Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Display:
 all posts
 member posts highlighted
 member posts only

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Roshan Lal bhatia: on 4/30/19 at 6:38am UTC, wrote Nice post... Bihar Breaking & latest News in Hindi Today

Zensly Seo: on 4/16/19 at 12:34pm UTC, wrote please follow the URL visit:- https://www.zensly.com/

Zensly Seo: on 4/16/19 at 12:33pm UTC, wrote For any business, to thrive well in the market, there is a requirement of...

rosie mary: on 1/21/19 at 8:51am UTC, wrote To prove this, this is definitely a difficult job! wuxiaworld

rosie mary: on 1/21/19 at 8:48am UTC, wrote To prove this, this is definitely a difficult job! wuxiaworld

serdadu militer200: on 2/27/18 at 15:57pm UTC, wrote Obat Aborsi Sleman WA: 0813 9070 1064 – Jual Obat Aborsi Di Sleman, Obat...

Louis Brassard: on 1/25/18 at 5:43am UTC, wrote Dear All, 1. Nothing come from Nothing. 2. The Universe always evolves. ...

Hannah Burreh: on 1/19/18 at 13:42pm UTC, wrote I think we have to think bigger than infinity. Time is just a human...



FQXi FORUM
August 24, 2019

CATEGORY: Cosmic Origins [back]
TOPIC: Is the Past Infinite? [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

William Orem wrote on May. 17, 2007 @ 19:33 GMT
I interviewed some non-mainstream cosmologists last year for an article, such as those at the Alternative Cosmology Group who hosted the Crisis in Cosmology conference in Portugal in 2005. These are credible folks who think the Standard Model (the Bang, not particle physics SM) is a bad mistake, the data have been misinterpreted, and that cosmology needs to be fundamentally revamped as a result. Different people had different alternative models to propose, but the general consensus among a good number was that the SCM is just wrong.

Here's the thing that struck me most in having those conversations, and what I want to open up as a thread: several folks I spoke with were completely at ease with a model that has no beginning in time.

There are variant versions. Some saw the universe is oscillatory, undergoing mini-crunches that erase previous conditions, so that if it even had an actual beginning it is no longer meaningful to speak of it. Others simply accepted temporal infinity extending into the past as quietly as most folks do when the arrow is pointed toward the future (or as many accept spatial infinity).

I must confess, I myself am completely comfortable with temporal infinity pointing toward the past. But in fairness, it has to be noted that this goes against centuries of insistent philosophical argument--not only that such a thing doesn't exist, but that it isn't even properly *conceivable.*

Armchair philosophers, I admit, don't carry as much weight in the modern day as they once did, pronouncing on what was or was not possible in that conveniently a priori way. But they at least show us something about how people think. How could we be "here, now" if an infinite number of "nows" would have to have occurred before this one? How can there be effects in the present of causal chains that extend forever? Isn't that an effect without an origin?

An infinite past just seems wrong -- literally inconceivable -- like words being put together in a meaningless way. But is it?

image:fdecomite


Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Sep. 13, 2010 @ 21:28 GMT
Not only is the past not infinite, the past does not and cannot exist at all. The only condition that can exist is the here and now. Our individual grasp of reality is strictly rationed. We cannot know everything there is to know. Whether or not we can actually know anything for sure is debatable. Each of us obviously is constrained only to know what our senses transmit to us at any particular moment. Well if verifiable reality can only consist of the pragmatic instantaneous sensations perceived by our senses, any supposition, or speculation or theory including scientific theory or deeply ingrained religious belief has to be unrealistic. We can only see what we see at the time that we see it. We can only hear what we hear at the time that we hear it. We can only taste what we taste at the time that we taste it. We can only smell what we smell at the time that we smell it. We can only feel what we feel at the time that we feel it. All of this activity can only take place in the here and now. The only freedom of will each one of us has is the ability to pretend to be someone other than the person we are. An ant can only ever be an ant consigned its whole life to really only ever being an ant reliably always performing ant actions. Although a man can only really know what his senses tell him from moment to moment, he can behave as if he is a special kind of man. As he goes through life, he can acquire reassuring labels, licenses, and diplomas that pay no attention to the limitations of anyone’s unfortunate individual reality, but are prized documents dedicated to the invaluable individual procuring of common unreal abstraction that floats in the mists of the there and then.

However, both man and ant eventually end. Both man and ant are somehow absorbed into other life forms for all of life is immortal, it just undergoes constant change.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Stephen James Anastasi replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 09:06 GMT
If there is no past, where did you find the time to write this?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


ni wrote on May. 18, 2007 @ 02:20 GMT
This attachment is a possible dark energy model developed decades ago. Just to see what comments(if any)are generated

attachments: possible_candidate_for_dark_energy.doc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Janin A Foster replied on Sep. 7, 2016 @ 12:28 GMT
That's something brand new. Past that has no beginning. Could anything have no beginning and no ending? That seems to be illogical but has a right to exist and be discussed.

personal statement writing tips

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hal wrote on May. 18, 2007 @ 23:12 GMT
That's a great question about whether the past could be infinite. We often consider the future to be infinite but I think what we mean is that for any fixed time T1 we can find later events than T1. It doesn't mean that we expect that there would be a time T2 in the future such that for any finite time T1 from the present, T2 is later than T1 - in other words, that there would be times an actual infinity later than the present.

Some of the same considerations could apply to an infinite past. Do we mean that for any finite time T1 in the past, there would be events before that? Or do we mean that there is a time T2 in the past such that for any finite time T1 in the past, T2 is before T1? Times an actual infinity earlier than the present?

We might call these the potentially infinite past (PIP) and the actually infinite past (AIP). As implied above, the same considerations apply to the future, since the future and past are relative.

The AIP is certainly more interesting and challenging. It raises the question, could there be objects that are infinitely old, whose creation time is before any finite time in the past? Black holes can last forever, if their inflow is faster than their Hawking radiation. However over an infinite time period we might expect random fluctuations in inflow rate which could eventually cause the size to drop to zero, whereby the hole would disappear.

We could model the size of the black hole as a 1 dimensional biased random walk where the hole disappears if the path ever crosses zero. If the probability of getting smaller is >= 1/2 then eventually the path will cross zero. If the probability is < 1/2 then the hole can avoid this fate. However in that case the size will grow without limit and the hole will be infinitely large after an infinite time. I think the probability of finding a finite-size, infinitely old black hole would be zero.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Mike Archer replied on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 19:34 GMT
Does anybody remember the lessons learned from Olber's Paradox? The universe cannot be infinite, and Olber's Paradox explains why. Check it out.

Perhaps the reality of the Paradox is yet another reason behind some scientists inventing parallel universes (actually, somewhat of an oxymoron; the universe is the system of All interacting things; therefore it is and can only be one), since a finite universe points to the idea of a creator whatever that may be...Heaven forbid.

Mike Archer

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Philip Janes replied on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 19:15 GMT
Mike,

Is it Friday the 13th already? Olbers' paradox is the Jason of unreal paradoxes. It has been resolved in so many ways! Yet people keep raising it from the dead. The

Wikipedia article
includes six separate explanations of why the night sky is black, and none of them assume it is finite. Check it out.

As for multiple universes, to loosely quote Bill Clinton, "It depends on what the definition of IS is."

There are degrees of reality. If your imagination IS then anything you can imagine is part of the universe. We can narrow that down a bit by defining a physical universe. Narrowing a bit more, we have OUR physical universe, which might be described as everything on our plane of existence, i.e. our space-time continuum. Then we have our visible universe, which is everything within a Hubble limit of us.

The main reason scientists have hypothesized alternate, parallel or tangent universes has to do with the results of double slit experiments. In my own model, our universe is part of a greater fractal universe. Our universe exists between the scale of the Planck length and that of the cosmic foam. Our cosmic foam (having a median bubble size roughly 10^24 meter across) is the ether foam of a super-universe; our ether foam (having a median bubble size roughly 10^-35 meter across) is the cosmic foam of a sub-universe. Interaction between scalewise universes can only be inferred; it can never be directly observed.

The arrow of time reverses from one scale-wise universe to the next, so the greater fractal universe exists outside of time, and thus has no beginning or end. If you are religiously inclined, you might wish to call the greater fractal universe God.

Tangent universes are not an integral part of my model, but they might help to make sense of fact (according to my model) that the sub-universe past coincides with our future and vice versa. Either our future is predestined, or all of our possible futures will happen for us, and therefore they have already happened from the perspective of inhabitants of the sub-universe.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Mike Archer replied on Nov. 13, 2010 @ 03:32 GMT
Hi, Philip:

I don't see how the Wikipedia article you mention resolves the paradox in a way that permits the universe to be infinite, but it does mention at the get-go that:

"In order to explain Olbers' paradox, it is necessary to account for the relatively low brightness of the night sky in relation to the circle of our sun. The universe is only finitely old, and stars have existed...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Anthony Aguirre wrote on May. 19, 2007 @ 00:32 GMT
William:

I'm hopeless biased in favor of past-eternal universes being possible, based on some work I've done on the subject with Steven Gratton.

What I love about applying physics to 'philosophical' questions is how they can sometimes be resolved in a way that you would never have guessed based on pure thought. For example, anyone before general relativity (or really Riemannian geometry) would have been utterly baffled at how the universe could be finite, yet have no boundary. But it's utterly simple once you understand the geometry of a 3-sphere.

I think this may be another case, particularly in terms of what you

nicely called the 'endless chain of causation'. What Steven and I found is that if you try to really understand a fully steady-state model (like the classic steady-state cosmology, or an eternally-inflating cosmology that is statistically independent of time), then there are indeed boundary conditions that define the cosmology, but that these are not applied at any particular *time* -- rather, they are placed on a 'null' spacetime surface that is 'earlier' than all times -- even through times go arbitrarily early. It's a bit hard to explain this without the mathematics, I'm afraid, and in some sense that's precisely the point -- the structure of these models is something I at least would never have come up with any way other than following the mathematics where it went.

That being said, I also think 'philosophical' thinking is quite important. What led Steven and I (or at least I, he can speak for himself) to do this project at all was the conviction that if we can define a cosmology that approaches a steady-state (as eternal inflation does), then we should be able to make that steady-state exact, which is to say past-eternal.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jun. 19, 2012 @ 10:19 GMT
Dear Anthony,

I am so glad that you left a message on this blog.I've only just come across it.

I am interested to hear about your work on a past eternal model.I read the abstract but probably would not understand the whole paper.I also think it very interesting that you followed the mathematics where it went.And that you think (?thought) philosophical thinking is quite important.

I hope my essay will be interesting to you. As I intend to talk about other ways of thinking and what comes from that. I also hope you will be reminded of what you wrote here.

PS thank you for FQXi.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Anthony Aguirre wrote on May. 19, 2007 @ 00:45 GMT
Hal:

I think you're probably right that any given object will be impermanent, even if the universe goes on forever.

I think the 'bias' that it is reasonable for the universe to be future-infinite but not past infinite is that we can easily imagine the universe continuing infinitely into the future -- what would stop it?

But actually I think it's a bit tricker than this. If we were to take a finite system, it could indeed go on 'forever' but by attaining equilibrium. After that, the system would become *timeless* in that there would be no thermodynamic arrow of time defined by entropy increase. Thus I don't think it's quite right to say it is 'continuing into the future'.

Going toward the past we can also worry about entropy. Very crudely: if we go into the past, entropy must decrease. What happens when it hits zero? There is nowhere to go. This leaves the possibilities that:

(a) we change the rules (this is the standard approach, wherein we invoke a strong gravitational singularity, which our theories cannot treat), or

(b) entropy starts to increase again (i.e. the arrow of time 'reverses'), or

(c) entropy was always infinite, so that no matter how far back we go, we never run out.

The past-eternal models I've studied have some aspects of both (b) and (c).

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

narsep replied on Jun. 30, 2010 @ 09:41 GMT
Have a look to my threat (model) appearing in the topic:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/391

according
to this the slice (of "conceivable space universe") is moving like a pendulum from one pole to the other of a spherical unchasnged "space universe".

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

narsep replied on Jun. 30, 2010 @ 11:34 GMT
Can anyone speculate when the pendulum started and when it will stop?

For an answer the "physical laws" of a super-universe is needed.

In other words, NO answer is possible whithin our universe.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

narsep replied on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 10:32 GMT
If there was no friction pendulum will never reach an equilibrium and it will continue moving for ever and ever.("continuing into the future" does not seem to be my words)

As far as entropy concerns: it increases as slice ("conceivable universe") is moving from poles to the equator and decreases as slice is moving from the equator to poles. So (b) and may (a) are "feasible" possibilities.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gevin Giorbran wrote on May. 20, 2007 @ 08:31 GMT
The question of an infinite past or future relies on what is ultimately possible of configurations or states. Is the space of all possibilities definite, bounded by extremes, or indefinite. Big bang or not, an expanding universe in reverse eventually collapses into a singularity (Alpha). As the previous post remarks, once at Alpha there is no where to go (but expansion). In the future of expansion, even more evident with accelerating expansion, conditions move ever nearer toward a physical state of absolute zero, or a perfectly flat and empty universe. One can claim the big bang didn't happen in the past or that time can never reach zero in the future, but the two extremes are plainly boundaries in the space of all possibilities. Like fractions between 0 and 1, the space of all possible configurations is infinite, but it is bounded by extremes, and therefore not indefinite. Consequently neither the past or future can be infinite without eventual repetition. Time could oscillate between the two extremes forever but eventually all the possible arrangements of configurations would be used up, and the course of time would have to repeat. In an infinitely extended flat universe they could all be used up in one journey from Alpha to zero. Fortunately for us it appears time is more selective than that.

I don't believe past or future is infinite, and agree that once an equilibrium is reached there is no meaning to the idea of ordinary time. What I don't agree with is the notion that an equilibrium exists somewhere between Alpha and zero. Zero is the equilibrium. Just as time begins at Alpha, time ends at zero.

http://everythingforever.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Reason McLucus wrote on May. 21, 2007 @ 05:46 GMT
Challenging the Standard Model of the origin of the universe could be difficult because many people are attempting to use science as a substitute for religion. Religion has tradionally attempted to explain the origin of the universe. Religious concepts are doctrines which are to be accepted without question. Those who claim a "scientific" explanation for the origen of the universe want the same certainty that they have the one and only possible explanation as those who rely on traditional religion. They ignore the fact that empirical science concepts are always subject to change as more information becomes available.

For these individuals, the idea that the universe began with a perfect linear explosion of a black hole with matter moving away at or above the speed of light. Then this matter supposedly changed its mind and decided to clump together to form stars and planets. I don't see any way the universe could have begun in this fashion without the intervention of some higher dimension intelligence (ie, God).

They ignore the possibility that the idea that the universe has always existed would be more consistent with a theology that the universe exists because of natural processes than the Standard Model.

If there was a Big Bang resulting from a natural process it is more likely that it would have involved a spinning black hole releasing jets of material in a spiral fashion. I support this particular model, but the idea of an infinite past is a possibility. The two might even be combined with galaxies collapsing and coming back with Little Bangs.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Reason McLucus wrote on May. 21, 2007 @ 06:17 GMT
I though of the following just after I hit the submit post button.

Are you aware of the flaw in the reasoning that claims that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate? This claim falsely suggests that the greater red shifts in light from the more distant galaxies indicates that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. In fact, it would indicate the exact opposite if the red shift isn't a result of what some have called "lazy light".

The flaw becomes apparent by looking at the information in four dimensions. Light left a distant galaxy at time "T" when the galaxy's relative velocity in respect to earth was "V". At time T + 1 light left a closer galaxy at V - x. At time T + 2 light left an even closer glaxy at V - x - y. Examined in this fashion it is obvious that the rate of expansion slowed over time rather than increased.

Images of distant galaxies moving toward each other would tend to support some form of "lazy light" theory.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


William Orem wrote on May. 23, 2007 @ 18:43 GMT
A lot of good comments here, and I want to respond to a couple --

Anthony -- taking a look at your and Steven's work (well beyond my meager ken, to be sure) it seems that your model arrives through the math at a version of "block time‚" or "the block universe," whereby all events embedded in time coexist in some unspecified higher dimension. The abstract says, for example, that "The model...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Gevin Giorbran wrote on May. 24, 2007 @ 10:17 GMT
William it depends what you mean by infinite past. The time embedded observer evaluates time as duration, as a series, as change. For time to regress infinitely without repetition there would have to exist an absolutely indefinite measure of unique configurations to match the infinite regress of time. However, our collapsing past reveals that the space of possible configurations is bounded by the extreme of collapse or the point of the big bang. If we turn to the question of the future being infinite, again we run into the extreme of absolute zero. The space of all possibilities is not indefinite or unbounded.

The angel observer outside of time evaluates the time of existence itself, not change, which is one enormous moment. It doesn't have a past or future. It just is. The angel sees all possibilities simultaneously, and only can evaluate time as something embedded in the whole of existence, like a direction in space. The angel sees any repetition of states as the same series of time. So the angel's question is, why does this direction in space follow a particular path or course through the space of possibilities? If possibilities were bounded in only one direction, say the future, then the reason could be that time is searching for a balance that doesn't exist, moving away from the definite group of possibilities in its past toward the forever larger group of possibilities in its future. But if the space of possibilities is bounded in both directions by extremes, then a direction in space that is guided by a computation of what is probable would only be able to travel away from imbalance toward a distinct overall position of balance in state space. Time (probabilistic space) would begin at the extreme of imbalance, such as positive or negative, and end at an extreme of balance, such as absolute zero. The positive or negative states would be seen as two halves of the balanced whole.

attachments: allpossiblestates.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Anthony Aguirre wrote on May. 25, 2007 @ 19:19 GMT
William:

Thanks for bringing up this interesting idea of the 'block universe'. Probably that deserves its own whole blog and thread (maybe I'll work on one). But briefly, and in relation to past-infinite universes, yes, I think there is a sense in which the 'eternal' boundary conditions suggest a block universe at some fundamental level. (Amusingly, my early talks on this even included an Angel that could move backward in time:)



But at the same time I'm not convinced this is really any different than any other cosmological model, in which you assume that at some early time the universe was in a precise physical state. My opinion is that questions surrounding the meaning of time, 'now' or free will could all be asked in either context equally easily (and answered with equal difficulty!).

Gevin:

I don't think we have to assume that there a finite number of elements of the configuration space. And as I've said above, I also don't think we have to believe in an initial singularity, especially if inflation occurred. In particular, the classical 'singularity theorems' all make assumptions that either (a) simply do not apply to inflating universes, or (b) apply, but nevertheless allow models in which there is no singularity.

Much of people's thinking about this question relies on the classic big-bang model. But if inflation happened (and there is good reason to think that it did), then this thinking just does not apply.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on May. 27, 2007 @ 01:25 GMT
Having only recently read paper by Anthony, I need to digest some of it's content further, but I do believe on what is basically the concept of descriptive "finite" size, embedded into an "infinity" Time, relatively speaking of course. One can arrive at a continuum 2-d mobius pathway, but then one asks which is "inside" and which is "outside"?

Asking the question:is the past smaller (size) than the future?, the same as asking, is the past_time equivilent to the future_time, regarding "timescales"?

A finite "length" can be bounded across in an infinity amount of "time" (one can cross a road at different speeds?), but a finite "time" cannot be circumvented by an infinity speed length, or particle?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michael Shermis wrote on May. 28, 2007 @ 18:35 GMT
William:

My father (Sam) has looked through the posts and wanted me to throw this up there to add to the discussion.

Up until the 1960s there was a conflict between those who maintained that, in some way, the universe always was and always will be, worlds without end. These were the steady state boys (and some girls.) There were those, who since the late 1920s, believed that some sort of gigantic explosion generated the universe. Given the lack of hard data, the conflict simmered R.W. Wilson and Arno Penzias, accidentally in one of those bits of serendipity came up with an important bit of evidence (for which they later received the Nobel Prize). While cleaning up a radio telescope--literally removing bat guano and pigeon excrement which they thought had corrupted the data--they kept on hearing the same noise. The pigeons were short, though each denies doing the deed. The noise was steady and coming from all areas of the universe. New York, oddly enough, was ruled out as the source. There was also measurable heat which couldn't be accounted for. What could account for this steady noise? They decided that it was the left over sound of an explosion. The term "Big Bang," which laypersons could glaum on to easily, was coined. Thus, the Big Bang theory replaced or rather out-competed the Steady State theorists. The Big Bang is the standard version of the origins of the universe. Further research--over 20+years--revealed that the best date for this explosion was 13.8 billion years ago. So, the standard version is that the Big Bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago and accounts for the totality of the universe as we now know and see it.

However, the half-life of any theory, no matter how well thought-out, how much data support it, is not long. Individuals kept on coming up with both logical and empirical questions, which, they felt, were not answered by proponents of the standard version. In easy terms, What came before the Big Bang? One answer, created by some guys with one foot in quantum mechanics is this: an event created by another universe accidentally brought this universe into existence. This presupposed not one universe but many--separated by what? An infinity of space-time? But how can you have an infinity of space time with finite universes? Aha!

Meanwhile, let me work on the problem that is raised by the concept of infinity and its relation to the space-time continuum, i.e., if space and time end, so does infinity, no matter how defined. If infinity ends, so does space-time.

So more later...

Michael

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


William Orem wrote on Jun. 4, 2007 @ 15:06 GMT
Responses to other folks coming, but Reason McLucus' post got me thinking, and I'd like to hear people's thoughts on a cultural issue (side point to our main discussion, perhaps, but related). I don't think we need invoke gods to understand an infinite past, myself, though clearly this is a foundational question of the first order, and I do wonder about the influence of the religious impulse on its expression. The SCM, for example, was first proposed by a Jesuit priest. At the time of Lemaitre's "primeval atom" suggestion, most other folks -- including Einstein -- weren't reading the data that way. It has been argued that religious thinking was imposed (I don't mean with malevolence) on cosmological model-building at this point, and that, as UCSD cosmologist and staunch anti-SCM advocate Geoffrey Burbidge said when I spoke to him last year, "People liked a beginning. It's in the religion."



The suspicion is that an infinite past universe would obviate the need for a creator god, and thus would be harder to accept for certain cultures than a model that has an "in the Beginning" moment. (I can't help but remember that when I was in high school, Jesuit instructors argued to us exactly this -- that the Big Bang confirmed what was described in Judeo-Christian tradition.) Clearly science is different than religion: it's data-driven, amenable to disconfirmation, and so on--but exactly which data are relevant and how they are to be interpreted is indeed a matter in which cultural expectations will come into play.

It's worth noting, also, that some forms of Hinduism posit not only past-infinite but an infinite number of past-infinite universes, while other religious systems have conceived of cyclic universes, dream universes, egg-universes, and so on -- so it would be hard to argue that a religious perspective in general allows, or disallows, one particular type of model-building. No?



Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


aca wrote on Sep. 11, 2007 @ 13:03 GMT
Dear William,

The main problem for all cosmological theories is whether or not there exists quantum gravity. It is believed that this problem is related to the cosmological constant problem i.e. the dark energy problem, as well as the problem of time arrow, etc.... Now, there is no fully satisfactory quantum theory of gravity and one of the candidates (string/M-theory) has a lot of problems to predict known facts as well as to solve the above mentioned problems. It is true that the Standard model or the GUT coupled with classical gravity does not predict the observational value of the cosmological constant because SM is put in classical curved space-time background where there the problem of its vacuum energy i.e. unitarity, is evident. Therefore, wedding between QFT and clasical gravity produces a bad marridge. Because of that, it is very important to marry quantum mechanics and gravity in sence of noncommutative (quantum) geometry of space-time which is an old physical arena of the Universe. Philosophically, even QFT possesses classical space-time background as well as string theory so that the main problem for me is to find such theory of the Universe which will be background free and free parameter independent i.e. without the put-by-hand assumptions. It seems that such kind of theory (quantum loop gravity) already exists but it has a free parameter and its relationship with well known facts is tiny (see literature about relationship between loop gravity and entropy of black hole). Historically, our progress to understand misteries of the Universe is so far closely connected with our knowledge of the structure of space-time i.e. geometry from Euclid to Einstein and I think that future progress still lies there.

Best regards,

aca

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on Oct. 12, 2007 @ 07:47 GMT
Looking for the Big-Bang in our distant past, is analogous to an observer trying to locate a single Electron, using a single Eye as the only detection impliment!

It is Here, There and Everywhere.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 13, 2007 @ 14:11 GMT
It first occurred to me that the BBT might not be the best explanation upon reading that Omega=1. If the force of gravity and the expansion of space are in equilibrium, where is the additional expansion for the universe as a whole to beexpanding? It seems like a big convective cycle of expanding radiation and collpsing mass. This suggests black holes are the eye of gravitational storms and the CMBR is the dew point of radiation in space. To the extent gravity curves space in and mass radiates its energy back out, does radiation effectively curve space back out? There are hills between those gravity wells? That way, the further light travels, the more it's spectrum is stretched and the faster the source appears to be receding, but this doesn't account for all that does fall into gravitational wells, keeping the pressure from actually causing the galaxies to be moving apart. This external pressure might also account for the effect on the Pioneer spacecraft, as well as causing the outer rims of galaxies to spin faster then is accounted for by the amount of mass in them, thus solving the need for dark matter.

Also redshifting appears to equate to a cosmological constant, which is fixed to balance gravity, so this would explain why the redshift doesn't slow as standard BBT assumed and hense needed dark energy to fill in the gap.

Inflation Theory was added to make BBT work, yet it assumes that space itself is expanding, not just that the galaxies are moving apart in space. If this is so, why doesn't the speed of light increase proportionally, since it is our most stable measure of space?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on May. 31, 2008 @ 23:24 GMT
I thought it might be of interest to add that the Alternative Cosmology Group has another conference coming up;

http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/

I think time can be best understood as a consequence of motion, rather than a dimensional projection.

While physical reality goes from past events to future ones, the information of these events goes the other way. First...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Giannis Chantas wrote on Jul. 26, 2008 @ 13:48 GMT
hi all,

I had an idea about the infinite past. Suppose the following thought experiment with a Markov chain: each day there is a random variable x_i (for example the position of an electron) which depends only on the previous day's variable x_(i-1). Assuming that there are infinite random variables before this day x_i, x(i-1), x_(i-2). The question that arises is what is the probability of a configuration of the variables. It is

p(x_i,x_(i-1),x_(i-2))=p(x_i|x_(i-1))p(x_(i-1))p(x_(i-2))...


The result is the product of infinite terms smaller than one (and positive), so the result is always zero!

What is the problem with that? It is impossible for the electron to be at any time at any place given that there was inifinite time before that.

I am looking forward for comments

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Giannis Chantas wrote on Jul. 26, 2008 @ 13:56 GMT
Sorry for the mistake, the equation is p(x_i,x_(i-1),x_(i-2))=p(x_i|x_(i-1))p(x_(i-1)|x_(i-2))p(x_(
i-2)|x_(i-3))...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Dec. 8, 2008 @ 13:12 GMT
past is not infinite, universe is an atemporal phenomena, past and future belongs to the human mind

attachments: THE_THEORY_OF_ATEMPORALITY__SORLI_2008.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jan. 13, 2009 @ 17:20 GMT
yes past is infinite

and is all contained in the present moment

present moment is the only one that exists,

humans we experience atemporal space as a present moment

ETERNITY IS NOW

attachments: 2_ETERNITY_IS_NOW_sorli_2009.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jan. 13, 2009 @ 17:41 GMT
according to my research universe is a system in a permanent dynamic equilibrium, no beginning, no end

see more on web site of CRONOS INSTITUTE - LOMONOSOV UNIVERSITY

http://www.chronos.msu.ru/discussions/sorli_dynami
c.html

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Jan. 23, 2009 @ 02:47 GMT
In a top-to-bottom approach, if we consider universe as a triplet cluster of Heterogeneous matters with embedded such sub-clusters of Heterogeneous matters up to a stratum at infinity, we can perceive that the past and future of the Universe are infinite, though there is oscillation of inflation and deflation of the Universe.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


atomiton1 wrote on Jan. 24, 2009 @ 22:05 GMT
Because time is a perception we put a measurement on. Based on changes in matter by physical and chemical reactions applied to a frame of reference. Time would not have exised before the creation of the first particle of matter. Therefore the past is not infinate.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Len Malinowski wrote on Feb. 11, 2009 @ 06:43 GMT
Some very interesting concepts here. I developed Fractal Physics Theory, soon to be published In CS&F.

Please see my Infinite universe theory.

Regards,

Len

attachments: CSNuclear_Explosion.doc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Feb. 22, 2009 @ 23:46 GMT
Time, as a dimension or line of measurement, along which past, present and future all exist as physical reality in the space-time continuum is imaginary or fictional. This is a "artificial" concept derived from brain function and storing of memories, imagining those things still exist in reality and imagining the future. It makes for interesting paradoxes and fantasy films.

A 3+1n spatial continuum, in which our universe moves along the 4th dimension, gives rise to the subjective experience of time. But time does not exist of itself within objective reality. There is no past or future only space that has been passed through or is yet to be passed through.

This incidentally solves the time travel paradoxes.

This does not conflict with relativity since relativity only applies to subjective reality and not objective reality. Subjective reality obeying the rules of relativity, objective reality being Newtonian. Separated by the Prime reality interface.

Einstein showed that time is an emergent phenomenon but did not then go on to explain what the 4th dimension actually represents. Although he did have doubts about the fundamental necessity of time.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Duffield wrote on Mar. 16, 2009 @ 19:23 GMT
Hello Georgina. I agree with your sentiment, though as I speak I don't know if I would concur with your detail. But meanwhile can I offer this:

You don't need time to have motion. You need motion to have time. IMHO the 13.7 billion years since the beginning of the universe is a measure of how much motion has occurred. It's 13.7 billion light years worth, compounded by the expansion of the universe. That's not to say the Big Bang was the absolute beginning. For all I know it might be a local phenomenom. It is otherwise for me a puzzle, because I don't know how to get something from nothing.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 3, 2010 @ 23:37 GMT
I don't think it is possible to get something from nothing although some very clever mathematics has been done to show just that. I think it involves lots of assumptions about initial conditions and so allowing rule breaking.

It is far more plausible to me to assume that there was no absolute beginning. We see other objects around us have beginnings and endings,because of the occurrence of spatial changes in the arrangement of the matter comprising those objects.. from life forms, to rocks, buildings, volcanoes even planets and stars. So it is natural to assume that the universe must also have a beginning and end. This is not necessarily so.

A classic car left out unattended in the elements will rust and cease to function and eventually little will be left. However if it is protected and continuously maintained and restored it remains pristine. One car may be dismantled to provide parts for another. One beach may be eroded another formed and built up from the same sand.

If the universe through continuous change builds up and destroys structures recycling energy and matter then this process can continue without end. Far more like the simultaneous erosion and deposition processes we observe on the earth. Rather than the imagined one way street of entropy winding down the energy of the universe into a cold dead future. There is as much reason for it to be in a state of continuous eternal change giving a balance of destruction and organization as there is for it to be absolutely static and dead or non existent.

We see other objects come from somewhere or being made from other things and apply that to the universe, saying where did it come from? or what was it made from? Even who made it? This reasoning does not necessarily apply to the material universe. There may be intermittent local vastly destructive events that lead on to a new creation process whereby dust accumulates into new planets and stars etc but this need not encompass the entire material object universe simultaneously.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 17, 2009 @ 10:10 GMT
John,

Yes we agree, you don't need time to have change in position in space, that is objective reality. You do need motion to have time as experienced in subjective reality.

If there is no time in objective reality the structure giving rise to the universe is eternal.

In my opinion there are two possible beginnings for the universe, either a big bang when the universe has contracted to a critical mass, which re inflates the universe for a new cycle or there is a process of continuous recycling. That would release the energy of the universe gradually back to the exterior of the hypersphere rather than all in one big bang.

If this is mathematically possible, matter would reach the centre of the hypersphere and continue on to arrive back at the outside of the hypersphere having been disintegrated. The centre of the hypersphere would be akin to the singularity and the arrival back at the exterior of the hypersphere the elusive rapid inflation of the universe. From there it would be another cycle of coming together due to motion along the 4th dimension, as seen in the manifestation of gravity, development into matter and structure of greater complexity.Increasing order not entropy.

All energy is change of position in space. Therefore the distances observed reflect the energy of the universe at the time the light was emitted rather than directly reflecting age.

Also it is an electromagnetic image of the universe that is observed not the objective material universe itself, which can not be observed. That image is prone to distortion of various kinds. The age of the universe is based on the big bang cosmology model and dating of stars from observed luminosity. If either is an incorrect model or if distortion of the electromagnetic image gives incorrectly interpreted data, then it will effect the estimated age of the universe.The age of the universe is therefore a calculation informed by currently accepted models, which may or may not be correct.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 18, 2009 @ 19:34 GMT
It seems nature, by it's very nature, cannot be 'finite' as we understand it. I've been developing a 'triple helix' analysis and model development technique from morphology and other sources, and working on interlinked models with interesting results. They mainly rely on no 4th vectors or higher dimensions.

If space is expanding the more time light spends within it the greater it must be red shifted. Reason McLucas wrote above of the logic that increased red shift with distance did NOT demonstrate acceleration. Even without the 'greater time spent' element simple geometry proves it. Acceleration is purportedly over time. The light we see from a galaxy 10bn light yrs away left it just as light from one 12bn yrs away was coming past it. It therefore takes 2bn yrs longer to reach us from it's source. Let's say it's twice as red shifted as the light from the closer galaxy. This means that 2bn years AFTER the first light was emitted the rate of expansion as indicated by the 2nd galaxy is actually much LESS.

Assuming the expansion rate is even and geometry finite, like the expanding balloon, the expansion rate will increase with distance. Using our two galaxies we can then calculate the 'gradient' of increased expansion with relative distance. This in no way demonstrates 'acceleration' any more than it does with the inflating balloon.

If the dark energy field of space itself is also expanding, and the speed of light remains constant, the additional red shift element due to this must be added. Again, the longer light travels through the field the greater the red shift. It's nothing to do with 'tired light' as I propose energy wave information can only logically be propogated at a constant rate over that time/space using energy from the the medium itself.

This has a good number of other implications which it seems could address some of our remaining key paradoxes. Or, to paraphrase Einstein, perhaps I'm going mad. Is it me or them?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 18, 2009 @ 19:40 GMT
Pressed the button too early. Forget the 'twice as red shifted' bit! Just'more red shifted' will do fine.

And some among you will recognise the similarities with the luminiferous ether. Much more to follow, if anyone's the slightest bit interested!

PJ

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jul. 2, 2009 @ 08:43 GMT
I see inflation as a process of transformation of space energy into energy of matter. In the universe energy cannot be created and not destroyed; universe is a system in a permanent dynamic equilibrium.

http://www.chronos.msu.ru/discussions/sorli_dyna
mic.html

yours amrit

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 5, 2009 @ 11:08 GMT
William Orem said "An infinite past just seems wrong, but is it?"

Yes.

What is changing is energy and position of matter in the 4 dimensional spatio-energetic continuum.Potential energy is being changed into mass energy and kinetic energy. Matter is coming together as it moves along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension.Structures are forming. Potential energy is continually being transformed, giving a direction of change that has been called the "arrow of time".

Time is not a parameter of the universe itself. The universe exists without time, not eternally. There is an origin in 4D space and end state in 4D space. Not a beginning and end in time.The end state of the universe is the origin of its successor.The mind demands that time is applied to the concept of universe because that is how the mind processes information to build its subjective reality.

There is no past as a physical reality. Only space. There can be no time travel, so there is no paradox there.The energy changes that happened when the matter of our universe was at a particular 4th dimensional position in the spatio-energetic continuum have no continued existence, as the position of the matter of the universe moves afore wards towards the centre of the hypersphere.

William, I think the Perimeter Institute would actually like more academic hoop jumpers to sit in an armchair and think for them. I hear that concerts and pleasant non academic environment is provided to aid inspiration.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 23, 2009 @ 12:47 GMT
Yes Georgina, universe has no past and no beginning. Universe is a system in a permanent dynamic equilbrium. Change of density of quantum space generates expansion and contraction of the universe.

You can read more on my article on file attached.

yours amrit

attachments: Timeless_Quantum_Universe_in_Dynamic_Equiilibrium_FQXI.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Tim wrote on Feb. 20, 2010 @ 19:07 GMT
I speculate that the universe is analogous to one of the virtual particle pairs thought to appear in empty space (the quantum froth); where particle pairs appear (an alpha point), then mutually annihilate (an omega point). At a larger scale, perhaps our (and other) universe(s) are simply members of virtual particle pairs (at a far vaster scale). A universe appears as a quantum fluctuation along with its "anti" universe: both evolve (perhaps by accelerated expansion) until they mutually coalesce and annihilate retuning the vacuum to the zero state from which it began.

I envision a sort of fractal existence in which the quantum froth of our universe mirrors identical "froths" at vastly different scales perhaps extending in both "directions" of which we are aware of only the microscopic (quantum) and (for one pair member) the universal. Time then is a property reflecting the evolution of each "particle universe" independently. It may be interesting to investigate to what extent the quantum physics of virtual pair production could be applied on a universal scale.

As an aside, could the dark sector be related to the "anti" member of our "particle universe pair"?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wilton Alano wrote on Jul. 4, 2010 @ 20:02 GMT
Dear Sirs,

From the nothing, nothing can emerge or arise. So, it's not intelligent thinking that from a past time where supposedly nothing existed, anything like our universe has come to light.

So, the idea of a starting of matter existence is a fake idea, without any basement. There are no reason to think that the intrinsic and perpetual nature of the cosmic fabric is not exactly what is shown.

Simple like that: The nature of the cosmos is what you see: energized matter. There has never been any past time when the "nothing" existed, so the past is really infinite.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wolf Krebs wrote on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 03:19 GMT
THE ILLUSION OF TIME

In an essay in Scientific American (Sci.Am. 302,6; p 59-65; 2010) Craig Callender reports that some theoretical physicists suggest that time does not exist. Their conclusion comes from quantum mechanical considerations. I am presenting some observations of our macroscopic world that lead to the same suggestion.

The three domains of time are future, present and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

amrit replied on Sep. 6, 2010 @ 13:02 GMT
Time exist - time is numerical order of material change trat run in space. We measure them with clocks....see more on file attached.

yours amrit

attachments: 2_BLOCK_UNIVERSE.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


P McDonald wrote on Aug. 29, 2010 @ 13:47 GMT
TIME

I am as one would rightly have deduced after reading this post...just a voice in the wilderness.

My theory........



Time is the effect of a movement that spins back on itself while still moving in the same original direction.



The backward spin on a ball thrown forward, has a ball thrown with the same energy as one without a spin, yet the ball takes longer to get to its destination. The spin slows time and in the case of a googly cricket bowl...distorts distance/ time.



There is also a case for the shape of 'time' and the universe. The effect of movement dictates the shape of the Universe and all the laws within it.



Analogy........



The smoke ring a cigarette smoker can blow. The forward movement of the smoke ring is countered by the backward spin of the ring across its width (which is composed of the same forward movement) yet the smoke ring still moves forward because it is all the same force. I propose the ring and its contents are 3 dimensional time and space and the original forward movement one dimensional time, while everything else is a void. The forward motion gives rise to the expanding universe, because as the forward motion continues, the circumference of the ring gets larger. The ring has to accommodate the matter/mass so its width shrinks, until finally all movement stops and the mass/matter disappears.



These opposing movements within the same movement generate a continuum.



I often think that when a bullet is fired, time folds back on its future self to allow the bullet to hit its future target.





I hope this is not too much of a nonsense.

Thank you for your time.

attachments: time_mcdonald_28.8.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


castel wrote on Sep. 5, 2010 @ 19:26 GMT
If we admit the idea that duration in time and motion (mass-energy) in space do not interact with duration and motion being simply concurrent realities, then the idea of an infinite past and future time would be easy.

Stephen Hawking has recently forwarded the idea of "spontaneous creation" owing to the existence of gravity. The idea of "spontaneous creation because of gravity" essentially proposes that gravitational masses always existed because otherwise gravity will not be an occurrence and then spontaneous creation will not occur at all. This by extension poses the idea of an infinite past and future time.

The idea of "creation because of gravity" in Hawking's latest makes me wonder if he or his peers read my paper of a few years ago.

Sometime ago I've also emailed A. Aguirre and M. Tegmark an ecopy of Kinematic Relativity and Continuous Mass-Formation in an Accelerating Universe, although I gathered from Anthony's response that he has not read it and did not intend to read it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


castel wrote on Sep. 5, 2010 @ 19:45 GMT
"An infinite past just seems wrong -- literally inconceivable -- like words being put together in a meaningless way. But is it?"

I've been working on an idea of gravitation from the viewpoint of "kinematic relativity" that suggests that gavity and all other forces (kinematic tendencies) would not be possible without an infinitely hierarchical cosmos.

But the work is on hold for lack of funding and hence time - I need to use my time to work for a living. I tried to get an FQXi grant, but although FQXi is really generous, my proposal just couldn't cut it.

I'm posting here because I am hoping somebody else is working on the same ideas that I am working on. I'm trying to discover who does.

It would be great if you people could answer with some relevant comments.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


castel wrote on Sep. 5, 2010 @ 20:39 GMT
Regarding the idea of entropy discussed above by Anthony...

The assumption is of course that the second law of thermodynamics is valid application for the universe. The idea predicts an entropic death of the universe. But there is an opposed idea to the second law - the idea of gravitation.

It is clear that the underlying idea of the second law is radiation (i.e., attenuation). On the other hand, the underlying idea of gravity is gravitation/condensation/concentration (i.e., densification).

So, which of the two is the correct idea as regards the universe?

Hawking is saying now - "spontaneous creation" because of gravity.

I've been saying for many years now - "cosmic continuous mass formation" because of the gravitational 'tensor' acceleration. I have the genesis formula presented at my website.

The idea of "a universe heading toward an entropic demise" is no longer valid.

Only a universe with the continuous cosmic mass formation process owing to gravity, with the created masses undergoing cosmic fission processes (such as super novae, etc.), can explain the "large structures." The large structures now observed by astronomers could not have formed in the time span forwarded in the big bang theory.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 07:07 GMT
It is difficult for me to address time as an isolated subject. I must first outline a skeleton of my own cosmological model. The cosmic foam of our universe is the ether foam of a super-universe, and the ether foam of our universe is the cosmic foam of a sub-universe. The median size bubble in our cosmic foam is roughly 10^24 meter across; the median size bubble in our ether foam is roughly 10^-35 m across. Space can be measured in ether-foam bubbles; a cubic meter is roughly 10^105 bubbles, and that number remains constant as our space expands. The expansion of our space stretches the bubble walls of our cosmic foam, causing them to pop. The same thing occurs in the sub-universe, causing its cosmic foam bubble walls to pop.

Space expands by increasing the number of ether-foam bubbles. When a wall separating two bubbles pops, two bubbles become one. That is a reduction in the number of bubbles. For the number of bubbles to increase, bubble walls must un-pop; a new wall must form across the middle of a bubble, dividing it in two. So when a cosmic-foam bubble in the sub-universe pops, one of our ether-foam bubbles must un-pop. In other words, the arrow of time reverses from one universe to the next. The expansion of space aims the arrow of time.

Turning the clock backward, we can imagine our space shrinking. This reduces the scale factor between the cosmic foam and the ether foam. Today, the factor is about 10^59 to 1. Suppose we run the clock back to a time when the scale factor was unity; we reach a time when our cosmic foam existed at the same scale as our ether foam. That could be adopted as a convenient marker for the beginning of time as we know it. Before that, the roles of cosmic foam and ether foam are reversed; the super-universe and sub-universe swap roles.

I am not saying that we CAN turn the clock back that far with any degree of confidence in what might have existed back then. If seems likely that our cosmic foam may have undergone numerous phase shifts since the beginning of time as we know it. Our cosmic foam, today, consists of bubbles surrounded by walls of galaxies. So what was it before galaxies came into existence? Did it have a foamy texture even then? I doubt if we can ever know that. Nevertheless, it does make sense to me to postulate a beginning of time as we know it, and that sets an arbitrary but finite limit to the age of our universe.

Our universe is an insignificant subset of an infinitely greater fractal universe. That greater universe exists outside of time because time runs both forward and backward within it. Time exists within the greater universe, but the greater universe has no beginning or end.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Philip Janes replied on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 07:10 GMT
That previous thread is mine. I thought I was still logged in.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 12, 2010 @ 13:41 GMT
past exist only as a numerical order.............

attachments: Time_measured_with_Clocks_12.10..pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Nov. 3, 2010 @ 22:49 GMT
Passage of time is human perception. It is also how we order and make sense of numerous, many dimensional spatial changes that are occurring continuously. The experience comes from within the organism and is in part due to circadian rhythm controlled by the pituitary gland in response to light levels and in part interpretation of the sequence of spatial change experienced by that organism. Ageing...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Nov. 4, 2010 @ 20:06 GMT
Hi William Orem,

I read the abstract of your linked -work-. Would have read more if easily accessible and free. The singularity that provides the whole universe from nothing is such a problematic idea for me that a sensible theory that avoids such a structure seems worthwhile and interesting. My main problem with your outline is that you allow local time reversal. What exactly does this...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 4, 2010 @ 20:59 GMT
William Orem,

Oops- just noticed that it was Anthony Aguirre, Steven Gratton's work that was being refereed to you for comment William not your own work. I would still be interested to know your own opinions on the question of actual time reversal outside of mathematical acceptability. What local time reversal actually means to you etc?

Hi Anthony aguirre,

So sorry for that mix up. I would like to address the previous post and the questions raised to you, as you put up the link to your work. Also have you moved on from this ( link in 2007) or is it still a reflection of your current thinking/ research ?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 5, 2010 @ 22:33 GMT
Thinking some more about magnetism it doesn't properly reverse with time reversal. An object that was repelled will be attracted towards but will not stick to the now not quite attracting pole.

Time forwards. Imagining a magnet being dropped onto a repulsing pole of a stronger magnet. It would fall and then be repelled by the magnet. It might be displaced laterally away from the repulsing pole or turn so that attracting poles come together.During the repulsing phase the poles of the magnet do not touch in this imagined case.

Time is reversed. The smaller magnet is now repulsed by the formerly attracting pole if it had turned turned, so turning again or moves towards the formerly repulsing pole from its laterally displaced position. However it is not attracted so sticking to that pole. There is still a barrier to the poles coming together. Instead of the expected complete magnetic attraction it is overcome by anti-gravity and rises into the air. Isn't this a problem because this physics of magnetism doesn't seem to run properly backwards.Is this film running backwards type of time reversal the wrong way to be thinking about it?

There is also the problem of compounds and mixtures and structures that are more energetically stable in their current fixed form than as the ingredients or parts that they were made from. When time is reversed the value of energy would also seem to be reversed so now it is more energetically favorable for formerly stable objects to be undone back to ingredients and parts. Cold objects warm up spontaneously etc.

When time reversal is mentioned by physicists are they referring only to reversal of certain physical processes or all processes, physics, chemistry and biology. If it is reversal of only certain processes then it isn't time reversal its just a reverse reaction or process in forwards time. I understand that time reversal is mathematically allowable but am I failing to comprehend something that makes time reversal plausible and scientifically allowable? Are all physics rules and processes fully reversible? No it would seem.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Philip Janes wrote on Nov. 27, 2010 @ 09:27 GMT
"Cosmic foam bubbles? Can they be measured, observed, investigated empirically in any way? What is the foam and where does it come from?"

-------------------------------

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey has mapped over half a million galaxies in 3D. Of course, there are more gaps than mapped regions. Our view is blocked by the disk of our own galaxy, and we can't see what lies beyond...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Philip Janes replied on Nov. 27, 2010 @ 09:36 GMT
Oops! That post, above belongs on a different discussion. Too bad I can't delete it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Kronos II replied on Dec. 1, 2010 @ 05:47 GMT
"We cannot subject the sub-universe to tests."

Therefore, not a scientific inquiry. Just gibberish disguised in pseudo-scientific terms.

Also, I knew Albert Einstein. Albert Einstein was a friend of mine.

Philip: You are no Albert Einstein.

It appears you also think he is still alive by your present tense claim involving the great scientist who thought creatively inside the box known as the universe. Nice cliche on your part, though, regarding your faulty understanding of common sense. It supports your nonsense claims that just can't be tested or observed, yet you go on and on about certain actions causing this or that to pop, but then they reverse themselves and run backwards and effects precede causes.

Lots of stuff going on that can't be observed or tested. A superb example of mythological fantasy "pseudo-physics."

Thanks for the ride, though. I actually enjoyed reading your dazzling illusions.

KII

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 01:36 GMT
Philip

Interesting and clearly described. I like your last remarks "painting by the numbers, don't cross the lines".

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wilton Alano wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 15:44 GMT
Hi,

Once Nature has never made anything unique in gender(There no just ONE galaxy, ONE sun, ONE planet or sand grain, but large number of them)and can just mass-produce anything; and once we humans have been wrong every time we thought we had found "the entire"; very great chances are that we are also wrong thinking our local(backyard) universe is - this time - the entire stuff.

Great chances are too that we can never discover too much beyond our backyard-universe, due to our littleness.

Personally, I'm convinced that the Cosmos is structured with infinite 'classes of dimensions'(like our) infinitely and fractaly nested.

In other words, totally infinite, as much in time as in space; despite the horror the term "infinite" cause in large amount of scientists.

Cheers,

Wilton

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

gf replied on Jul. 9, 2011 @ 20:49 GMT
Yes the past would haveto be infinite or else we wouldn't have an infinite future which we must since 1. we cannot prove its finite and 2. we are not philosophically predestined for anything other than to exist in the moment

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


israel socratus wrote on Nov. 15, 2011 @ 05:48 GMT
What is Infinity?

Does Infinity have an Absolute Reference Frame?

Does an Infinity Absolute Reference Frame have physical parameters?

I think the Vacuum T=0K gives answer to this questions.

=.

Israel Sadovnik Socratus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sridattadev wrote on Dec. 16, 2011 @ 18:54 GMT
Dear All,

who am I?

I am here and now, I is forever.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Louis Brassard wrote on May. 24, 2012 @ 03:51 GMT
The Universe is all that exists and by definition it includes everything. It even include the laws of Nature. Assuming that the Universe has an origin is like assuming that it comes from nothing. The only solution is to assume that the Universe has always existed.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Jun. 1, 2012 @ 17:40 GMT
Hi Louis,

Welcome to FQXi.org. Are you thinking of enterring the essay contest?

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Jun. 7, 2012 @ 17:54 GMT
Louis Brassard,

I hope you consider enterring the essay contest.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Louis Brassard replied on Jun. 18, 2012 @ 06:01 GMT
Hi James,

Yes I am considering to enter.

- Louiw

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ferruccio Sorrentino wrote on Jun. 1, 2012 @ 15:46 GMT
I suggest that the black holes are the Universal Banks of the Information in the cycling Universe. The english version of my article is quiet old, about 4 years; afterwards I've bettre expressed the same concepts but only in Italian language. If intereste contact me at the e-mail gr.olograficoflegreo@libero.it, thank you.

attachments: italias_black_holes.doc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Martin wrote on Feb. 2, 2013 @ 22:28 GMT
Greetings folks, I see that I have come late to this discussion, but I might have a little something to contribute. I happen to have made a semi-thorough review of the philosophic literature on this topic. This is in connection with an upcoming paper. Here are some comments taken from that paper: First, theorists who have pointedly focused on the first-cause/infinite-regress issue have an almost...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Feb. 3, 2013 @ 16:05 GMT
The causal past is finite and

the non-causal past is infinite

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Olivier Fabian wrote on Feb. 17, 2013 @ 15:52 GMT
Infinity is a nice mathematical concept. But when applied to anything real, any kind of infinity is just too much.

Evidences gathered so far point to a recent beginning of our universe. But what about time? If we look at our time line back to the moment our universe started... and just a bit before that... and why not a very long time before... well, there is no reason to impose a limit toward the past.

That's assuming time is a "line", a one-dimension thing which could neither be blocked by walls at its extremities nor would makes sense to loop on itself.

We can eliminate quite a few paradoxes if we consider time as a pulsation of the real. What exists is the present, and it changes at every pulsation (sorry for sci-fi writers: time machines will never exist).

Before our Big-Bang appeared, there was nothing to pulse: time did not exist yet... and when the last particle will "evaporate", time will cease to exist.

You may still use time as a dimensional continous parameter to facilitate calculations as long as this does not introduce any paradoxe. But time, really, is neither a dimension nor is it continuous. It is only ticks occuring at indeterminate intervalles.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Feb. 17, 2013 @ 17:40 GMT
Oliver,

I've been advocating that point for awhile and that the conceptual miscue is as we live lives of linear motion, we experience change sequentially, when the reality is distributed and non-linear. So rather then it be the present moving along an external vector, from past to future, it is the changing configuration, turning future into past. Not the earth traveling a vector from yesterday to tomorrow, but the rotation of the earth turning tomorrow into yesterday.

The problem with physics is that in its obsession with measurement, it treats time as a measure of duration, which only re-enforces the narrative vector. Yet duration is not external to the present, but is the state of the present between measurement events.

Keep in mind that "spacetime" is a correlation of measures of distance and duration. So if duration is only an effect of action and not foundational to it, then the premise of an expanding universe is based on faulty assumptions and redshift must be due to some other, ie. optical, effect.

It is all piled rather deep at this point, so watch where you step.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Olivier Fabian replied on Feb. 18, 2013 @ 17:31 GMT
Usually, we perceive "duration" as a segment of time measured with a clock. Thus the idea of continuity, of very small (Planck scale?) segments aligned end-to-end.

What I am suggesting is that we should consider any duration as a discrete, finite number of "ticks" which impose the same number of updates of the universe.

The small segments are replaced by a gap of nothingness between two ticks. From the point of view of our clocks, these gaps could have a length of Planck duration, but since nothing happens to the sub-particules of our updated clock "waiting" for the updating of the rest of the universe, there is no way of quantifying the gaps themselves. We can only count the ticks.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 01:06 GMT
Olivier,

Keep in mind the "perceiving" and thus the measuring, is always in the "present." What you are measuring is actions within that present.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 04:41 GMT
Anthony, William, All,

Another question that might be asked is what exactly is "the past"? Or to what exactly should the term "past" refer? Is it the complete history of all events that have occurred (recoded or not), that are not also the present? Is it the data recorded, in memory and/or physical records?; or does it also included data "recorded" within the electromagnetic variations of the universe that may not have been intercepted and interpreted?

I have differentiated these different kinds of phenomena to overcome the confusion surrounding the term "past": The complete history of all events that have occurred is the imagined complete sequence of iterations of the Object universe, up to but not including the youngest, most recent, iteration . Electromagnetic variation data, (potential sensory data), that has been formed but not yet received is called the "pre-written future", as it becomes present experience when the data is received. It is -many different potential images-, which of them is manifest depends upon the location and behaviour and type of observer.Although it is important to realise that this "pre-written future" may relate to events that occurred long ago. Only records, including memories, are categorised as "the past" within the RICP explanatory framework.They have already been present "Image reality" of a sentient being or device within our star system.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 04:47 GMT
A universe with an infinite past -history- (William's endless chain of causation) fits with the RICP explanatory framework but not a an infinite universe that has material existence spread over time, ie. a block universe. As the matter must be recycled into the youngest version of the Object universe. Otherwise there is the problem of more matter being continually produced as the universe's latest form is generated. (The "infinite number of tea cups" dilemma.)

The image of the universe produced from electromagnetic data is a fundamentally different aspect of "the universe". The data can persist and be intercepted and formed into an image even light years after the objects and events that are encoded existed in those forms and relationships. Though it seems the existence of data from which comprehensible images can be formed is -not infinite- as the event horizon is reached and older data giving clear images is unobtainable, which makes the image universe finite. (This way of thinking about the different aspects of "the universe " overcomes the temporal paradoxes inherent within Einstein's relativity.)

SUMMARY: Infinite history, ("infinite chain of causation"). Temporally finite (uni-temporal ie. not spread over time) material Object universe. Parts of it can not exist at different times. Finite temporal spread of space-time Image universe. (Produced from data that has persisted within the uni-temporal material universe.As it is a space-time image,different parts of the image may relate to arrangements and events that occurred at different times.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Martin Gerard Channon replied on Feb. 26, 2013 @ 19:30 GMT
Oliver, you say that, [quote] Infinity is a nice mathematical concept. But when applied to anything real, any kind of infinity is just too much[end quote]. If by this you mean that an infinite (physical) causal regress is impossible, then this is an unsupported statement. Many others have developed this position in detail, and such detailed arguments have been considered and disproven by those who...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sridattadev wrote on Feb. 28, 2013 @ 21:55 GMT
Dear All,

There is no space unless one chooses to measure and there is no time until one chooses to count, there is no spacetime besides one absolute self.

"Consciousness is the sphere of universal schwarzschild radius (ranging from zero to infinity) with a central cosmological constant of conscience (i)" - iSphere.

zero = i = infinity

Love,

Sridattadev.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Richard Lewis wrote on Nov. 6, 2013 @ 18:07 GMT
Cosmology topic: Is the past infinite?

My viewpoint on this is based on a new theory of The evolution of the universe

The theory proposes a space boundary as well as a time boundary. The universe has a past time boundary at time zero but because the expansion of the universe is caused by the expansion at the space boundary there is no future time boundary.

The universe is defined at all points within the spacetime boundary so that at any point T1 it will always be possible to find an earlier time T2 lying within the spacetime boundary. Space and time are only defined within the boundary so the hypothetical time zero could never be reached by this method. It is also possible that the rate of passage of time slows at the approach to time zero due to the effect of spacetime curvature.

Richard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alice lewis wrote on Apr. 2, 2014 @ 10:14 GMT
I think the primary reason researchers have theorized exchange, parallel or digression universes need to do with the effects of twofold opening investigations. In my model, our universe is a piece of a more amazing fractal universe. Our universe exists between the scale of the Planck length and that of the vast froth. Our grandiose froth (having an average air pocket measure about 10^24 meter over) is the ether froth of a super-universe; our ether froth (having an average air pocket estimate approximately 10^-35 meter over) is the infinite froth of a sub-universe. Connection between scalewise universes must be deduced; it can never be specifically watched.

Online Math Practice

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Leonard Malinowski replied on Apr. 20, 2014 @ 03:09 GMT
Alice, what do you think of the following?

String Theory and subquantum scale atoms

(Human scale mass 57.768 kg)/(neutron mass 1.675 x 10^-27 kg) = 3.449 x 10^28

(Human scale mass 57.768 kg)(3.449 x 10^28) = (Solar System mass 1.992 x 10^30 kg)

Human consciousness resides midway in scale between quantum & cosmic scale masses.

Diameter of 1.992 x 10^30 kg concentrated in a sphere at atomic densities equals ~ 7.6 x 10^8 m

Neutron diameter ~ 2.0 x 10^-15 m

¥L = Length scaling factor between the quantum and cosmic scales = 7.6 x 10^8 m/2.0 x 10^-15 m

¥L = 3.8 x 10^23

In string theory particles are perceived as highly localized vibration of Planck length strings.

lp = (ħGc^-3)^1/2 =

[(1.0546 x 10^-34 Js)(6.6742 x 10^-11 Nm^2/kg^2)(299792458 m/s)^-3]^1/2

lp = 1.62 x 10^-35 m

From the Bohr model of the Hydrogen atom and in particular quantized angular momentum:

mvnrn = nħ

Combined with the de Broglie relation: λ = h/p

The relation has long been known: 2πr = nh/p = nλ

The smallest atomic orbital circumferences are the ground state Helium shells (1s^2 orbital) of the heaviest atoms. The diameter of the helium shell for Radon (z = 86) ~ 0.02 Å. This shell has an average circumference =

2π)(1 x 10^-12 m) = 6.28 x 10^-12 m, which is also the smallest ground state wavelength of an atomic orbital in the human scale.

Length scaling factor: ¥L = 3.8 x 10^23

A self-similar Radon atom existing at the subquantum scale will have a self-similar subquantum scale 1s^2 orbital circumference measured relative to the human scale:

6.28 x 10^-12 m/3.8 x 10^23 = 1.7 x 10^-35 m

Vibrating string particles correspond to subquantum scale atoms.

Strings are subquantum scale atomic oscillators.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 22, 2014 @ 13:19 GMT
The crisis in the fundamental physics, including cosmology - the "crisis of interpretation and representation" (T.Romanovskaya), the "crisis of understanding" (K.Kopeykin), it is the crisis of the philosophical foundations, especially in understanding of space and time.

The way to overcome the crisis - is a further deepening of the Geometry, but rather in the "origin of Geometry"...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Darius M wrote on Oct. 31, 2014 @ 16:27 GMT
http://www.academia.edu/8991727/Phenomenal_World_as_an_Outpu
t_of_Cognitive_Quantum_Grid_Theory_of_Everything_using_Leibn
iz_Kant_and_German_Idealism

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Nov. 20, 2014 @ 12:35 GMT
JUST BEFORE THAT BIG BANG WENT KA-BOOM

Once upon a time, or was it in the beginning, there was a Big Bang and thus was born what we now call our expanding Universe – expanding because really Big Bangs are associated with explosive events and explosive events hurl out stuff hither and yon. But while there’s little dispute about the Big Bang event, the central question is, was it an ‘in...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Nov. 21, 2014 @ 12:45 GMT
BIG BANG BLUNDERS BUSTED

If you read the Standard Model of Creation Cosmology (the Big Bang event), it reads an awful like the first few verses of Genesis. While I'm sure that is just a coincidence, neither scenario as given is a satisfactory explanation, for vastly different reasons. Here I tackle the physical ones, not the supernatural ones.

In “Alice through the Looking...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Nov. 24, 2014 @ 13:05 GMT
IS TIME A CONCEPT OR A THING? CAN TIME BE CREATED?

Is it possible to create time? If you accept the modern cosmological paradigm that’s exactly what happened 13.7 billion years ago. If you accept that, was the creation of time a once only creation or is the creation of time occurring even as you read this? Or, is the whole idea of literally creating time something only those smoking the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Dec. 4, 2014 @ 12:33 GMT
THOSE AD-HOC COSMOLOGICAL EPICYCLES

Sometimes observations are hard to explain. So you just have to tack on the best ad-hoc explanation that fits the facts, even if the explanation itself is lacking the nitty-gritty details. Astronomy went through such an exercise when anyone who was anyone said that the Earth was the centre of all things, and all things revolved around the Earth. That...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


dieu tat le wrote on Dec. 18, 2014 @ 20:18 GMT
Big Bang: “Unjustifiable From

a Physical Point of View”

The physics of the Big Bang Theory is “atrocious” and “unjustifiable from a physical point of view.” These harsh and critical words were Einstein’s, not mine.

http://www.einsteinerrs.com/big-bang.html

attachments: BIG_BANG__Unjustifiable_F.doc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 19, 2014 @ 06:58 GMT
Thanks for the link. I didn't know that Einstein was so fiercely opposed, "from a physical point of view" to the idea initially, and so he should have been. What a pity the observation of apparent expansion of the visible Image universe overturned his earlier intuition.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Dec. 19, 2014 @ 10:58 GMT
The irony is this"expansion" is intergalactic, balancing the galactic gravitational contraction of gravity and thus is Einstein's cosmological constant, resulting in an overall flat space, as is observed. All the math is already there, but the herd belief simply overrides logic.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Dec. 26, 2014 @ 15:25 GMT
Georgina,

Consider that what is apparent, is a second or third order effect of real physical space-time-energy dynamicism. GR is not like dropping a pebble into a bird bath, the rubber sheet illustration is actually backwards and you can see that on any pool table in any towny bar in the States. Imagine the curvature of spacetime being necessary because the mass is already present and space through time must be conserved. Its a chicken and egg salad sandwich to ask which comes first (?): time, space or energy. I think the question of observational extrapolation of inflationary expansion of intergalactic durational distances, calls into question whether what we are truly observing is a timeline across the vastness which places our own point of observing on a slope of a standing gravitational warp and sees across a trough to the distant past through a crest of an earlier position of warpage. The search for 'gravitons' and 'gravitational waves' has assumed that because the translation of gravitational effect is deemed to propagate at light velocity, that a 'wave' of that effect would itself also physically travel at light velocity. Here we go back to Bohm's pilot wave concept. The warp piles up because it lags behind light velocity potential.

I'll go back to my hibernation now. Happy Holidays, All. jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


dieu tat le wrote on Dec. 29, 2014 @ 19:48 GMT
Georgina and John M,

Thanks for your comments.

Dieu Le

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pier Paolo Lisi wrote on Jan. 8, 2015 @ 08:04 GMT
I submitted a proposal of new general system theory, dealing with first istant of universe, its form and on nature of energy: it's a brief and simple script, http://viXra.org/abs/1501.0093

about time: it is information (energy) and it continuously 'flows' from the singularity of the origin (big bang), (that is out of the system but communicate with it) to the black hole at the end of timelines (another singularity with no spacetime

infinity exists, but it is possible only in a situation of pure energy, with no spacetime; infinity is out of the system

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jan. 30, 2015 @ 01:19 GMT
As I have said before, the big bang theory is bunk.

I have proponed the genesis formula since the early 90s and in my year 2000 book. And the new book is out. The eBook is also available at www.kinematicrelativity.com. And there are pages there about my own theory of kinematic relativity.

Hawking himself is now into the idea of cosmic creation because of gravity. But he has not shown us the genesis formula.

Brans-Dicke, Hoyle, Burbidge, Narlikar, and others came so close to it. But they where hampered by Einstein's space-time transformations idea.

The genesis formula is as simple as Einstein's E=mc2. But its intepretation presents the more comprehensive ramifications.

The genesis formula has two requisites in order for it to work. The requisites suggest a necessarily infinite cosmos in both time and space. The genesis formula accounts for the observed CMB, the foreground mass formation and the observed cosmic expansion.

The genesis formula debunks the idea of creation from nothing. It shows creation out of the infinite kinematic field implied by the requisites. And it allows the most convincing explanation regarding the nature and origin of gravity.

I'd discuss my ideas here. But typing is such a strain. I have a bit in my essay. But I have a lot at my website if you are really the intellectually inclined. Also, it would be nice if you buy the eBook or donate. It would help a lot.

www.kinematicrelativity.com

P.S. I was hoping FQXi could help in advancing the foundational ideas of an armchair cosmologist/physicist. That has not happened for me yet. I doubt if the FQXi people really take a look at what we have. Perhaps this time around they will or, at least, perhaps they'll take a look at my work also.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


dieu tat le wrote on Jan. 30, 2015 @ 20:03 GMT
Revising The Newton’s Laws of Motion

While revisiting Newton laws of motion, especially the First one —“When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force “(W) – I was bothered by this question:



What makes objects REMAIN AT REST? And how is it done? Or more specific: What creates Inertia, the resistance force of any physical object to any change in its state of motion?

Is there any answer out there that I should know?



After having posted this question on Theoretical Physics group, APS and FQXi community’s fora, I received no responses indicating that a serious answer exists meaning it's safe now to say that my research's results do not repeat something already existed or "discovering the discovered".

So, here’s the report of my investigation:

(See attachment)

attachments: Revising_The_Newton.doc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


dieu tat le wrote on Feb. 18, 2015 @ 21:12 GMT
Correction: The language of Newton’s Third Law that I proposed is not quite accurate. The following paragraph has been added:

Actually, to be precise, the 3rd Law should read: "When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously reflects it back with a reaction power that varies by its kinetic (if any), shape, size, weight, and “made-of” material of both...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Feb. 18, 2015 @ 23:37 GMT
Dear Dieu,

"A professor’s story about his students’ reaction when first encountering Newton’s Third Law touched me and inspired me to keep on fighting for the truth.

He wrote: “During 1st and 2nd years of graduate school, grad students were required to spend a few hours per week in a large conference room to supply tutorial help for undergraduate students... the biggest issue by far was Newton's 3rd law. The most common question was "If the force and reaction force are equal and opposite, then how can there be any motion if the net force is always zero?"

This legit question and many others..."

The undergraduate students were showing confusion about when Newton's Second, and Third Laws apply. I am sure the grad students explained the differences clearly. The Third Law and the Second Law can apply simultaneously for the same overall action although at different physical points. An example is when one pulls horizontally on a rope that is attached to a block that is sliding horizontally. If the block is increasing its speed, then both the Second and Third Laws apply. One needs to know where in the example each applies.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


dieu tat le wrote on Feb. 19, 2015 @ 17:46 GMT
Dear James,

Please explain to me where the Newton's Third Laws applies in the two examples:

airbags and empty cardboard boxes.

Dieu Le

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Feb. 19, 2015 @ 19:23 GMT
Dear Dieu,

I read both of your messages. There will be nothing more coming.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


dieu tat le wrote on Feb. 19, 2015 @ 18:26 GMT
Dear James,

Since you're already there, in a teaching position, would you please answer this question:

“HOW, WHERE and WHEN does the phenomenon of 'the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal' can insert itself into that solid chain of events that turned an old car into a small block of metal, or bullet – meeting no body armor – easily proceeded through human body?"

I believe all the undergraduate students in the world who are confused by Newton's Law would be grateful for your clear explanation.

Dieu Le

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


dieu tat le wrote on Feb. 20, 2015 @ 00:54 GMT
Dear James,

Understood. Many thanks for paying attention, and spending time to read my posts.

Dieu Le

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


dieu tat le wrote on Mar. 2, 2015 @ 08:48 GMT
HOW GRAVITY READS WEIGHT

How does gravity recognize that a steel ball is heavier than a same size aluminum ball?

After discovering what produces an object's inertia, solving a big mystery of the century, (and having a modest victory lap,) I continued on, searching for an answer to the above question – “Never stop questioning” as Einstein advised.

A correct answer would reveal many more understandings about the operation and structure of the Universe.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on May. 11, 2015 @ 22:15 GMT
Gravity does not read weight! Weight is mass acted upon by gravity causing a measurable output on a weighing device that can be thought of as the force acting on the body due to gravity.

There is an Einsteinian and a Newtonian explanation of gravity -take your pick.

Einsteinian: Gravity is not recognizing the objects, treating them differently or actively doing anything, the objects are just obeying Newton's first Law as best they can. The Objects are in free fall, just following the curvature of space-time, (I would like to call that space imagined over time to be consistent with my own explanatory framework).

From the reference frame of the falling object and an accelerometer of same mass falling with it it has no (proper)acceleration BUT that is an apparent acceleration when not viewed from the reference frame of the falling object itself. Gravity is, using Eisenstein's reasoning, a pseudo force.

However if you wish to consider it a force, thinking like Newton, it acts with 1G on each mass giving enough force for both to accelerate so that they fall at the same rate. Assuming both have even mass distribution and same shape,as these factors could affect the outcome. F=MG but a small mass will accelerate more easily than a larger mass so it doesn't matter that the force is smaller for the small mass and larger for the large mass.Once again Gravity is not recognizing the objects or treating them differently.

Both explanations are well known to mainstream physics. Sometimes the first explanation will be most useful for the problem being tackled and sometimes the second.It isn't that one is right and the other wrong but they are different ways of considering the phenomenon. The first does not regard gravity as a force and there is no proper acceleration in the second it is regarded as a force causing the (perceived) acceleration.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 11, 2015 @ 22:17 GMT
Anonymous replied on May. 11, 2015 @ 22:15 GMT That was me, Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


dieu tat le wrote on Mar. 9, 2015 @ 00:54 GMT
Please review the updated version of "Revising the Newton's Laws of motion" at:

http://www.einsteinerrs.com/newtons-laws.html

or this attachment

attachments: Revising_The_Newton-A.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


dieu tat le wrote on May. 11, 2015 @ 16:58 GMT
Why do two balls with the same size but different masses falling from the same height have the same acceleration (in the absence of air resistance)?

We experienced that these two balls (one heavier than the other) arrived to the ground at the same time as they would have the same weight. How does this happen? What is the reason behind this mysterious phenomenon?

Professor Viktoria Nyamadi, while participating in the search for an answer to my question: “How does Gravity read weight?” came up with the above question.

I hope someone out there already has a physically sound answer.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


En Passant wrote on May. 11, 2015 @ 21:03 GMT
Note to FQXi

Call to reason (analogous to “call to arms”)

Information is not something out there, existing in the universe. Information is something you form in your mind.

Therefore, no information could leak out of a black hole. Only some physical fact could leak out, but I don’t know if that happens (that is up to you to determine).

Complexity is the same thing. The only complexity exists in our minds (because we are so stooopet – which is how one of my daughters spelled it some years ago).

So what I want you to realize is that there is no such thing as information (or complexity). We will never achieve AI. There is no such thing as entanglement (you will have to figure out something else to explain the correlations).

And for our ontologists, I have this to say. Existence has no attributes. You cannot say that because of this and this something exists. We perceive attributes of things, but we do not perceive their “existence.” I am only writing this for the best and the brightest of you. We perceive the characteristics of things, but never their existence.

Our sun will not expire for some time yet, and we can stumble to our greater understanding.

I could tell you more, but for now it might be enough.

En

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


En Passant wrote on May. 11, 2015 @ 21:18 GMT
Oh, I forgot something,

You cannot have reverse-time causality, nor the universe splitting into many. Just forget about those things.

Are we so daft?

You can figure it out. Just go back to where we went off with QM. We went off the rails. I cannot do it, but you can.

I should not say this (and my wife would advise me against this), but I cannot share certain things with you because you cannot handle them.

En

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


dieu tat le wrote on Jun. 5, 2015 @ 22:43 GMT
HOW GRAVITY READS MATTER’S DENSITY

AND CREATES WEIGHT

Here’s my answer to the question:

"How does gravity read weight? How does it recognize that a steel ball is heavier than an aluminum ball with the same size?"

http://www.einsteinerrs.com/creating-weight.html

or see the attachment.

Dieu

attachments: HOW_GRAVITY_READS_-FV1.doc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


dieu tat le wrote on Jun. 8, 2015 @ 22:14 GMT
I added the following paragraphs to my essay:

“PHYSICS AND NOTHING BUT PHYSICS

In summary, the process of creating weight is simple: A moving Earth presses on objects that, in turn, press on Dark Matter, meeting DM’s resistance. That resistant force, applying individually on objects, creates the objects' weights.

An aluminum ball, for example, with its low mass’s density, allows a great number of DM’s units go through its body, meeting a WEAK resistant force, say, a two-pound pushing force.

A steel ball, with its mass’s higher density, has a stronger blocking power – many DM’s units are being partially or totally blocked, or have to slow down while going through the ball’s body – and will meet a much more forceful DM’s resistance, say, a ten-pound pushing force.

The aluminum ball should weigh two pounds. The steel one’s is ten.

An object’s weight is exactly the resistant force that DM pushed back against it.

That’s why we need an equal or greater force to lift it up.”

Please review the revised version at:

http://www.einsteinerrs.com/creating-weight.html

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Phil Bouchard wrote on Oct. 8, 2015 @ 03:38 GMT
Greetings,

I was able to defend or add answers to my new gravitational theory on a debate against creditable astrophysicists on Cosmoquest.org in the following areas without the use of dark matter or dark energy:

- the perihelion precession disparity

- the gravitational light bending

- the galactic rotation curve using the mass distribution of the galaxy

- part of the Pioneer 10 anomaly

- the GPS time dilations cancellation altitude

- the expansion of the universe

- the black holes

- the time dilation of speeds < 40% c

- solving the mass of the visible universe based on the value of kappa

- the FEL experiment (derivation is unknown but should be easy to solve)

The code of my new simulator can be downloaded and run on your Linux (Ubuntu preferably) with:

$ svn co https://github.com/philippeb8/finite-theory

Please make sure Qt5 is installed on your system and then you can simply type:

$ cd finite-theory/trunk

$ qmake

$ make

$ ./ft

Sincerely yours,

Phil Bouchard

www.UnifiedFieldTheoryFinite.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Oct. 28, 2015 @ 22:58 GMT
there is no PAST, only NOW exists

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Oct. 28, 2015 @ 22:59 GMT
see article

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

israel socratus replied on Dec. 11, 2015 @ 14:05 GMT
God particles, without Nobel Prize. / by Socratus/

==..

To discover so-called God - particle ( Nobel Prize in 2013)

was needed two conditions : deep vacuum and high energy.

But if the vacuum were deeper and energy were higher then

it would be possible to discover some kind of a new God – particles.

Question: what is the deepest vacuum in the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence J. Carson II wrote on Apr. 28, 2016 @ 18:35 GMT
Please excuse my sophomoric question but I am very, very curious and passionate about the subject of .

The Framework

For a moment, let us assume that the framework of context always controls output content, i.e. function precedes form. Let us assume that it is the “Contextual Dimension of Singularity” … that sets and controls the unfolding Precursor Principles of Superposition … within Duality … that in turn . . . “Manifest the Time-Space-Energy Content” of quantum wave coherence and particle quantum entanglements .

The Question

With this simplistic Meta cause-effect assumption, what might researchers discover if they were to assume that the Meta Contextual Framework of Singularity is the core essence of Consciousness … that gives birth to the Duality of time-space-conscious-energy states of inter and intra-relationships that in turn gives rise to the Superposition Principles of both quantum wave coherence and particle quantum entanglements.

If all energy is in fact conscious - which would be mirrored by the fact that all states of consciousness are energetic- then perhaps we should now be attempting to uncover the metrics of … the very “Synergistic Attributes” of consciousness.

I Need Help

Will someone please contact me as I am now looking for a research institution to empirically test my hypothesis “On Understanding the Ontology of the Conscious Operating System of the Universe?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 29, 2016 @ 04:01 GMT
Lawrence C II,

What do you mean with Singularity? While I don't hope for helping you, I distinguish between the not capitalized mathematical term, its unwarranted use in physics, and the even more deviating meaning in AI.

++++

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Apr. 29, 2016 @ 07:24 GMT
Dear FQXi,Mr Aguirre, Mr Tegmark,Ms Merali and friends,

I am sorry for my past paranoid comportments.I am going to delete all my bizare posts.I was too much parano and stupid simply.I am better now.Best Regards and long life to FQXi :)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


DURGA DAS DATTA. wrote on Jun. 29, 2016 @ 05:33 GMT
Time is the property of existence. Why there is something rather than nothing. We can not avoid existence of time and as a result something will always exist. As such time existed and will exist for ever. As such something will exist for ever. Dynamic universe/multiverse is evolving from state to state and this change of events or snap shots of existence is being continued in time. We should not think that any finite amount energy will end at some point due to second law of thermodynamics. The energy is a magic game of opposites creating opposite entropy and a reverse arrow of time in some pockets to balance the other pockets. Read balloon inside balloon theory attached herewith.

attachments: 4_New_Physics_with_Emergent_Gravity_Mechanism._1.doc, 4_I_Think_Dr._Datta_Makes_A_Valid_Point_-_an_Astronomy_Net_Blackholes_Forum_Message22.htm

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steven Andresen wrote on Jun. 28, 2017 @ 08:14 GMT
Darwinian Universal

The nature of the interaction between space and matter, what causes gravitational acceleration? is a question forefront in people’s minds. But also the nature of the universal orders we observe, atomic and cosmological structures being very non-random and articulated. I will speak briefly to these now, but please bear in mind that I can corner these considerations with...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steven Andresen wrote on Jun. 29, 2017 @ 05:26 GMT
Darwinian Universal

I'm very pleased with the reviews my essay received, and for the community score that tallied. However I havent engaged with the community in discussions about it yet, either in a sense that might test it or allow me to elaborate further. I have added a post to my essay thread titled Darwinian Universal, which presents an explanation for why the concept of fundamental...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steven Andresen replied on Jun. 29, 2017 @ 09:14 GMT
Give nature an energy potential and it will invent a Darwinian circumstance of emergence. Take early oceanic life for example, algae invented a way to exploit the suns energy in a process known as Photosynthesis, which then founded the base of a food chain that blossomed through a diversified range of organisms of increasing levels of character and complexity. Krill that eat the algae, in turn eaten by small fish, eaten by bigger fish and squid, eaten by tuna, sharks, birds, dolphins and whales.

Auv cosmological emergence is a like circumstance of Darwinian emergence, as a result of an as yet unidentified natural energy potential. Like the algae, this Auv elemental field of space foundations the base of a system that has compounded ever higher levels of universal order and complexity, in the form of atomic and cosmological structure. This is how elaborate Gluon and photon characteristics have emerged in the universe, and the circumstance whereby their activity is enabled by a metabolism of an Auv elemental field of space.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steven Andresen wrote on Jul. 7, 2017 @ 05:35 GMT
Electromagnetism is considered one of the four fundamental forces of nature.

Another force considered as fundamental is the strong nuclear force, for which the Gluon is the mediator, which importantly is the generator of “mass”, which is the property of matter which responds to gravitational fields. Or I could have said it like this “The strong nuclear force makes the “MASS” which...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hannah Burreh wrote on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 13:42 GMT
I think we have to think bigger than infinity. Time is just a human concept, just like speed, distance, beginning or end. I know there is no evidence of the universe being infinite and simply no evidence of anything being infinite at all, but that's just my theory, or more like a concept.

Hannah

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Louis Brassard Brassard wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 05:43 GMT
Dear All,

1. Nothing come from Nothing.

2. The Universe always evolves.

3. If we assume that the Universe has an Initial State of Affair then it violate 1. because assuming it can’t come from Something before it and thus it has to come from Nothing.

4. So the Universe at not initial state of affair, in other words has no beginning , never bagan and thus the Universe always existed.

Since Nothing comes from Nothing, since the Universe is by definition ALL THAT EXIST then existence cannot begin from non existence and thus the Universe can’t begin to exist and thus has always exist.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.