-carrying aether is merely a lazy unjustified analog of a mechanic medium and the negative outcome of Michelson’s experiments in Berlin/Potsdam and later in Cleveland was to be expected?
Isn’t therefore the historical basis of so far still not yet experimentally confirmed hypotheses by Lorentz up to Einstein’s relativity of time shaky if Cusanus was correct?
Eckard Blumschein
Hi Eckard, the lack of limit to observation has been superseded by the so called cosmic background radiation which is an event horizon, from beyond which there are not any discernible signals. That puts a limit on what is observable on or near Earth.The Earth (and near Earth) is the centre of our observations and therefore our observable universe.
I note you just say "universe" and not observable universe. Existing now is not what is generated from processing of received EM radiation. We are 'blind' to what is out there now, making simple estimation from observation insufficient. I think relevant ideas are such as, how the universe has developed over time and how the EM radiation has reached the telescopes, taking into account the effects of gravity on light paths en route and the motion of the Earth and solar system.
report post as inappropriate
I note you just say "universe" and not observable universe. Existing now is not what is generated from processing of received EM radiation. We are 'blind' to what is out there now, making simple estimation from observation insufficient. I think relevant ideas are such as, how the universe has developed over time and how the EM radiation has reached the telescopes, taking into account the effects of gravity on light paths en route and the motion of the Earth and solar system.
Georgina,
Keep in mind that causality doesn't apply to the current cosmological model. when there is a discrepancy between prediction and observation, some enormous patch is applied and everything continues as normal. What if accountants worked like that? Whenever there is a gap in the books, they just add a figure and call it dark money.
The first patch applied was when it was realized this redshift increases with distance at the same rate in every direction, so it was changed from an expansion in space, to an expansion of space, because Spacetime! Presumably then every point would appear as its own center.
Which totally overlooks the premise for spacetime, in the first place, that the speed of light is measured as a constant, in every frame. If it is being redshifted, obviously it's not constant to intergalactic space. Wouldn't the speed have to increase, if the distance is increasing, in order to remain constant?
Two metrics of space are being derived from the same intergalactic light. One based on the spectrum and one based on the speed. Since the expansion is still relative to the speed, as it's based on the redshifting of this light, that means the speed is still the denominator.
We are at the center of our point of view, so an optical effect would be a rational solution. In which case, that background radiation would be light shifted off the visible spectrum.
One solution is that multi spectrum light "packets" do redshift over distance, as the higher spectrums dissipate faster than the lower ones, so then the question is whether individual photons travel billions of lightyears, or we are sampling a wave front.
On light packets; https://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristov_WaveMo
tion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf
On the quantization of light; https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Reiter_challenge2.
pdf
report post as inappropriate
Keep in mind that causality doesn't apply to the current cosmological model. when there is a discrepancy between prediction and observation, some enormous patch is applied and everything continues as normal. What if accountants worked like that? Whenever there is a gap in the books, they just add a figure and call it dark money.
The first patch applied was when it was realized this redshift increases with distance at the same rate in every direction, so it was changed from an expansion in space, to an expansion of space, because Spacetime! Presumably then every point would appear as its own center.
Which totally overlooks the premise for spacetime, in the first place, that the speed of light is measured as a constant, in every frame. If it is being redshifted, obviously it's not constant to intergalactic space. Wouldn't the speed have to increase, if the distance is increasing, in order to remain constant?
Two metrics of space are being derived from the same intergalactic light. One based on the spectrum and one based on the speed. Since the expansion is still relative to the speed, as it's based on the redshifting of this light, that means the speed is still the denominator.
We are at the center of our point of view, so an optical effect would be a rational solution. In which case, that background radiation would be light shifted off the visible spectrum.
One solution is that multi spectrum light "packets" do redshift over distance, as the higher spectrums dissipate faster than the lower ones, so then the question is whether individual photons travel billions of lightyears, or we are sampling a wave front.
On light packets; https://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristov_WaveMo
tion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf
On the quantization of light; https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Reiter_challenge2.
Georgina, John,
Only https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolaus_von_Kues provides the essential deatails in 3.7 Naturphilosophy, missing in the en version.
Supersede means replace something oldfashioned. Being just a little bit aware of newfashioned interpretations by Hubble,Gamov, Penzias, and Wilson, I don't exclude that Cusanus was correct when he imagined the universe extending beyond the observable part of it. Creationists are believing in a creator, the word nature means something that was born. When I am questioning Maxwell's medium, I feel reminded of de Guericke's experimentia de spatio vacuuo. Does energy flow really always need a carrier if there are no known carrier of electric and magnetic fields?
John, while "center of our point" sounds silly to me, I largely appreciate your reasoning.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Only https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolaus_von_Kues provides the essential deatails in 3.7 Naturphilosophy, missing in the en version.
Supersede means replace something oldfashioned. Being just a little bit aware of newfashioned interpretations by Hubble,Gamov, Penzias, and Wilson, I don't exclude that Cusanus was correct when he imagined the universe extending beyond the observable part of it. Creationists are believing in a creator, the word nature means something that was born. When I am questioning Maxwell's medium, I feel reminded of de Guericke's experimentia de spatio vacuuo. Does energy flow really always need a carrier if there are no known carrier of electric and magnetic fields?
John, while "center of our point" sounds silly to me, I largely appreciate your reasoning.
Eckard
So... John, Georgina and Eckard? Aside from differences of how we attempt to reason what time might be, and how it behaves... is Time existentially real? (I'm in the cheering section for a real physicality of Time.) :) jrc
report post as inappropriate
arc,
As an effect of physical activity, time is as real as temperature, pressure, color and other such effects. The problem, is that we are assuming the narrative flow, along which the present moves, from past to future. Which physics codifies as measures of duration and then treats as though it is similar to a spatial dimension. Aka, the "fabric of spacetime."
The evident fact is the underlaying physical dynamic, distilling the potential down to the actual, which then recedes into residual. The present doesn't move past to future, rather the events move future to past, as the present is the physical state.
Not that anyone in the field seems willing to consider this, as it is outside the mathematical box.
report post as inappropriate
As an effect of physical activity, time is as real as temperature, pressure, color and other such effects. The problem, is that we are assuming the narrative flow, along which the present moves, from past to future. Which physics codifies as measures of duration and then treats as though it is similar to a spatial dimension. Aka, the "fabric of spacetime."
The evident fact is the underlaying physical dynamic, distilling the potential down to the actual, which then recedes into residual. The present doesn't move past to future, rather the events move future to past, as the present is the physical state.
Not that anyone in the field seems willing to consider this, as it is outside the mathematical box.
Hi John, first you have to be clear what you mean by the word 'time'. Many different ideas come under that name. Some kinds of time: Time as seen on a clock, or another timing device ( a time and duration or elapsed time), time obtained from the motion of Earth relative to the sun- day/night and as read from a sundial (time of day), changing seasons too (time of year, also obtainable from a calendar), time as a dimension of a geometric model, passage of time as personally experienced (singular present and passage of time), t used in equations, a configuration of all simultaneously existing things (a time), change of the configuration of all existing things (passage of time), Mc Taggarts A time and B time.Clearly these are different ideas even though they share a name. You also need to be clear what you mean by 'existential'.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina,
That would go to time being an effect, like temperature and pressure. Both of which exist in many different ways. Much like binary terms can be applied to many different situations; on/off, good/bad, in/out, etc.
Most specifically, it is a measure of duration, yet as I keep pointing out, duration is this present state, as the defining events coalesce and dissolve. What makes them all different is the energy involved. Be it a clock mechanically ticking, the earth turning on its axis, the emotions involved, when we are bored, versus entertained.
The only problem is when we associate all the masses of dynamics going on around us, to this apparent sequencing of events and try incorporating them into a singular narrative flow, rather than a universe of activities, all with their own dynamics.
report post as inappropriate
That would go to time being an effect, like temperature and pressure. Both of which exist in many different ways. Much like binary terms can be applied to many different situations; on/off, good/bad, in/out, etc.
Most specifically, it is a measure of duration, yet as I keep pointing out, duration is this present state, as the defining events coalesce and dissolve. What makes them all different is the energy involved. Be it a clock mechanically ticking, the earth turning on its axis, the emotions involved, when we are bored, versus entertained.
The only problem is when we associate all the masses of dynamics going on around us, to this apparent sequencing of events and try incorporating them into a singular narrative flow, rather than a universe of activities, all with their own dynamics.
When will you arrogant ignorant folk ever realize that Nature must have devised the only VISIBLE reality allowable, and that VISIBLE reality must be real to all living creatures all of their lives? Albert Einstein’s assumed duality of matter and space co-existing has never happened. There has never been any empty space. There have never been three finite dimensions. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. You have all assumed that there was something else below a surface and that there were different kinds of surface, therefore something else must exist under the surface and invisible finite forces must dominate scientific knowledge.
Joe Fisher, The Sensible Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher, The Sensible Realist
I have completed my research and experiments on discovery of new medium in Physics—The intangible Time Medium—which only transfer data and information.[https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/invention-natura
l-encryption-technology-neo-security-isi-siddiqui/]
I presented the the Law of Intangible Time Medium states that " The Universe all living and non-living things existed , being creating will soon be destroyed when a divine encoded message to be received by the all things existed . The encoded divine message which is already released to be transferred to all things via Intangible Time Medium.
Einstein said Time is the FOURTH dimension in Space and Time both are Tandem. My research proved that Time plays the role of intangible medium in transferring data and information.
According to the Law of Intangible Time Medium the encoded message for the destruction of the Universe had been released by Allah. That is when the destruction Message to be received by the galaxy or galaxies or the Universe it will be destroyed.
How the Divine message to be reached to the all material things ? The NET -- a new encryption technology is the answer of this query. Read the research paper on the NET on Link on Linkedin :https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/invention-natural-encryption
-technology-neo-security-isi-siddiqui/
mediasword@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
l-encryption-technology-neo-security-isi-siddiqui/]
I presented the the Law of Intangible Time Medium states that " The Universe all living and non-living things existed , being creating will soon be destroyed when a divine encoded message to be received by the all things existed . The encoded divine message which is already released to be transferred to all things via Intangible Time Medium.
Einstein said Time is the FOURTH dimension in Space and Time both are Tandem. My research proved that Time plays the role of intangible medium in transferring data and information.
According to the Law of Intangible Time Medium the encoded message for the destruction of the Universe had been released by Allah. That is when the destruction Message to be received by the galaxy or galaxies or the Universe it will be destroyed.
How the Divine message to be reached to the all material things ? The NET -- a new encryption technology is the answer of this query. Read the research paper on the NET on Link on Linkedin :https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/invention-natural-encryption
-technology-neo-security-isi-siddiqui/
mediasword@yahoo.com
Idea holography the time. Perhaps time can be expressed as
[equation]
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...
view entire post
[equation]
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...
view entire post
Holography the time
attachments: dualism_1.pdf, Quantum_tunneling_approach_of_noncommutative_geometry.docx
report post as inappropriate
attachments: dualism_1.pdf, Quantum_tunneling_approach_of_noncommutative_geometry.docx
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.
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: 2_Quantum_tunneling_approach_of_noncommutative_geometry.docx
report post as inappropriate
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.
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: 2_Quantum_tunneling_approach_of_noncommutative_geometry.docx
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“The fine-tuning of the constants of nature, which seems required for the existence of stars and planets and certainly for life and mind, is a fascinating feature of our universe. But before grand metaphysical schemes are advanced by philosophers, theologians, and even scientists, proper understanding of the underlying assumptions and fundamental physics are needed. Luke A. Barnes is a theoretical astrophysicist, cosmologist and postdoctoral researcher at Western Sydney University. In this interview, he discusses the physics of fine-tuning.”
I have unselfishly posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own exquisite flawless Facebook page.
Natural VISIBLE reality has ETERNALLY had only one constant. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be, one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been a co-existing duality of curved invisible space and finite measurements of matter. There has never been three finite dimensions or any finite dimension of invisible time. The Periodic Table am white male finite guesswork.
Joe Fisher, Aging Realist
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“The fine-tuning of the constants of nature, which seems required for the existence of stars and planets and certainly for life and mind, is a fascinating feature of our universe. But before grand metaphysical schemes are advanced by philosophers, theologians, and even scientists, proper understanding of the underlying assumptions and fundamental physics are needed. Luke A. Barnes is a theoretical astrophysicist, cosmologist and postdoctoral researcher at Western Sydney University. In this interview, he discusses the physics of fine-tuning.”
I have unselfishly posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own exquisite flawless Facebook page.
Natural VISIBLE reality has ETERNALLY had only one constant. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be, one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been a co-existing duality of curved invisible space and finite measurements of matter. There has never been three finite dimensions or any finite dimension of invisible time. The Periodic Table am white male finite guesswork.
Joe Fisher, Aging Realist
Fundamental levels of reality do not have the wherewithal to analyse and recognise large- or small-scale patterns in the world. You need living things, with their ability to algorithmically analyse and collate information, to recognise patterns; and only human beings conceptualise history and large-scale time and space, and only human beings write poetry and prose.
But, in one sense, this history, poetry and prose is only the surface of reality. Using our human ability to manipulate objects, and our ability to algorithmically analyse and collate information, physics studies what underlies our everyday reality. They have found that fundamental levels of reality can seemingly only recognise relatively simple relationship and change: i.e. physics’ equations represent relatively simple relationship and change.
The precise concepts and equations of physics, which represent a relatively simple underlying reality, has allowed us to send exploratory vehicles into “space”: which indicates that physics is pretty-well correct, though not complete or perfect.
report post as inappropriate
But, in one sense, this history, poetry and prose is only the surface of reality. Using our human ability to manipulate objects, and our ability to algorithmically analyse and collate information, physics studies what underlies our everyday reality. They have found that fundamental levels of reality can seemingly only recognise relatively simple relationship and change: i.e. physics’ equations represent relatively simple relationship and change.
The precise concepts and equations of physics, which represent a relatively simple underlying reality, has allowed us to send exploratory vehicles into “space”: which indicates that physics is pretty-well correct, though not complete or perfect.
(continued)
Physics debates whether or not, at a fundamental level, a simple time exists in relatively-simple relationship to other simple aspects of reality. They have found that, unless you want to complexify the situation, a simple type of time probably doesn’t exist. I.e. a time “dimension” probably doesn’t exist as a foundational aspect of reality, and the underlying relatively-simple time must have been derived from other simple aspects of reality.
What is not so debatable is that “recognition of change” exists in the underlying reality: i.e. the equations of physics represent change (of number) with the delta symbol. Clearly, quantum events are a source of number change, but it is not clear that there are any other factors causing number change. It may be that quantum events are the only source of number change in the universe. I.e. it may be that quantum events are the source of a relatively-simple sense of time, a relatively-simple “recognition of change”, a relatively-simple aspect of reality that can be represented as a relatively-simple equation.
report post as inappropriate
Physics debates whether or not, at a fundamental level, a simple time exists in relatively-simple relationship to other simple aspects of reality. They have found that, unless you want to complexify the situation, a simple type of time probably doesn’t exist. I.e. a time “dimension” probably doesn’t exist as a foundational aspect of reality, and the underlying relatively-simple time must have been derived from other simple aspects of reality.
What is not so debatable is that “recognition of change” exists in the underlying reality: i.e. the equations of physics represent change (of number) with the delta symbol. Clearly, quantum events are a source of number change, but it is not clear that there are any other factors causing number change. It may be that quantum events are the only source of number change in the universe. I.e. it may be that quantum events are the source of a relatively-simple sense of time, a relatively-simple “recognition of change”, a relatively-simple aspect of reality that can be represented as a relatively-simple equation.
VISIBLE reality could not possibly have finite "different levels." VISIBLE reality could not possibly have different finite "aspects."Let me try it one more time: There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite Non-surface light. There has never been any empty space. Einstein was completely wrong in assuming that matter and space could co-exist.
Please stop repeating finite misinformation.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Please stop repeating finite misinformation.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Abraham (Avi) Loeb is an American/Israeli theoretical physicist who works on astrophysics and cosmology and the Frank B. Baird, Jr. Professor of Science at Harvard University. Watch his interview below on the physics of fine-tuning. Abraham (Avi) Loeb is an American/Israeli theoretical physicist who works on astrophysics and cosmology and the Frank B. Baird, Jr. Professor of Science at Harvard University. Watch his interview below on the physics of fine-tuning.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
Nature provided us with a sensible reality that does not require any “fine tuning” whatsoever. The only irrefutable fact the physicists have been able to establish am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before any physicists ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing their unnatural silly guesswork concerning the duality of co-existing states of finite measurable amounts of matter finitely swirling around in curved invisible space There has never been any invisible space. There has only ever been ONE SINGLE VISIBLE INFINITE SURFACE ETERNALLY OCCURRING IN ONE INFINITE DIMENSION THAT AM ALWAYS MOSTLY ILLUMINATED BY FINITE NON-SURFACE LIGHT.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“Abraham (Avi) Loeb is an American/Israeli theoretical physicist who works on astrophysics and cosmology and the Frank B. Baird, Jr. Professor of Science at Harvard University. Watch his interview below on the physics of fine-tuning. Abraham (Avi) Loeb is an American/Israeli theoretical physicist who works on astrophysics and cosmology and the Frank B. Baird, Jr. Professor of Science at Harvard University. Watch his interview below on the physics of fine-tuning.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
Nature provided us with a sensible reality that does not require any “fine tuning” whatsoever. The only irrefutable fact the physicists have been able to establish am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before any physicists ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing their unnatural silly guesswork concerning the duality of co-existing states of finite measurable amounts of matter finitely swirling around in curved invisible space There has never been any invisible space. There has only ever been ONE SINGLE VISIBLE INFINITE SURFACE ETERNALLY OCCURRING IN ONE INFINITE DIMENSION THAT AM ALWAYS MOSTLY ILLUMINATED BY FINITE NON-SURFACE LIGHT.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Eckard,
I'm a little surprised that nobody rose to your bait in debate on the argument of Cusanas, neutral centrality, Maxwell and the always ambiguous 'luminiferous aether'. All good points, especially with the number of unsolved mysteries of the classical age that have been subsumed by Quantum Mechanics.
I dug out an old (falling apart at the seams, actually) book by Isaac Assimov,...
view entire post
I'm a little surprised that nobody rose to your bait in debate on the argument of Cusanas, neutral centrality, Maxwell and the always ambiguous 'luminiferous aether'. All good points, especially with the number of unsolved mysteries of the classical age that have been subsumed by Quantum Mechanics.
I dug out an old (falling apart at the seams, actually) book by Isaac Assimov,...
view entire post
jrc,
It seems to me the absolute equilibrium of space is implicit in Relativity, as the frame with the fastest clock and longest ruler would be closest to it. So space, without physical properties to quantify it, would have the non-physical qualities of infinity and equilibrium.
The primary physical properties occupying space are energy and mass. Energy expands to infinity, or until it is completely diffused. While mass collapses to equilibrium, or until it is completely dissolved back into the energy radiating back out. A cosmic convection cycle.
Perfect equilibrium may not be physical, but it is the essence of "rigidity." As in un-moved/unmoving.
I would submit space is the absolute and the infinite.
report post as inappropriate
It seems to me the absolute equilibrium of space is implicit in Relativity, as the frame with the fastest clock and longest ruler would be closest to it. So space, without physical properties to quantify it, would have the non-physical qualities of infinity and equilibrium.
The primary physical properties occupying space are energy and mass. Energy expands to infinity, or until it is completely diffused. While mass collapses to equilibrium, or until it is completely dissolved back into the energy radiating back out. A cosmic convection cycle.
Perfect equilibrium may not be physical, but it is the essence of "rigidity." As in un-moved/unmoving.
I would submit space is the absolute and the infinite.
Dear John Brodix Merryman,
One real VISIBLE Universe could only ever have one real VISIBLE physical condition. There has never been any empty invisible space. Please do try to remember that the only VISIBLE physical condition the clever white male scientists have been able to prove am that the real VISIBLE Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before you ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing your silly unnatural copied guesswork concerning supposed space/matter duality.
Joe Fisher, Very Patient Realist
report post as inappropriate
One real VISIBLE Universe could only ever have one real VISIBLE physical condition. There has never been any empty invisible space. Please do try to remember that the only VISIBLE physical condition the clever white male scientists have been able to prove am that the real VISIBLE Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before you ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing your silly unnatural copied guesswork concerning supposed space/matter duality.
Joe Fisher, Very Patient Realist
Joe,
As Emerson put it; "We are but thickened light."
What each of us perceives in that light is different.
report post as inappropriate
As Emerson put it; "We are but thickened light."
What each of us perceives in that light is different.
JB MerryMan :-)
I can see where you are coming from, and instinctively we do associate a spatial realism with content. There was a video on a news program this morning that was amusing, entertaining and thought provoking. A small bird, sparrow size, had flown in an open window of what appeared to be a sunroom and was caught on a cell phone video as it landed on the back of a couch near a...
view entire post
I can see where you are coming from, and instinctively we do associate a spatial realism with content. There was a video on a news program this morning that was amusing, entertaining and thought provoking. A small bird, sparrow size, had flown in an open window of what appeared to be a sunroom and was caught on a cell phone video as it landed on the back of a couch near a...
view entire post
jrc,
Then where would the mass originate, if the energy didn't eventually coalesce into form? I realize it doesn't actually go to infinity, but the general direction. Just as mass doesn't go to pure equilibrium, but to the edge of the eye of the cosmic storms, that are the black holes at the center. I think once we add up all the energy radiated out and then shot out the poles, nothing is left to actually fall into some other dimension. The combination being a cosmic convection cycle. Feedback between the processes and patterns generated.
My issue with time is posted further up the thread; That we codify the narrative past to future perception of change, turning future to past, by treating it as measures of duration, without acknowledging what is measured, action, is more elemental than the measure, duration. Duration is this physical state, as the events come and go, future to past. Potential, actual, residual.
There is a further issue I have with Big Bang Cosmology, in that I suspect the redshift is an optical effect and we are sampling a multi-spectrum wave front, not individual photons traveling billions of lightyears, so that cosmic background radiation is the light of ever more distant sources, shifted off the visible spectrum. The solution to Olber's paradox. Waiting on the James Webb to see what the observations show.
https://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristov_W
aveMotion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Then where would the mass originate, if the energy didn't eventually coalesce into form? I realize it doesn't actually go to infinity, but the general direction. Just as mass doesn't go to pure equilibrium, but to the edge of the eye of the cosmic storms, that are the black holes at the center. I think once we add up all the energy radiated out and then shot out the poles, nothing is left to actually fall into some other dimension. The combination being a cosmic convection cycle. Feedback between the processes and patterns generated.
My issue with time is posted further up the thread; That we codify the narrative past to future perception of change, turning future to past, by treating it as measures of duration, without acknowledging what is measured, action, is more elemental than the measure, duration. Duration is this physical state, as the events come and go, future to past. Potential, actual, residual.
There is a further issue I have with Big Bang Cosmology, in that I suspect the redshift is an optical effect and we are sampling a multi-spectrum wave front, not individual photons traveling billions of lightyears, so that cosmic background radiation is the light of ever more distant sources, shifted off the visible spectrum. The solution to Olber's paradox. Waiting on the James Webb to see what the observations show.
https://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristov_W
aveMotion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf
Dear John Brodix Merryman,
The only fact you will ever have to remember for all of your life am that all matter has a VISIBLE surface. The only logical way that could happen would be if there was only one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any invisible curved space. The VISIBLE Universe could not possibly have emerged from out of an invisible void at a finite moment of invisible time.
Joe Fisher, Helpful Realist
report post as inappropriate
The only fact you will ever have to remember for all of your life am that all matter has a VISIBLE surface. The only logical way that could happen would be if there was only one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any invisible curved space. The VISIBLE Universe could not possibly have emerged from out of an invisible void at a finite moment of invisible time.
Joe Fisher, Helpful Realist
JB Merryman,
Pardon my posting in this manner, I'll limit my usage as its a bit indulgent. It's simply that I had to get a new cheap laptop that is so overloaded by the Win10 OS that I don't use it if it requires 'creating an account', so if I can spout off in the "read article" box then I'm okay. And really, if my two cents were going to make me rich, I wouldn't be here anyway. So I'm fair game.
There have been a number of well formed comments in this topic, I liked Lorraine's concise observations and agree that however incomplete, our scientific achievements indicate that we are doing something right. Your own, Georgina's and Eckard's questioning conventional wisdom on the Cosmic Background Radiation and the limitations of observability of the universe have merit. But honestly, I am not sufficiently well versed in either the cross disciplinary theories and advanced mathematics, to weigh in.
What I'd kind of like to know is if you have given much thought to how in the cyclic equilibrium you perceive, that any physical relationships naturally exist which would limit energy coalescing into a finite range of mass accumulation in the general gravitational reference? And if so, how limited by comparison? cordially, jrc
report post as inappropriate
Pardon my posting in this manner, I'll limit my usage as its a bit indulgent. It's simply that I had to get a new cheap laptop that is so overloaded by the Win10 OS that I don't use it if it requires 'creating an account', so if I can spout off in the "read article" box then I'm okay. And really, if my two cents were going to make me rich, I wouldn't be here anyway. So I'm fair game.
There have been a number of well formed comments in this topic, I liked Lorraine's concise observations and agree that however incomplete, our scientific achievements indicate that we are doing something right. Your own, Georgina's and Eckard's questioning conventional wisdom on the Cosmic Background Radiation and the limitations of observability of the universe have merit. But honestly, I am not sufficiently well versed in either the cross disciplinary theories and advanced mathematics, to weigh in.
What I'd kind of like to know is if you have given much thought to how in the cyclic equilibrium you perceive, that any physical relationships naturally exist which would limit energy coalescing into a finite range of mass accumulation in the general gravitational reference? And if so, how limited by comparison? cordially, jrc
jrc,
I certainly admit to my own limits, so I'm not sure of your references. What I would guess is that as this gravitational contraction seems to be the opposite of radiant expansion, we should consider gravity as not so much a property of mass, but mass as an effect and part of this range of contraction. That every interaction, measurement, bound crossing, anything which might be conducive to producing form, is part of this spectrum of contraction, even photons coalescing out of fields. So that the effect attributed to dark matter is not due to some missing mass, as it is the effect of contraction and attraction across the entire spectrum.
Anytime energy coalesces, it takes up less space and anytime the form breaks down and releases energy, it takes up more space. So it can be geometrically described in terms of the space expanding/contracting, especially if one has dismissed space as an artifact of measurement.
Yet because energy that hasn't coalesced into a measurable unit can't be measured, than it is presumed not to exist. Consider Eric Stanley Reiter's entry in the questioning the Foundations contest of 2012;
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1344
Here is an essay I posted on medium a few weeks ago;
https://medium.com/@johnbrodixmerrymanjr/the-confessions
-of-a-cosmic-heretic-5cd4c044b8ea?source=friends_link&sk=4a9
9967885aa68b3a7a14db68e96ed64
report post as inappropriate
I certainly admit to my own limits, so I'm not sure of your references. What I would guess is that as this gravitational contraction seems to be the opposite of radiant expansion, we should consider gravity as not so much a property of mass, but mass as an effect and part of this range of contraction. That every interaction, measurement, bound crossing, anything which might be conducive to producing form, is part of this spectrum of contraction, even photons coalescing out of fields. So that the effect attributed to dark matter is not due to some missing mass, as it is the effect of contraction and attraction across the entire spectrum.
Anytime energy coalesces, it takes up less space and anytime the form breaks down and releases energy, it takes up more space. So it can be geometrically described in terms of the space expanding/contracting, especially if one has dismissed space as an artifact of measurement.
Yet because energy that hasn't coalesced into a measurable unit can't be measured, than it is presumed not to exist. Consider Eric Stanley Reiter's entry in the questioning the Foundations contest of 2012;
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1344
Here is an essay I posted on medium a few weeks ago;
https://medium.com/@johnbrodixmerrymanjr/the-confessions
-of-a-cosmic-heretic-5cd4c044b8ea?source=friends_link&sk=4a9
9967885aa68b3a7a14db68e96ed64
Fair enough JB,
the only thing heretical about you is that you don't do math, and as short as I am on math I'm in no position to chastise. But given the premise that an energy abundant universe compels Condensed Matter Physics, with its cookbook of Classical, Quantum and Relativistic recipes in application to materials and process engineering, experimentation and protocol criteria as well as the search theoretically for a Grand Unified Theory ---
... why is the coalescence of energy confined to such a small range of quantity assuming so few specific and apparently optimal size material particles, and only very tiny ones at that? Any thoughts? :) jrc
report post as inappropriate
the only thing heretical about you is that you don't do math, and as short as I am on math I'm in no position to chastise. But given the premise that an energy abundant universe compels Condensed Matter Physics, with its cookbook of Classical, Quantum and Relativistic recipes in application to materials and process engineering, experimentation and protocol criteria as well as the search theoretically for a Grand Unified Theory ---
... why is the coalescence of energy confined to such a small range of quantity assuming so few specific and apparently optimal size material particles, and only very tiny ones at that? Any thoughts? :) jrc
jrc,
Math has to be taken in context. Epicycles really were brilliant math and likely contributed significantly to geometry, but the crystalline spheres, as a one to one physical correspondence, were lousy physics and that one to one correspondence is back in vogue today. Spacetime is assumed to be a one to one physical correspondence with the math of Relativity. Math is mapping and modeling, yet some(many) buy into the notion it is somehow "reading the mind of God," as the basis of reality, not a mapping of our perceptions of it.
Your question really has two parts; Why is there anything? And; Why is there what there is?
I can make some conceptual observations about the first, such as it is feedback between processes and the pattern arising from these processes. For example, life is a process, individual organisms are the patterns arising. Process goes past to future, while the particular patterns go future to past.
The second question requires far more examination of these processes and patterns and that requires a lifetime of dedication and in the company of others.
I don't claim to be a scientist. I just think the science ought to be able to answer basic questions, such as whether time is truly a dimension, aka "duration," along which the events exist and our position is subjective, or is it the dynamic of these events rising and falling?
Or how can one argue that "space" expands, when both the evidence and the logic assume this expansion is still relative to a static speed of light? REDSHIFT!!! Hello? That makes the speed the denominator!!!
How can you build complex conceptual structures on such logical mush and expect the result not to be more complex mush. GIGO.
I give credit, where credit is due.
report post as inappropriate
Math has to be taken in context. Epicycles really were brilliant math and likely contributed significantly to geometry, but the crystalline spheres, as a one to one physical correspondence, were lousy physics and that one to one correspondence is back in vogue today. Spacetime is assumed to be a one to one physical correspondence with the math of Relativity. Math is mapping and modeling, yet some(many) buy into the notion it is somehow "reading the mind of God," as the basis of reality, not a mapping of our perceptions of it.
Your question really has two parts; Why is there anything? And; Why is there what there is?
I can make some conceptual observations about the first, such as it is feedback between processes and the pattern arising from these processes. For example, life is a process, individual organisms are the patterns arising. Process goes past to future, while the particular patterns go future to past.
The second question requires far more examination of these processes and patterns and that requires a lifetime of dedication and in the company of others.
I don't claim to be a scientist. I just think the science ought to be able to answer basic questions, such as whether time is truly a dimension, aka "duration," along which the events exist and our position is subjective, or is it the dynamic of these events rising and falling?
Or how can one argue that "space" expands, when both the evidence and the logic assume this expansion is still relative to a static speed of light? REDSHIFT!!! Hello? That makes the speed the denominator!!!
How can you build complex conceptual structures on such logical mush and expect the result not to be more complex mush. GIGO.
I give credit, where credit is due.
As for the predictiveness of these theories, epicycles were extremely effective in predicting celestial configurations, such as eclipses years in advance.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“What is the relationship between free will and decision-making, the capacity of individuals to select among options or choices usually based on certain criteria. It would seem that, in principle, decision-making can exist outside of free will (such as in a computer), but free will cannot exist without the capacity to make decisions.
Adina Roskies is a Professor of Philosophy at Dartmouth College. Her areas of specialization include philosophy of science, philosophy of cognitive science, and philosophy of mind. Watch her interview on free will and decision making below.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own very well organized Facebook page:
Nature produced the only real VISIBLE structure of the Universe allowable. White males have only ever produced silly guesswork about supposedly finite invisible human intelligence and free will and meaning of meaning. The only true fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real VISIBLE Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Adina Roskies ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing her unnatural guessworg about finite white male supposed free will. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any empty invisible space.
Joe Fisher, Sagacious Realist
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:
“What is the relationship between free will and decision-making, the capacity of individuals to select among options or choices usually based on certain criteria. It would seem that, in principle, decision-making can exist outside of free will (such as in a computer), but free will cannot exist without the capacity to make decisions.
Adina Roskies is a Professor of Philosophy at Dartmouth College. Her areas of specialization include philosophy of science, philosophy of cognitive science, and philosophy of mind. Watch her interview on free will and decision making below.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own very well organized Facebook page:
Nature produced the only real VISIBLE structure of the Universe allowable. White males have only ever produced silly guesswork about supposedly finite invisible human intelligence and free will and meaning of meaning. The only true fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real VISIBLE Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Adina Roskies ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing her unnatural guessworg about finite white male supposed free will. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any empty invisible space.
Joe Fisher, Sagacious Realist
Callender calls atomic time the time of physics and he callsmemory decay time subjective psychological time. I agree that time does indeed have these two dimensions. There is an objective atomic time in the ticks of the Cs-133 atom resonance at 9.2 GHz and a subjective memory decay time that ticks at the mind’s lowest EEG delta frequency of ~1.6 Hz.
We call the decay between precursor and outcome memories subjective time because memory decay is unique to each person and our memories and therefore time can change with circumstances. So in a very true sense, there are two dimensions to time and both emerge from discrete event changes. Quantum phase decay is an objective time just as atomic time and these two represent a two dimensional time that appears in many scientific measurements.
Matter and action are the only two true constants in the universe and for every outcome in the universe, there are precursors. Time emerges from the change between a precursor and its outcome. Science assumes that phase decay time necessarily occurs in atomic time ticks, but a pulsed universe gives a universal decay time. Therefore, every precursor in a pulsed universe is subject to this universal decay time that then defines the precursor outcome. It is the action of universal decay between a precursor and outcome that is what we call time and also gravity. This means that atomic time actually evolves in the context of universe decay time and this atomic time evolution between precursor and outcome at the atom scale is charge.
report post as inappropriate
We call the decay between precursor and outcome memories subjective time because memory decay is unique to each person and our memories and therefore time can change with circumstances. So in a very true sense, there are two dimensions to time and both emerge from discrete event changes. Quantum phase decay is an objective time just as atomic time and these two represent a two dimensional time that appears in many scientific measurements.
Matter and action are the only two true constants in the universe and for every outcome in the universe, there are precursors. Time emerges from the change between a precursor and its outcome. Science assumes that phase decay time necessarily occurs in atomic time ticks, but a pulsed universe gives a universal decay time. Therefore, every precursor in a pulsed universe is subject to this universal decay time that then defines the precursor outcome. It is the action of universal decay between a precursor and outcome that is what we call time and also gravity. This means that atomic time actually evolves in the context of universe decay time and this atomic time evolution between precursor and outcome at the atom scale is charge.
Steve,
Just because everything is connected, doesn't mean all of reality is singular, just networked. Yes, there are more elemental states and to the extent they are composed identically, they function at identical rates. That is the ground, the absolute. It is the relationship between the absolute and the infinite on which the tension between mass and energy functions. Time is an effect of this dynamic. There is't one true time like there isn't one true temperature. There is a temperature of absolute zero, so absolute time would be zero, as well. An inert present. Atomic clocks vary, according to gravitational effects. Action is contextual. A pure action, thus rate of change, without context, would be contradictory.
Nodes and networks. Even when they assume the entire universe is one node, they end up proposing a network of multiverses, because the singular is an entity and an entity needs a process to produce it.
report post as inappropriate
Just because everything is connected, doesn't mean all of reality is singular, just networked. Yes, there are more elemental states and to the extent they are composed identically, they function at identical rates. That is the ground, the absolute. It is the relationship between the absolute and the infinite on which the tension between mass and energy functions. Time is an effect of this dynamic. There is't one true time like there isn't one true temperature. There is a temperature of absolute zero, so absolute time would be zero, as well. An inert present. Atomic clocks vary, according to gravitational effects. Action is contextual. A pure action, thus rate of change, without context, would be contradictory.
Nodes and networks. Even when they assume the entire universe is one node, they end up proposing a network of multiverses, because the singular is an entity and an entity needs a process to produce it.
Dear John Brodix Merryman,
It am precisely because there has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light that there am ONE SINGLE SOLE NATURAL VISIBLE REALITY. There has never been any finite invisible networks.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
It am precisely because there has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light that there am ONE SINGLE SOLE NATURAL VISIBLE REALITY. There has never been any finite invisible networks.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Reality is not singular, but reality is discrete and as you say, outcomes connected to precursors. The universe is finite in extent and in divisibility and so there are no infinities or infinitesimals. Matter and action are the two primitive dimensions and so it is action and not energy that make up reality. Time simply emerges from the changes that occur and has no independent existence.
There is a temperature of absolute zero, but it is not possible to ever realize T=0 since there is always action. Both time and temperature are convenient objective metrics of the world that people can agree how to measure. Atomic clocks do vary, but the universe decay time is absolute. Action is not rate of change but rather is the product of matter and time or matter and displacement. In other words, both time and space emerge from matter action, not the other way around.
It is pure action than exists, not time or temperature...and remember, energy is simply matter by Einstein’s proportionality and does not have a separate existence. There are actually no singularities in the universe, only at its boundaries where they belong, Black holes are simply a manifestation of matter action and do not exist in space time.
report post as inappropriate
There is a temperature of absolute zero, but it is not possible to ever realize T=0 since there is always action. Both time and temperature are convenient objective metrics of the world that people can agree how to measure. Atomic clocks do vary, but the universe decay time is absolute. Action is not rate of change but rather is the product of matter and time or matter and displacement. In other words, both time and space emerge from matter action, not the other way around.
It is pure action than exists, not time or temperature...and remember, energy is simply matter by Einstein’s proportionality and does not have a separate existence. There are actually no singularities in the universe, only at its boundaries where they belong, Black holes are simply a manifestation of matter action and do not exist in space time.
In the context of time dependent decay, and then saying that time emerges from that decay rate, why is it that in this observer preferred manipulation of putting in by hand an earth based time interval, do its proponents always neglect to include radiological decay in the arguments about atomic resonance? It remains, that the only referrnece for time anywhere is somewhere between nil and light velocity. Like it or not, if the reality was that gravity simply dampens atomic resonance (of a cessium atomic clock) then that dampening should also be evident in radiological decay rate of Plutonium 239 powering deep space probes three times longer than their earth based design life expectancy. And if that were true, how could the census estimate of radioisotopes in the aggregate Earth's inventory, have survived the eons of interstellar extremely low gravity to eventually become gravitationally bound in an accretion of building the planet in the first place? And if one's arguments of emergent time depend on how mass decays, then its incumbant on the argument to also quantitatively account for how mass accumulates to be in existance as a state from which to decay. And provide a mathematically consistent rationale of why energy accumulates into such a small range of very small mass quantities. jrc
report post as inappropriate
The universe decay occurs on the universe scale, nuclear decay occurs on the nuclear scale and atom decay occurs on the atom scale. These are completely consistent decays, just different from space and time. The weak nuclear force is how nuclear forces couple with charge.
report post as inappropriate
Prof. Agnew, Steve,
Firstly, my respect for both the heritage and the legacy work at the Hanford Reservation. Few realize that the N Reactor was the only breeder the U.S. ever built that was the same design type as the RBMK 1000 series such as at Chernobyl.
Quite apart from any differences on the subject of the nature of time, could you please clarify nomenclature of 'matter decay'. Not in academic terms, but as you might explain it to educated friends and associates whom though not in physics, know that matter as it is commonly referred to is made up of molecules of elemental isotopes and that atoms are comprised of sub-atomic particles. E=mc^2 is a bounded equality but provides no proportionality constant to differentiate a physical property that could be termed 'matter' as a state, regardless of any specified quantity. What is Matter? In what manner do you characterize it to decay? As a degradation of the physical property itself, or as an exponential decay over distance of intensity or influence of gravitation, magnetic and electrostatic response associated with it? JRC
report post as inappropriate
Firstly, my respect for both the heritage and the legacy work at the Hanford Reservation. Few realize that the N Reactor was the only breeder the U.S. ever built that was the same design type as the RBMK 1000 series such as at Chernobyl.
Quite apart from any differences on the subject of the nature of time, could you please clarify nomenclature of 'matter decay'. Not in academic terms, but as you might explain it to educated friends and associates whom though not in physics, know that matter as it is commonly referred to is made up of molecules of elemental isotopes and that atoms are comprised of sub-atomic particles. E=mc^2 is a bounded equality but provides no proportionality constant to differentiate a physical property that could be termed 'matter' as a state, regardless of any specified quantity. What is Matter? In what manner do you characterize it to decay? As a degradation of the physical property itself, or as an exponential decay over distance of intensity or influence of gravitation, magnetic and electrostatic response associated with it? JRC
Dear Anonymous,
There am no such a thing as “matter decay.” All matter has a real VISIBLE surface. Matter does not consist of invisible atoms swirling round in pockets of empty space. There has never been any empty space. The real VISIBLE realty Nature produced could only logically contain one single physical construction. The only fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Albert Einstein ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his silly guesswork about opposing space/finite matter duality.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
There am no such a thing as “matter decay.” All matter has a real VISIBLE surface. Matter does not consist of invisible atoms swirling round in pockets of empty space. There has never been any empty space. The real VISIBLE realty Nature produced could only logically contain one single physical construction. The only fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Albert Einstein ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his silly guesswork about opposing space/finite matter duality.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Matter decay is in some sense so ubiquitous that we overlook it. The earth spin slows down, the moon’s orbit expands due to matter decay, the IPK kg standard decays, pulses all decay, and atomic clocks dephase from each other...all the the same rate of 0.26 ppl/yr.
Stars all decay by radiation, galaxies all decay into black holes, and black holes are the endpoint of all matter. The collapse and decay of matter is all around us and yet science claims that the universe expands and does not decay. The reason is that force or action grows at the same rate as matter collapses and so science has the illusion of deep space and the CMB as expansion when it is actually collapsing.
Matter along with action are primal beliefs about the universe that simply are the way the universe is. Energy is just a different measure of matter and space and time both emerge from matter action.
report post as inappropriate
Stars all decay by radiation, galaxies all decay into black holes, and black holes are the endpoint of all matter. The collapse and decay of matter is all around us and yet science claims that the universe expands and does not decay. The reason is that force or action grows at the same rate as matter collapses and so science has the illusion of deep space and the CMB as expansion when it is actually collapsing.
Matter along with action are primal beliefs about the universe that simply are the way the universe is. Energy is just a different measure of matter and space and time both emerge from matter action.
Dear Steve Agnew,
The only thing we can ever notice am VISIBLE surface, because only one infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light has ever, or will ever exist.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
The only thing we can ever notice am VISIBLE surface, because only one infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light has ever, or will ever exist.
Joe Fisher, Realist
I keep rereading comments and this article, and recollecting past dialogues, and can't help finding more agreement generally that what first would appear. Everyone uses surprisingly different words and turns of phrase to present remarkably similar if nuanced ideas. Yet historically it seems, humans never agree about Time, it is instinctively too precious and personal to each of us. If Time is physically real, then what we call emergent is really a particular manifestation and perhaps a distinction can be drawn between *emergence* and *transcendence*. Time seems manifest in many ways. I looked up the first post I made to the fqxi forum 6/7/13, topic/969#post_75736 and remember then thinking I was probably way out in left field, but I've learned much since then and much of how others think and how broad the mainstream really is. Whatever Physics and physicists do, I think Time will survive. :-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
Dear John R. Cox,
Please try to remember that the physicists have only ever proven one fact about the universe and that was that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before any physicists ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing their unnatural guesswork about invisible finite atoms swirling finitely round in acres of empty space. The physicists have never proven that any empty space has ever existed. You will of course continue to read about the physicists unnatural guesswork, but the truth am that there has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Please try to remember that the physicists have only ever proven one fact about the universe and that was that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before any physicists ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing their unnatural guesswork about invisible finite atoms swirling finitely round in acres of empty space. The physicists have never proven that any empty space has ever existed. You will of course continue to read about the physicists unnatural guesswork, but the truth am that there has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Well, Joe,
fortunately for humanity there safety of nuclear waste at Hanford is not entrusted to you.
report post as inappropriate
fortunately for humanity there safety of nuclear waste at Hanford is not entrusted to you.
Dear Anonymous,
I was dead wrong by my maintaining that there was no such a thing as “matter decay.” Of course white men have devised unnatural atomic radiation devices. However, all matter does have a real VISIBLE surface, and as there has never been any invisible space, it logically follows that there has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
I was dead wrong by my maintaining that there was no such a thing as “matter decay.” Of course white men have devised unnatural atomic radiation devices. However, all matter does have a real VISIBLE surface, and as there has never been any invisible space, it logically follows that there has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Steve,
It is commendable for any professional to clearly differentiate one's responsibilities in maintaining best practices, from any personal pursuit of purely hypothetical theorizing. So while I might disagree with your primary premise, I recognize your prerogative to attempt rationalization of the QM paradigm. And I would not fault anyone for following their mathematical results even if it conflicts with consistent observation that the universe is not shrinking.
However, it is not true to say or assume that "energy is simply matter by Einstein's proportionality". You may theoretically associate energy with matter, but E=mc^2 doesn't differentiate matter from either energy or mass. Mass is simply a masse of energy until a unit quantity specific to a unit volume is determined which would exhibit the characteristics associated with the physical property of matter.
I do agree that electric charge is a constituent characteristic of matter, but it is not the sole criteria of that property. Charge is one of those Energizer Bunnies that were bred in the classical era under the Newtonian Regime which we still know only by name. Positive and Negative have no physical meaning other than through interactive operation and by original arbitrary assignment. A general definition of Charge is long overdue and regardless of whether any theory holds up in entirety, any theory which produces a viable definition of Charge would be well worth the effort. cordially jrc
report post as inappropriate
It is commendable for any professional to clearly differentiate one's responsibilities in maintaining best practices, from any personal pursuit of purely hypothetical theorizing. So while I might disagree with your primary premise, I recognize your prerogative to attempt rationalization of the QM paradigm. And I would not fault anyone for following their mathematical results even if it conflicts with consistent observation that the universe is not shrinking.
However, it is not true to say or assume that "energy is simply matter by Einstein's proportionality". You may theoretically associate energy with matter, but E=mc^2 doesn't differentiate matter from either energy or mass. Mass is simply a masse of energy until a unit quantity specific to a unit volume is determined which would exhibit the characteristics associated with the physical property of matter.
I do agree that electric charge is a constituent characteristic of matter, but it is not the sole criteria of that property. Charge is one of those Energizer Bunnies that were bred in the classical era under the Newtonian Regime which we still know only by name. Positive and Negative have no physical meaning other than through interactive operation and by original arbitrary assignment. A general definition of Charge is long overdue and regardless of whether any theory holds up in entirety, any theory which produces a viable definition of Charge would be well worth the effort. cordially jrc
The same evidence that the universe expands is also, strangely enough, consistent with matter collapse. This is because as mass collapses, that action is the source of force and means that force grows in concert with matter collapse.
Force growth along with matter collapse red shifts galaxy light and shrinks the universe. Of course, this is completely consistent with QM and with quantum gravity as well. The shrinking universe means that a single black hole is the destiny of the universe and the start of a new antiverse expansion of antimatter in antitime. We of course are in the universe collapse of matter in atomic time.
Electric charge is simply a manifestation of quantum phase at the atom scale, Gravity is a manifestion of quantum phase at the cosmic scale...how simple is that?
report post as inappropriate
Force growth along with matter collapse red shifts galaxy light and shrinks the universe. Of course, this is completely consistent with QM and with quantum gravity as well. The shrinking universe means that a single black hole is the destiny of the universe and the start of a new antiverse expansion of antimatter in antitime. We of course are in the universe collapse of matter in atomic time.
Electric charge is simply a manifestation of quantum phase at the atom scale, Gravity is a manifestion of quantum phase at the cosmic scale...how simple is that?
Dear Steve Agnew,
In order for a universe to expand, there has to be an empty space for the universe to expand into. Fortunately, the real VISIBLE Universe that Nature provided for us only has one real VISIBLE component. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There was never a void thirteen and three quarter billion light years ago.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
In order for a universe to expand, there has to be an empty space for the universe to expand into. Fortunately, the real VISIBLE Universe that Nature provided for us only has one real VISIBLE component. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There was never a void thirteen and three quarter billion light years ago.
Joe Fisher, Realist
The point is...there is no time or space without matter actions. Am I wrong?
report post as inappropriate
Steve,
Pardon my posting this way instead of logging in, lot's of reasons including some(thing)body getting my email address and wanting me to buy a new bathroom, meaning its hunting my bank routing number.
We aren't going to agree, of course, but so what? But we have similar conceptual issues. In a sense I agree that matter decay is the source of force, but I treat it as attenuation of density rather than decay. I can get my head around Black Holes being where mass:energy goes to die, and I don't think that *information* is so exclusive that there can't be more of the same to be generated in natural course.
I had read your 2017 FQXI contest essay which is half the length of most entries, so there would be much not addressed in that brief abstract. And Physics in general is one big measurement problem, so I'll let the arguments rest with you about a collapsing universe. I do see something of a similarity with Lorentz' model of an electron which he shelved as a work in progress in the explosive advent of Quantum Mechanics. I have long thought that he had been on the right track for developing a classical model of particulate matter. He found that the greater the value of charge, the smaller its radius of measure. Which of course goes to density. But as with General Relativity, there is no proposed hypothesis for predicting a proportionate upper density bound. And if you go global with that in aggregate of discrete matter:action, it isn't surprising that the resulting math would be a contracting spatial parameter. Over in the "Thermo Demonics" article I proposed a proportional density limit which I've had success with, it's in one of a number of anonymous posts that led up to a brief overview of my pet working model. So I'm am a little curious of what your reasoning was in proposing the c/alpha relationship, as a determinant of charge radius?
I have to be careful with 'phase' it can be two different things. An oscillation, or a state. - jrc
report post as inappropriate
Pardon my posting this way instead of logging in, lot's of reasons including some(thing)body getting my email address and wanting me to buy a new bathroom, meaning its hunting my bank routing number.
We aren't going to agree, of course, but so what? But we have similar conceptual issues. In a sense I agree that matter decay is the source of force, but I treat it as attenuation of density rather than decay. I can get my head around Black Holes being where mass:energy goes to die, and I don't think that *information* is so exclusive that there can't be more of the same to be generated in natural course.
I had read your 2017 FQXI contest essay which is half the length of most entries, so there would be much not addressed in that brief abstract. And Physics in general is one big measurement problem, so I'll let the arguments rest with you about a collapsing universe. I do see something of a similarity with Lorentz' model of an electron which he shelved as a work in progress in the explosive advent of Quantum Mechanics. I have long thought that he had been on the right track for developing a classical model of particulate matter. He found that the greater the value of charge, the smaller its radius of measure. Which of course goes to density. But as with General Relativity, there is no proposed hypothesis for predicting a proportionate upper density bound. And if you go global with that in aggregate of discrete matter:action, it isn't surprising that the resulting math would be a contracting spatial parameter. Over in the "Thermo Demonics" article I proposed a proportional density limit which I've had success with, it's in one of a number of anonymous posts that led up to a brief overview of my pet working model. So I'm am a little curious of what your reasoning was in proposing the c/alpha relationship, as a determinant of charge radius?
I have to be careful with 'phase' it can be two different things. An oscillation, or a state. - jrc
Dear John R. Cox,
Nature provided us with the only sensible reality possible. Please do try to remember that the only fact the physicists have ever proven am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before you and Steve Agnew ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing your unnatural silly guesswork concerning finite amounts of invisible quantum energy. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any empty space. All of the essays that have been published by FQXi.org include every author’s unnatural unrealistic copycat guesswork about the coexisting duality of space and matter. My essay REALITY AM NOT ROCKET SCIENCE, was the exception. There am no essay contest this year. Why do you think that am?
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Nature provided us with the only sensible reality possible. Please do try to remember that the only fact the physicists have ever proven am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before you and Steve Agnew ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing your unnatural silly guesswork concerning finite amounts of invisible quantum energy. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any empty space. All of the essays that have been published by FQXi.org include every author’s unnatural unrealistic copycat guesswork about the coexisting duality of space and matter. My essay REALITY AM NOT ROCKET SCIENCE, was the exception. There am no essay contest this year. Why do you think that am?
Joe Fisher, Realist
We are not going to agree...but discourse is what it is all about. Well...if you want to explain the universe, the c/alpha is constant has to be. Of course, what I was going for is that c * alpha would be constant, but that did not work out. However, I found that (c*alpha)^2 could still be constant if phase was a parameter.
Quantum phase is certainly not something that we think of often, but is an important part of reality. It is ironic that the decay of the universe is what makes reality work the way that it does. This simply makes sense...
report post as inappropriate
Quantum phase is certainly not something that we think of often, but is an important part of reality. It is ironic that the decay of the universe is what makes reality work the way that it does. This simply makes sense...
Dear Steve Agnew,
Nature provided all of us with an understandable reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Nature provided all of us with an understandable reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Thanks Steve,
I'm still real fuzzy but its worth trying to understand how others tackle issues. I'm often struck by how little is actually known, and how much progress has been made with ad hoc measures that become a standard operating procedure. The Schrodinger Wave Equation fit with the Bohr model quantum leap, and ever since everyone says "Wow! how did He come up with that? Where do the terms come from?". Pardon my cynicism but maybe they came from Schrodinger hunting around until he found terms and arrangements that would fit. It is a computational tool, it doesn't prove the Bohr assumption.It is quite possible that matter naturally assumes optimal quantities and shapes that emerge from the interaction of elemental isotopic matter quantities. The mass deficit has to be accounted for eventually.
In the frenzy of developments of the spin co-ordinate system, c/alpha made a good computational fit but Spin began with the failure of Newtonian Gravity in a classical model which assumed that the total mass of a nucleus and electron would exist at constant density as 'hard' particles. So there is a lot of room to revisit the many Classical unknowns which have become incorporated into the modern Quantum and Relativistic Standard Model. jrc
report post as inappropriate
I'm still real fuzzy but its worth trying to understand how others tackle issues. I'm often struck by how little is actually known, and how much progress has been made with ad hoc measures that become a standard operating procedure. The Schrodinger Wave Equation fit with the Bohr model quantum leap, and ever since everyone says "Wow! how did He come up with that? Where do the terms come from?". Pardon my cynicism but maybe they came from Schrodinger hunting around until he found terms and arrangements that would fit. It is a computational tool, it doesn't prove the Bohr assumption.It is quite possible that matter naturally assumes optimal quantities and shapes that emerge from the interaction of elemental isotopic matter quantities. The mass deficit has to be accounted for eventually.
In the frenzy of developments of the spin co-ordinate system, c/alpha made a good computational fit but Spin began with the failure of Newtonian Gravity in a classical model which assumed that the total mass of a nucleus and electron would exist at constant density as 'hard' particles. So there is a lot of room to revisit the many Classical unknowns which have become incorporated into the modern Quantum and Relativistic Standard Model. jrc
Dear John R. Cox,
Nature provided all living creatures with an understandable reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any invisible space. Imagining space matter duality causes most, but not all humanly contrived fuzzy thinking.
Joe Fisher, The Helpful Realist
report post as inappropriate
Nature provided all living creatures with an understandable reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any invisible space. Imagining space matter duality causes most, but not all humanly contrived fuzzy thinking.
Joe Fisher, The Helpful Realist
Actually, I am amazed by how much is known and yet misinterpreted...I agree that most of current science is ad hoc and highly patched, but it still works very well...at least to 0.26 ppb/yr.
You are very correct in your cynicism of quantum and gravity equations. They both were simply adopted by science because they worked and gravity still does not work with quantum, but so what else is new?
Classical hard particles are, as you know, really not possible and there must be soft edges to all particles. Quantum gives soft edges to all particles, but the cost is superposition and entanglement, which complicate our lives.
What quantum gravity gives us is a very, very large number of low energy states that current science does not know what to do with. Okay. As soon as science can measure the decay of 0.26 ppb/yr, matter time will be the bee's knees and so we simply wait for more precision...
report post as inappropriate
You are very correct in your cynicism of quantum and gravity equations. They both were simply adopted by science because they worked and gravity still does not work with quantum, but so what else is new?
Classical hard particles are, as you know, really not possible and there must be soft edges to all particles. Quantum gives soft edges to all particles, but the cost is superposition and entanglement, which complicate our lives.
What quantum gravity gives us is a very, very large number of low energy states that current science does not know what to do with. Okay. As soon as science can measure the decay of 0.26 ppb/yr, matter time will be the bee's knees and so we simply wait for more precision...
Dear Steve Agnew,
Nature designed a singular simple reality that would be easily understood by all living creatures in all places at all times. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified natural VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. It would be a sure sign of a person’s mental instability for that person to willfully refuse to understand natural VISIBLE reality, and who insisted on being “amazed” by misinterpretations of unnatural invisible quantum guesswork.
Joe Fisher, Sensible Realist
report post as inappropriate
Nature designed a singular simple reality that would be easily understood by all living creatures in all places at all times. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified natural VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. It would be a sure sign of a person’s mental instability for that person to willfully refuse to understand natural VISIBLE reality, and who insisted on being “amazed” by misinterpretations of unnatural invisible quantum guesswork.
Joe Fisher, Sensible Realist
Steve,
I suspect the low energy states are physically just the residual. The current picture of quantum gravity reminds me of those old Lava Lamps that were all the rage a half century ago, and about as energy inefficient. Those things looked so cute and cuddly, people would get stoned and burn themselves very badly. ;-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
I suspect the low energy states are physically just the residual. The current picture of quantum gravity reminds me of those old Lava Lamps that were all the rage a half century ago, and about as energy inefficient. Those things looked so cute and cuddly, people would get stoned and burn themselves very badly. ;-) jrc
Dear John R. Cox,
Nature designed a singular simple reality that would be easily understood by all living creatures in all places at all times. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified natural VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. It would be a sure sign of a person’s mental instability for that person to willfully refuse to understand natural VISIBLE reality, and who insisted in engaging in publishing interminable inane guesswork concerning invisible finite energy states.
Joe Fisher, Sensible Realist
report post as inappropriate
Nature designed a singular simple reality that would be easily understood by all living creatures in all places at all times. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified natural VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. It would be a sure sign of a person’s mental instability for that person to willfully refuse to understand natural VISIBLE reality, and who insisted in engaging in publishing interminable inane guesswork concerning invisible finite energy states.
Joe Fisher, Sensible Realist
Let's consider Time in a Bottle, otherwise called Quantum Gravity.
For simplicity analysis employs a spherical measure space for a single locality, it gets messy in aggregate. The mathematic properties of a sphere are few and simple. It is the most efficient encapsulation of space because the surface in any direction from zero point center is always the same distance. A uniform change in...
view entire post
For simplicity analysis employs a spherical measure space for a single locality, it gets messy in aggregate. The mathematic properties of a sphere are few and simple. It is the most efficient encapsulation of space because the surface in any direction from zero point center is always the same distance. A uniform change in...
view entire post
John,
Isn't the encapsulation an artificial way of regarding 'empty'( of particulate matter) space? And the packing of the chosen shapes more so? It is not as if 'empty' space has a cellular structure. It doesn't have membranes separating parts of it. You said in an earlier post it could just as well be thought of as cubes (words to that effect, as I recall.) So what happens in the spaces between the packing of the largest spheres is academic rather than something physical. When you fill the spaces with smaller and smaller spheres you are introducing scale. But there is no difference between the space in the big spheres and the small. The separation and treatment is all academic rather than pertaining to the physically real.
report post as inappropriate
Isn't the encapsulation an artificial way of regarding 'empty'( of particulate matter) space? And the packing of the chosen shapes more so? It is not as if 'empty' space has a cellular structure. It doesn't have membranes separating parts of it. You said in an earlier post it could just as well be thought of as cubes (words to that effect, as I recall.) So what happens in the spaces between the packing of the largest spheres is academic rather than something physical. When you fill the spaces with smaller and smaller spheres you are introducing scale. But there is no difference between the space in the big spheres and the small. The separation and treatment is all academic rather than pertaining to the physically real.
Georgina,
I think I covered all that pretty clearly in my first paragraph, and you could make the same psychological arguments in the semantics of "enclosing" space. Pure geometry IS artificial. The point of distinguishing analytical from pure geometry was to demonstrate that it is the choice of maths in application which dictate profoundly different outcomes in analytical distribution (of density variation, as stated) from the geometric properties of a single, simple shape. I of course can be faulted for brevity in description of a couple principal methods of distribution, but the point was that methodology is much more limited in geometry than in the abstractions of mathematics at large. There are many whom enjoy extraordinarily complicated math and analytics, and make careers of it, and I'll leave it to them to argue the details.
As to a previous post, I made a point of it being conjecture. ie: that space and time are fundamentally physical and a dynamic of differing and indefinite scales is the origin of energy. And such conjuring can not be elevated to hypothesis because (in my book) a hypothesis must be testable. I'm going to leave the door open a bit for Fred Hoyle, he may have been at least some right. Hope this clarifies, :-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
I think I covered all that pretty clearly in my first paragraph, and you could make the same psychological arguments in the semantics of "enclosing" space. Pure geometry IS artificial. The point of distinguishing analytical from pure geometry was to demonstrate that it is the choice of maths in application which dictate profoundly different outcomes in analytical distribution (of density variation, as stated) from the geometric properties of a single, simple shape. I of course can be faulted for brevity in description of a couple principal methods of distribution, but the point was that methodology is much more limited in geometry than in the abstractions of mathematics at large. There are many whom enjoy extraordinarily complicated math and analytics, and make careers of it, and I'll leave it to them to argue the details.
As to a previous post, I made a point of it being conjecture. ie: that space and time are fundamentally physical and a dynamic of differing and indefinite scales is the origin of energy. And such conjuring can not be elevated to hypothesis because (in my book) a hypothesis must be testable. I'm going to leave the door open a bit for Fred Hoyle, he may have been at least some right. Hope this clarifies, :-) jrc
Dear John R. Cox and Georgina Woodward,
Let us consider Natural VISIBLE reality. Nothing could be simpler than Natural VISIBLE realty. Nothing could be more complex than incorrect scientific information. The only fact the physicists have been able to establish am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before both of you ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began wasting your time publishing unnatural copied so-called scientific misinformation. The only logical reason the physicists were able to prove the longevity of real VISIBLE surface was simply because there has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified natural infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any empty space. Now I am a sensible person, please explain to me why both of you persist in rejecting natural realty?
Joe Fisher, The Caring Realist
report post as inappropriate
Let us consider Natural VISIBLE reality. Nothing could be simpler than Natural VISIBLE realty. Nothing could be more complex than incorrect scientific information. The only fact the physicists have been able to establish am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before both of you ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began wasting your time publishing unnatural copied so-called scientific misinformation. The only logical reason the physicists were able to prove the longevity of real VISIBLE surface was simply because there has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single unified natural infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been any empty space. Now I am a sensible person, please explain to me why both of you persist in rejecting natural realty?
Joe Fisher, The Caring Realist
Since your arguments begin with a sphere volume, your apriori assumption is that space and time exist. Therefore, your arguments get mired in the spacetime tar baby that resists renormalization and therefore quantum gravity.
That is why a matter-action causal set offers nice alternative a priori assumptions from which time and space then emerge. Attached is an example of a Hasse diagram that shows the causal link between precursor CMB and stars to galaxy outcomes.
You can see more at Quantum Action Causal Set
There are lots of measurable decays: pulsar decays, black hole mergers, neutron star mergers, earth spin, earth moon orbit, Andromeda-Milky Way galaxy separation, Allan deviation decay of atomic clocks, IPK mass, and so on. In other words, decay is so common that it hardly matters that there is nothing that really seems constant.
attachments: cmbToStarsToGalaxies.JPG
report post as inappropriate
That is why a matter-action causal set offers nice alternative a priori assumptions from which time and space then emerge. Attached is an example of a Hasse diagram that shows the causal link between precursor CMB and stars to galaxy outcomes.
You can see more at Quantum Action Causal Set
There are lots of measurable decays: pulsar decays, black hole mergers, neutron star mergers, earth spin, earth moon orbit, Andromeda-Milky Way galaxy separation, Allan deviation decay of atomic clocks, IPK mass, and so on. In other words, decay is so common that it hardly matters that there is nothing that really seems constant.
attachments: cmbToStarsToGalaxies.JPG
Okay, okay Steve and Georgi,
my a priori conjecture is invalid, your"s is not.
I'll let my argument stand, Quantum Gravity is Time in a Bottle. If linear operations renormalizing (adjusting skew by introducing a time interval so that alignment is re-established with the preconceived initial condition of the normal line [analogous to a plumb line in a local gravitational reference]) protracted measures, were the answer to Quantum Mechanics' long quest to devise a gravitational rationale, one would have to think it would have happened by now. And why putting in that time interval demonstrates that time emerges from anywhere but your own hand, could only be conjecture. A nonlinear approach to unification of the primary forces in a spherical condensate would fit the bill, and it rests on only a conjecture that the primordial condition is a continuous field of energy. Which came first; Time, Space or Energy is moot, a chicken and egg salad sandwich.
Smile! maybe we'll be able to see each other through the fog. :-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
my a priori conjecture is invalid, your"s is not.
I'll let my argument stand, Quantum Gravity is Time in a Bottle. If linear operations renormalizing (adjusting skew by introducing a time interval so that alignment is re-established with the preconceived initial condition of the normal line [analogous to a plumb line in a local gravitational reference]) protracted measures, were the answer to Quantum Mechanics' long quest to devise a gravitational rationale, one would have to think it would have happened by now. And why putting in that time interval demonstrates that time emerges from anywhere but your own hand, could only be conjecture. A nonlinear approach to unification of the primary forces in a spherical condensate would fit the bill, and it rests on only a conjecture that the primordial condition is a continuous field of energy. Which came first; Time, Space or Energy is moot, a chicken and egg salad sandwich.
Smile! maybe we'll be able to see each other through the fog. :-) jrc
Since time and space have not worked out very well for science, resolution is definitely not clear. What is there to measure?
What we have now is a Higg's field and energy equivalent to mass, but a continuum that cannot be quantized...and yet we know it must be quantized somehow.
report post as inappropriate
What we have now is a Higg's field and energy equivalent to mass, but a continuum that cannot be quantized...and yet we know it must be quantized somehow.
That's fair, Steve. Einstein spent the last half of his life trying to conceive a unified field, and since then few have even tried. One has to think that if success were going to come from the equations of GR, it probably would have happened by now.
report post as inappropriate
Dear John R. Cox,
Thank you for pointing out to us that “Einstein spent the last half of his life trying to conceive a unified field, and since then few have even tried.” Nature provided the only unified field physically allowable. Einstein failed to find a unified field because he wrongfully assumed that two distinctive physical states of matter and space coexisted in a finite period of invisible time. All matter has a VISIBLE surface. There has never been any empty space. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Finder of Natural Unified Visibility
report post as inappropriate
Thank you for pointing out to us that “Einstein spent the last half of his life trying to conceive a unified field, and since then few have even tried.” Nature provided the only unified field physically allowable. Einstein failed to find a unified field because he wrongfully assumed that two distinctive physical states of matter and space coexisted in a finite period of invisible time. All matter has a VISIBLE surface. There has never been any empty space. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Finder of Natural Unified Visibility
Stringy and loop quantum are the two big contenders, but neither has a measurable yet. Just watched a great Utube, Jim Baggott's Why Is Space Itself is Quantum In Nature. It was not that technical and he did a really good job on loop quantum, which I don't much like but has a large following of sorts.
What I like about both stringy and loopy theories is they are both different forms of finite aether particles and so theory does seem to be heading back to Newton's aether for gravity...
report post as inappropriate
What I like about both stringy and loopy theories is they are both different forms of finite aether particles and so theory does seem to be heading back to Newton's aether for gravity...
Dear Steve Agnew,
Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly devised theory. Please make a better effort to understand that the only irrefutable fact the physicists have ever proven am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before you and Jim Baggott ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing unnatural parroted guesswork concerning invisible finite quantum particle assemblages. There has never been any empty space. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single VISIBLE unified infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Calm Realist
report post as inappropriate
Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly devised theory. Please make a better effort to understand that the only irrefutable fact the physicists have ever proven am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before you and Jim Baggott ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing unnatural parroted guesswork concerning invisible finite quantum particle assemblages. There has never been any empty space. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single VISIBLE unified infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Calm Realist
Login or create account to post reply or comment.