Search FQXi

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

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

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help

January 21, 2018

ARTICLE: Readers' Choice: The Crystallizing Universe [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

T H Ray wrote on Jun. 2, 2011 @ 17:05 GMT
Suppose the disk is labeled thus, but its record is blank. To the observer (the one who plays the disk), this would differ from a disk full of information ... how?


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 4, 2011 @ 04:36 GMT

How? Oliver Heaviside created a clever decomposition of the missing future into even and odd components as to prepare it for complex Fourier transformation. Even ones get real parts, odd ones imaginary parts. A lot of redundant symmetries arose.


report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jun. 4, 2011 @ 14:38 GMT
It has nothing to do with past or future. It has to do with observer entanglement with the wave function. The interaction of the observer with the hypothetical CD will change history. So the ostensibly well ordered historical events recorded on the disk will not be distinguishable from random or pseudo random events at the point of interaction.


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 4, 2011 @ 15:30 GMT

Maybe some theorist are even using the good old notion history in a sense that essentially deviates from the original one. My old fashioned dictionary tells me that history always refers to the past.

Doesn't ostensible mean not actual but alleged or pretended? The real numbers are ostensibly well ordered. However, being uncountable they do not fit on a CD.

So far nobody managed to changed history. Nothing can predict all future data for two different reasons: At first there is no known end of time, and secondly the variety of possible influences is also unlimited. Why do you refer to an entanglement of an observer with a wave function? Isn't any object under observation independent from any ideal observer? Isn't the suggested interactive CD just ridiculous?


report post as inappropriate

Georg wrote on Jun. 2, 2011 @ 21:19 GMT
The wording "crystallizes from past" is not appropriate.

The wording for crystallisation is always that a crystal

crystallizes from liquid/melt (=less ordered) phase.

So the analogy affords to say: the past (= fixed)

crystallizes from future.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 5, 2011 @ 10:12 GMT
Is the future a less ordered phase or does it simply not exist? I see prediction like something imagined by means of extrapolation the basis of traces.

Who feels himself crystallized from his grandchildren? Perhaps "crystallizes from the past" should be replaced by "resulting from influences", which of course belong to the past.


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 3, 2011 @ 05:32 GMT
Kate Becker wrote: "The view that the past, the present and the future are of exactly the same physical character seems to be supported by Einstein's special theory of relativity..."

This view is DEDUCED in Einstein's special theory of relativity, and if you don't accept it, you should suggest which of the two postulates - the principle of relativity and the principle of constancy of the speed of light - is false. Any different discussion amounts to crimestop: George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 3, 2011 @ 06:04 GMT

"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann

"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 8, 2011 @ 05:19 GMT
Another clue:

Alberto Martinez: "In sum, Einstein rejected the emission hypothesis prior to 1905 not because of any direct empirical evidence against it, but because it seemed to involve too many theoretical and mathematical complications. By contrast, Ritz was impressed by the lack of empirical evidence against the emission hypothesis, and he was not deterred by the mathematical difficulties it involved. It seemed to Ritz far more reasonable to assume, in the interest of the "economy" of scientific concepts, that the speed of light depends on the speed of its source, like any other projectile, rather than to assume or believe, with Einstein, that its speed is independent of the motion of its source even though it is not a wave in a medium; that nothing can go faster than light; that the length and mass of any body varies with its velocity; that there exist no rigid bodies; that duration and simultaneity are relative concepts; that the basic parallelogram law for the addition of velocities is not exactly valid; and so forth. Ritz commented that "it is a curious thing, worthy of remark, that only a few years ago one would have thought it sufficient to refute a theory to show that it entails even one or another of these consequences...."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 8, 2011 @ 16:33 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

Thank you for the link to the Physics in Perspective paper. You might be surprised, I wrote an unpublished manuscript "A still valid argument by Ritz". While you seem to entirely agree with emission theory, I merely consider Lorentz transformation and Poincaré "synchronization" most likely wrong. I was surprised that already Planck and Boltzmann disputed the issue of past and future. The latter committed suicide instead of admitting being possibly wrong. Why did not Planck or somebody else came to the conclusion to distinguish between abstracted usual time and measurable elapsed time? Do you have further information on this?



report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Jun. 3, 2011 @ 15:32 GMT
I like the idea of christallisation (entropy?) of reality, but in fact it is not so very much different from the many worlds theory, the difference is in my opinion that there is only ONE past, but the possibillities of the future are endless, therefore the free will is introduced, you can wonder if this "free" will is appliccable for an individual observer in one experiment or observation, there are 6,5 billion other observers around us , each of them "realising" or in this case "cristallizing" a now moment, all these together form the universe we live in, (the cd is not written by only one).

I should like to add a little thought experiment :

A photon travels in our universe at the speed of light (time is not passing), by accident it passes the border of one of the paralel universes that surround us, in this paralel universe the speed of light is higher as in ours, observers in this universe are not aware of our photon because of the little difference in constitution, our photon travels on with 2 times the speed of light , i.e.time is going back for our photon and it returns in his past being being our Universê the moment before it moved to the paralel universe, what happens ?

1. we will never observe the photon disappearing

2.our neighbours will never observe the so called black matter photon

So in both universes no one can observe anything, there is no cristalisation of any past possible.

In this thought experiment however black matter and dark energy is explained for both universes.

to be continued


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jun. 4, 2011 @ 04:08 GMT
When Einstein declared "the separation between past, present, and future an obstinate illusion" he made two horror mistakes at a time.

The metaphor by Ellis nicely illustrates what Claude Shannon correctly described: Past and future are fundamentally different from each other.

Einstein's denial of the separation between past and future has been a requirement for the round-trip synchronization he adopted from Poincaré.

Neither Einstein nor Ellis clarified what they meant with the notion present. The present does not at all qualify as a physical quantity because it is used in a deliberately imprecise manner as to possibly include parts of past and future at a time.


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 11:06 GMT
Eckard Blumschein wrote: "When Einstein declared "the separation between past, present, and future an obstinate illusion" he made two horror mistakes at a time."

From a logical point of view, the mistake is only one: his 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false. So one should not reject the block universe without questioning special relativity, as Ellis does. Presentists are much more straightforward:


"I am a presentist: I believe that only presently existing things exist. Contrast presentism with eternalism: the eternalist believes that past, present, and future things all exist. Assuming that there are three spatial dimensions, the eternalist believes that the universe is fourdimensional, and while there are different events in different regions of this so-called "block universe", the universe as a whole does not change. The presentist, in contrast, believes that the universe is three-dimensional. (...) The point of this paper is not to argue for presentism, but to defend presentism from a particular type of argument that is often taken to refute it. The form of the argument is as follows:

(1) Presentism is incompatible with relativity theory (usually the focus is on special relativity).

(2) Relativity theory is our most fundamental theory of physics.

(3) Presentism is incompatible with our most fundamental theory of physics. (From (1) and (2).)

(4) Presentism is false. (From (3).)

(...) But regardless of the strength of the arguments for presentism, the presentist is not required to endorse a non-traditional understanding of relativity. The presentist can simply say that presentism is incompatible with special and general relativity, and hence special and general relativity are false."


[end of quotation]

How can special relativity be false? It is based on two postulates - the principle of relativity and the principle of constancy of the speed of light - so one of the postulates must be false. Which one? This is an absolute-crimestop question in Einsteiniana:

George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 16, 2011 @ 00:39 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

Is presentism the only alternative to eternalism? Because the notion presence is deliberately imprecise, I wonder why some people are using it in physics.

In reality, only traces and memories from the past are presently available or even influencing. The past is distinguished since it cannot be influenced.

To my knowledge, the speed of electromagnetic waves is limited to a constant value in vacuum as also is the speed of sound waves in a given medium. Claimed ftl propagation of signals were elusive. Electric and magnetic fields that are measurable without spatial restriction can obviously not belong to a closed local system like Galilei's boat which is the precondition for independence of velocity. For this reason, I do not exclude that Einstein's postulate of relativity is unrealistic in the real world while logically flawless on the playground of an assumed closed and tense-less system.

I got aware of those who are proponents of deBroglie's guiding wave and neo-Lorentzian relativity.



report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Jun. 6, 2011 @ 02:12 GMT
Very interesting article by Tony Rothman in American Scientist:

"What’s more, by resorting to a classical optics analogy of the experiment, authors are forgoing any explanation whatsoever. “Explanation” in physics generally means to find a causal mechanism for something to happen, a mechanism involving forces, but textbook optics affords no such explanation of slit experiments. Rather than describing how the light interacts with the slits, thus explaining why it behaves as it does, we merely demand that the light wave meet certain conditions at the slit edge and forget about the actual forces involved. The results agree well with observation, but the most widely used of such methods not only avoids the guts of the problem but is mathematically inconsistent. Not to mention that the measurement problem remains in full force.

Such examples abound throughout physics. Rather than pretending that they don’t exist, physics educators would do well to acknowledge when they invoke the Wizard working the levers from behind the curtain. Even towards the end of the twentieth century, physics was regarded as received Truth, a revelation of the face of God. Some physicists may still believe that, but I prefer to think of physics as a collection of models, models that map the territory, but are never the territory itself. That may smack of defeatism to many, but ultimate answers are not to be grasped by mortals. Physicists have indeed gone further than other scientists in describing the natural world; they should not confuse description with understanding."

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 10, 2011 @ 04:13 GMT
Joy Christian has written an interesting paper Absolute Being vs Relative Becoming on this topic.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 10, 2011 @ 14:16 GMT
Please read my comment on it from Apr. 14 on topic 963.


report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jun. 10, 2011 @ 17:22 GMT
The block universe with a dynamic occurrence of time, or this crystallizing of time in various present periods on a spatial sheet of 3-dim, invokes a funny thing. Quantum mechanics is noncontextual in that the basis of vectors is not determined by anything in quantum mechanics. It is selected for by the experimentalist. Hence the contextual aspects of a quantum measurement are what quantum interpretations are centered upon. In the Copenhagen interpretation (CI) the cut is the classical-quantum dichotomy. Of course for this to be “absolute” you need an apparatus which is absolutely non-quantal, meaning its mass must be infinite, and you need an infinite number of experiments. That is fictional of course. The many worlds interpretation (MWI) indicates there is a splitting off of world according to eigenbases selected. The idea is then that the world continues to be quantum mechanical. However, that is still funny, for the world is split off according to the contextuality of the wave function decoherence, or equivalently by the eigen-basis chosen by the experimenter. So this too is not a complete picture.

Quantum interpretations attempt to reduce the mysterious nature of quantum mechanics to our classical understanding, which has an intuitive sensory aspect to how we perceive the world. Yet at the end if the universe is entirely quantum mechanical it is unlikely that any of these schemes can ever work completely. The hidden problem is that QM is inherently noncontextual, but how we interpret QM is contextual. This is a contradiction.

With the block universe it seems reasonable to say the progression of time involves decoherent events, or what has been called wave function collapse. Yet in a subtle way this model has the above contradiction, just as does MWI or CI. This suggests a number of things. I think the primary one is that quantum cosmology should not focus primarily on the issue at all. The question is with the equivalency between quantum entanglements and spacetime configurations. I further suspect this issue of what constitutes a present time and issues of a “flow of time” may simply not be appropriate questions to ask. This may be similar to tinkering around with aether theories and the like before 1905.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jun. 11, 2011 @ 01:06 GMT
Yes, the fact that quantum measurement unavoidably depends on classical parameters breeds consequences that are frequently swept under the rug of metaphor.

This was the case in suggesting the history of the world on a DVD (or any finite instrument). I agree with the question of equivalence between "... quantum entanglements and spacetime configurations."

That would necessarily move the problem to n-dimension Hilbert space and the string theory extension of quantum field theory. One does not encounter the histrionic objections to "mainstream science" in physics forums outside this one. As elusive as the answers are, the basic formalisms are correct.


report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jun. 11, 2011 @ 03:29 GMT
The main point of a physical theory is to make predictions about measurable observables. The question on how we perceive time does far not a measurable quantity, at least at this time. We might even imagine there are intelligent life forms on other planets which perceive space and time in very different ways. If a quantum gravity theory is arrived at it might from there tell us about how it is we observe time, at it might be a dynamic block or crystallizing world. On the other hand it might not do that, but still gives answers to question or problems that have some measurable observables which can be probed.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 11, 2011 @ 10:21 GMT
LC, You wrote: "The main point of a physical theory is to make predictions about measurable observables. The question on how we perceive time does far not a measurable quantity".

I see any performed measurement of time not a question of perception but clearly related to two more or less distant events in the past.

If someone attributes traces to the past then he considers the past as part of the abstract notion time that includes both past and future. Actually measurable are only the traces of past processes. This memory of traces altogether constitutes the unchangeable reality called the past in the sense of a contextual entity of partially predictable influences.

Is it correct to attribute observability to a concrete physical quantity? Definitely yes inside a model, however definitely no in reality. Predictions are more or less uncertain.


Because English is not my mother tongue, I wonder why you wrote "far not". May I understand "not far" as almost?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jun. 11, 2011 @ 12:08 GMT

The perceptions we have of space and time are in a way mental constructions. Barbour argues that time does not exist due to the fact the ADM Hamiltonian and momentum constraints NH = 0, N^iH_i = 0 have not time content. This extends to the Wheeler DeWitt quantum version HΨ[g] = 0. The set of diffeomorphisms of the theory are removed on the moduli space, and so identification of Diff(M) with time can’t be established. However, I could equally suppose that time is a one dimensional space with a fibration of three dimensional manifolds we think of as space. I can further work out how these two pictures are in fact quantum complementarities.

In either case what we call space and time are not written in concrete at all. They are an aspect of an external degree of gauge freedom, or a coordinate choice on a frame bundle, which are chosen by the analyst or observer. They are not at all gauge covariant, and hence really do not constitute anything which can be called physically real. They are artifacts of a gauge choice, or in some sense constructed by the observer. In effect we “make them up.”

As for the “far not,” that is a mangled re-edit. The sentence “The question on how we perceive time does far not a measurable quantity, at least at this time,” probably should read “The question on how we perceive time does not so far address a measurable quantity, at least currently.”

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 11, 2011 @ 23:52 GMT
LC, Now I understand your sentence. Thank you. I even understand that Lorenz gauge condition is Lorentz invariant.

However, my caveat cannot be understood within the restriction to models of reality instead reality itself. A year is a reasonable objective measure. The number of years elapsed since my birth does not depend on any arbitrarily chosen gauge. Gauge redundancy and gauge arbitrariness do not matter in reality.

I agree: We made up what we are calling time.

However, the just elapsed time is an objective and measurable positive quantity with a natural reference point: Now.

Likewise, any shortest distance between two points in space cannot be negative.

Obviously my caveat is most fundamentally at odds with a lot of non-commutative, non-abelian theories that refer to the usual abstract and arbitrarily chosen notion of time which is not immediately linked with reality: Block universe, Poincaré synchronization, Lorentz transformation, Minkowski metric, Weyl's Eichinvarianz, ...



report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jun. 13, 2011 @ 02:59 GMT
Supersymmetry is a way of interchanging internal symmetries with external symmetries. The internal symmetries are local gauge changes which introduce forces. External symmetries are the Lorentz group of boosts and rotations in spacetime. We are all familiar with the idea that internal symmetries are fictional: Take an electromagnetic vector A and add a gradient of some scalar A’ = A + gradX and we then have that the magnetic field B = -curlA’ = -curlA – curl gradX, and the last term is zero. The difference is that with the external symmetries we have a sense of them and an arrangement of objects and ourselves with respect to each other in a spatial arrangement. Yet if internal and external symmetries are interchangeable it must mean their physical statuses are equivalent.

We are all familiar with curved spacetime, after all general relativity is nearly 100 years old now, but in fact we see little immediate presence of it. The curvature of spacetime due to Earth’s gravity is 10^{-27}cm^{-2} --- tiny. By the same token we hardly have much sense that space is just a configuration variable for fields, and time is a parameterization of fields --- which are Lorentz covariant. Black hole change things a bit, for the observer outside the black hole witnesses physics according to an S matrix with a different domain than an observer who falls in with the quantum field of interest. The two observers witness the process according to entirely different representations, and yet in the end the core physics is the same. What is different is how the physical fields are “dressed,” or should we say the particular moduli used.

In analogy with the dressing of quantum states and moduli, I could tomorrow put on a suit and head out to work. I could instead try something a bit different and put on a women’s suit dress. The difference is superficial, for it is how the material folds and hangs on the underlying frame that is different --- the basic frame is the same, nothing fundamentally is different. Yet we tend to see the clothes, how the quantum states are dressed or the phase of the entanglement, as equal to the underlying quantum bits. Space and time share this property of being like the clothes.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jun. 14, 2011 @ 09:54 GMT

All your reasoning fits to the currently mandatory assumption of a block universe which is for instance explained in an extensive while nonetheless not convincing to me manner by Lebovitz in

Lebovitz admits that his view is opposed to the camp of "those who regard the passage of time as an objective feature of reality, and interpret the present moment as the marker or leading edge of this advance."

Lebovitz continues: "Some members of this camp give the present ontological priority, as well, sharing Augustine's view that the past and the future are unreal". Unfortunately I did not manage to convince proponents of this view that the present is a deliberately imprecise notion.

Lebovitz adds: "Others take the view that the past is real in a way that the future is not, so that the present consists in something like the coming into being of determinate reality". I see this view in accordance with Claude Shannon and the only reasonable view. I just wonder why apparently nobody dealt seriously with it.

Isn't my reasoning extremely uncommon but a bit more consequent and compelling? We both may agree on that the usual notion of time is just a mental construct while admittedly a very successful one. However, isn't it based on experience? Experience is necessarily restricted to the belonging past. Future events evade observation and measurement. Therefore, there is NO flow of time but a steady growth of elapsed time.

Reality is not invariant under shift. Invariance, covariance etc. are based on abstraction and therefore restricted to models. Physicists should learn to correctly interpret the results of their calculations.

Elsewhere I fond the utterance: "Mathematics dictates physics." I would like to object: It does definitely not dictate reality if its essence is its freedom.



report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 15, 2011 @ 18:32 GMT

Don't you consider Vesselin Petkov correctly stating that the timelessly existing block universe is the only one that is consistent with special relativity?



report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jun. 16, 2011 @ 14:37 GMT
As a classical theory I could be disposed to this perspective. The block world in special relativity is of course the most direct. In general relativity this is a bit more complicated, but the block world is still the simplest to think about. The ADM approach to general relativity has some applicability, but I will not quibble the point here.

The problem comes with quantum mechanics. If reality is quantum mechanical all the way down, then the block world, even relational block world or crystallizing block world, becomes problematic. This depends upon some subtle issues with the foundations of quantum physics. In particular it depends upon an interpretation which has a problem with non-contextuality in QM. This puts a relational block world view in the same category as a quantum interpretation.

I suspect that quantum interpretations are in general false on some level, and this means all of them: Copenhagen, Bohm, Many Worlds, Consistent Trajectories and so forth. These quantum interpretations are also not testable, for they have no prediction of an observable consequence which can be observed to support them. They are not really theories in a proper sense.

The problem is that these interpretations are ways of trying to make quantum mechanics transparent within a classical mode of thinking. This really is a sort of intellectual security blanket or teddy bear. In order to pursue quantum gravity we are going to have to lay these things aside.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 16, 2011 @ 21:23 GMT
LC, As I understood, the Hamiltonian formalism of ADM describes spacetime as space evolving IN time, and Lee Smolin comes from Deser.

Doesn't already the word IN imply an a priori existing time alias block time? When I was confronted with Ellis' emerging block universe, I appreciated the criticism of tenseless spacetime. However, up to now I did not understand how something emerging can be an priori given block. To me the two possibilities exclude each other, and the various attempts to unite them are altogether doomed to fail.

I tend to agree with Vesselin Petkov in that, the unrealistic block universe is an indisputable precondition for SR. While I am fully aware of the consequence to be put into the drawer of many many cranks, I see no reasonable alternative as to question SR and already Lorentz transformation. I will read arguments by Lucas and by Popper who, as I was told, called Einstein a Parmenides.

What about the foundations of quantum mechanics, I already investigated what I consider improper use of complex calculus by Heisenberg/Jordan/Born, Schroedinger/Weyl, and Dirac.



report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jun. 14, 2011 @ 17:19 GMT
Block time only makes sense in a classical setting. The idea of the crystallizing block time, or dynamics block time, involves the reduction of quantum states so that the present is something that is materializing. The hitch with this idea is that it means there is some contextual aspect to how quantum states decohere. In a measurement this contextual framework involves the eigenbasis the observer chooses according to how she orients an apparatus. Yet we know that quantum mechanics is non-contextual. This is one problem with the many world interpretation MWI). MWI posits the splitting off of the world according to separate eigenstates, but this can only happen in a contextual framework. Yet if the world is fully quantum mechanical there is no such context by which it splits itself off. So MWI buries the quantum-classical dichotomy more apparent in the Copenhagen interpretation in this subtle contradiction. This is the problem with the whole model here.

My main point is that we impose time as well as space onto the universe. What is physically relevant are the obstructions to flatness which might occur, which we call curvature. These are chosen according to the particular frame we elect to work in and observe the universe. There is no physical prescription which tells us how space is laid out or how time is to organize event in space.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jun. 17, 2011 @ 02:56 GMT

So all curvature is a function of horizon effects, that it is subject to one's perspective?

How do we know this bias doesn't underlay such assumptions as the current cosmology of an expanding universe?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jun. 17, 2011 @ 19:01 GMT
Event horizons are null congruencies and are invariants. Everything else that is timelike transforms in a covariant or frame dependent way.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Douglas William Lipp wrote on Jun. 15, 2011 @ 11:41 GMT
The attached represents my theory.

I have named my own model of the Universe, the Minverse Model (previously Coney Island Green, the name of the theory). See all below & attached.

I would be much greatful if the community consider this new model.

It is named Minverse (miniverse) because each mass entity acts as its own Universe, capable of creating space from mass.

Do not be afraid to believe in the theory.

Any questions, please contact me.

Douglas Lipp

Here are its claims (see also attached)

To Cosmologists and Theoretical Physicists,

The attached theory welcomes intense scrutiny and comment by experts.

Though the paper remains in need of further revision, nonetheless its current content is sufficient to promulgate research directed toward its firm confirmation. It is a "new model" of the Universe/Multiverse. The suggested term is the: "The Minverse Model" (short for miniverse, while at the same time in honor of my grandmother, Minerva).

The theory includes a mass to space quantification. It should be noted that the great physicist Faramarz Ghassemi was pursuing a similar mass to space view of nature. It is time other physicists take a serious look.

The theory offers in a "single view of nature", and "simultaneously", the following:

Varying Cosmological Constant

Possible explanation of Virtual Particles

Combination of the Spacetime Continuum with the Mass-energy equation

Quantification of mass to a spatial quantity

Solution to Dark Matter

Solution to Dark Energy

Solution to Horizon Problem

Solution to Red Shift Anomalies

Solution to Double Slit (Young's) Wave-Particle Duality Quantum Confusion

Physical explanation as to what E=mc² actually represents

New Interpretation of Einstein's Field Equations

True reason for Hubble expansion

Fourth Law of Motion Equating Gravity to Other Forces

Possible meaning of Plancks Constant

Lipps Law of Proportionality

Offers a New Explanation of Pressure

Is Relativitivistic in nature and therefore builds upon current science

Does not rely on extra dimensions

Does not rely on speeds greater than "c" as does current inflationary theory

Combines the Fundamentals (Matter, Time, Space)

Coherently respects conservation of energy (current view of expansion of space does not)

Above all else, the theory is experimentally verifiable.

Comments are welcome and can be delivered here or to

For a hard copy, please email the author.

Once again, the author apologizes for what appears to be a paper not altogether written in scientific/academic protocol.

Enjoy the "Fun" section as well.

Please open the attached to find: "The Coney Island Green Theory".

Thank You,

Douglas W. Lipp

attachments: 3_MTSFINAL15Rollover12.doc

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jun. 24, 2011 @ 17:44 GMT
Eckard & Tom,

I suppose you are referring to the Banach-Tarski paradox or the addition of transfinite numbers. The axiom of choice (AC) does involve the well ordering of a set. Hilbert space exists because of the AC. The Schmidt orthogonalization procedure employed in quantum mechanics and the theory of Banach-Hilbert spaces is an algorithm which works because the space is well ordered. ...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 27, 2011 @ 08:56 GMT

"Some mathematicians consider the Banach-Tarski theorem to be a reducto-absurdum argument against the AC." You wrote: " not my interest to rewrite the foundations of mathematics." You meant the putative ones of mathematics, i.e. the foundations of contemporary mathematics, which are based on Cantor's belief that there are more than infinitely many numbers (ueberabzaehlbar means than countable).

To those who are not familiar with history: The AC was arbitrarily fabricated by Zermelo in 1904 in order to rescue Cantor's well ordering of uncountable sets.

Well, those mathematicians who provided most useful contributions to mathematics used the irrational numbers as if they were rational ones. However, I do not see any compelling reason to ascribe trichotomy to them. If "Hilbert space exists because of the AC" then it might be questionable. I am anyway wondering why Tong meant "no one knows how to write down a discrete version of the Standard Model". Maybe, his essay is not just the usual antithesis to my essay. At least I agree with his last sentence: "We are not living inside a computer simulation".

You repeatedly declared SR correct: "There really are no controversies over the issue of simultaneity and clock synchronization." Don't some hundred petitors consider the twin paradox an reductio-ad-absurdum argument against SR? What about Van Flandern? What about Popper? Weren't the Pythagoreans, Parmenides, Zeno, G. Cantor, Einstein, and Hilbert most likely wrong altogether in their view of the world?



report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jun. 27, 2011 @ 11:30 GMT
The axiom of choice (equivalent to Zorn's lemma and to the well order theorem) is often convenient for proofs, particularly when one wants to apply calculus and vector algebras to certain Hilbert spaces (limits have to be established); however, no well ordering procedure is required to support the _existence_ of Hilbert space, which is a generalization of the Euclidean space.

It's often said that the Banach-Tarski construction (usually called a paradox) depends on the axiom of choice. However, equidecomposable balls intrinsically allow construction of equal volume spheres (i.e., sets of equal cardinality). So B-T, yes, is supported by set theory, which is generally taken to be ZFC (Zermelo-Fraenkel plus the axiom of choice), but the space is always Euclidean. One could just as eaily prove that AC exists because of the Hilbert space.

None of this formality, though, worries physics. The usefulness of the mathematics to support physical results ends at the real geometry.

In regard to David Tong, one should point out the subtle difference between "simulation" and "emulation." Indeed, one could prove we are not living in a computer simulation. There is no way _in principle_ however, to distinguish an emulation from the original program. No physical principle obviates the universe acting like a computer program -- at least none that we could determine by objective measurement.

Eckard -- to speak of so-and-so "being wrong in their view of the world," is meaningless. _Everyone_ individually is wrong in their view of the world. The scientific view is an aggregate of theories, results and philosophies.


report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jun. 27, 2011 @ 14:56 GMT

There is no controversy over the twin paradox. I am not sure why there is this “petition” or what the point of it is. This matter has been utterly beaten to death, and what are cited as “discrepancies” are probably different approaches to presentation. I have to implore people to avoid faux problems of this sort. Anyone who is caught up in these issues is really in some sort of cul-de-sac. I admonish people to not get into these traps.

The AC was fabricated in a sense, just as it might be argued that all of mathematics is a fabrication or model. Of course the math-realists or Platonists would object to this characterization. I might agree with them on Tuesday, Thursdays and Saturdays, while disagreeing on the other weekdays, Sundays are optional. I am not as I indicated out to rewrite mathematical foundations.

More continued in my response the TH Ray

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

SUBJECTIVE PHYSICS wrote on Jun. 25, 2011 @ 16:48 GMT
"The fundamental process of nature lies outside space–time but generates events that can be located in space–time."


Anatomy of quantum superposition

(3- bit Universe)

We are studying the simplest model of a finite deterministic world. Here, we have attempted to answer the following question: what our artificial world would look like from the point of view of an observer (subject), placed in our modeled finite world? To do this, it's necessary to formulate abstract model of the observer. Only in that way is it possible to answer this complicated question. Herein, we have endeavored to show the quantum-similar character of the laws, discovering by the objective observer. As a consequence of this exercise, we can now assume that physical laws of our real world have a similar origin

Digital Physics

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jun. 26, 2011 @ 13:18 GMT
If you employ the 24-cell in four dimensions you can derive a form of the Kochen-Specker theorem in the manner A. Perez did, A. Peres, J. Phys. A 24, L175 (1991). The proof is based on the symmetry of the root system of the exceptional Lie algebra F_4. The proof employs 48 vectors in 4-space which are isomorphic to the vertices of a 24-cell and its dual. These vectors are root vectors of F_4, which under multiplication by any set of scalars defines a set of lines in 4-space. We identify each of these vectors with a quantum state |ψ), I = 1, … ,24, and a projection operator P_i = |ψ)(ψ|. These have three eigenvalues 0 and one of 1. This means one can compute 72 sets of mutually orthogonal lines, where this is four-fold redundancy, and there are only 18 independent lines, which correspond to entangled pairs of 9 lines.

Suppose there were some hidden variable which accounts for this system. This would give an exact value to each of the 18 operators. The 9 must assume the value 1 in each of the 9 sets of pairs, an odd number, However, there is an even number of 1 with the pairs, and an underlying theory which determines the values of the 18 operators would require an even number also be odd. This is an informal proof of the Kochen-Specker theory in four dimensions. Any theory of hidden states or variables will run into this contradiction.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jun. 28, 2011 @ 16:17 GMT
TH Ray,

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jun. 28, 2011 @ 16:18 GMT
I hit send before pasting this in:

Before I continue onwards, I should make clear what I mean by contextual and noncontextual. Contextual means that reality assigned to a quantum system is only found through a measurement, “within the context of the eigenbasis established by the observer.” Hidden variable theories often claim there is some reality which exists independent of this...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jun. 28, 2011 @ 18:21 GMT

My 2006 ICCS paper explains how to get a well ordered sequence from an n-dimension (Hilbert) space, without invoking AC.

As you point out, QM is fuzzy only in the classical context, when operators are aggregated (one tunes the dials of the "machinery"). In its own context, though, quantum mechanics is starkly real and focused one observation at a time.

You ask, " ... if reality is quantum mechanical 'all the way,' then how do we get contextuality from nonlocal noncontextual waves that have no local or classical reality?"

Exactly. I don't think we need contextuality at all -- if the wave function is the only reality. The reason for the "moon" analogy is to suggest that the wave function of the moon entangled with that of the observer (and therefore the observing apparatus) is independent of results that come from tuning dials on the "machinery." To use a weak analogy, as my glasses are independent of my eyes. My glasses do not create reality, though what I choose to see, may.

The moon has no such choice. I am reminded of a nursery rhyme my grandmother used to recite to me when a full moon shone through the window of my upstairs bedroom::

I see the moon

and the moon sees me;

The moon sees the one I'd like to see.

God bless the moon and God bless me,

God bless the one I'd like to see.

Hence no contextuality required. The moon doesn't have any classical dials to tune that make it fuzzy, and the Hilbert space is equally indifferent to the choice function.


report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jun. 28, 2011 @ 18:23 GMT
Corrected link: ICCS 2006

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jun. 29, 2011 @ 12:33 GMT
The wave function is not random and discrete. It is perfectly continuous and is a C^∞ solution to a partial differential equation. The randomness and discrete aspect of QM emerges with the measurement or decoherence of wave functions as observed with coarse grained coherent sets. Further, the wave function is not “real” in a standard sense, or equivalently it has no ontology, but is rather a set of existential potentialities or an epistemology. This means that any ordering occurs with the measurement of a wave function and is imposed on an ensemble of quantum systems, not on a quantum system by itself. The ordering of the Hilbert space is then derived by this imposition.

The GHZ state does demonstrate that the nonlocal aspects of quantum mechanics can be inferred without an ensemble of measurements, but rather with one measurement. However, even with one measurement the teleportation of this 4-partite state requires the SLOCC state ~ C^4/[sl(2,C)]^4, with a root system that imposes an ordering.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jun. 29, 2011 @ 13:45 GMT
No, the wave function is not real in the standard sense (of observer-dependent and measurement-verified) reality.

Applying Einstein's definition* of "physically real," however: " ... independent in its physical properties, having a physical effect but not itself influenced by physical conditions ..." we can successfully argue for _either_ the ontology of the wave function or the ontology of spacetime (which is where Einstein applied his definition).

Suppose that spacetime and the wave function are identical, in the sense of a Hilbert space plus time, rather than a complete Euclidean 3-space plus time as in general relativity. One would then have an n-dimension extension of general relativity, as well as access to the hyperbolic space where string theory and holography originate -- that's what my "time barrier" preprint is all about.

While Einstein maintained,** in the spirit of classical mechanics, particularly the mechanics of Mach, that "From the standpoint of epistemology it is more satisfying to have the mechanical properties of space completely determined by matter . . ." I doubt that Einstein would object to a spacetime ontology and a matter epistemology. The advantage would be to lay a foundation toward explaining the origin of mechanics, and hence the origin of inertia.

I continue to maintain that science has no use for the assumptioon of any particular "reality." We can as easily live with the general relativity result of a reality finite in time and unbounded in space, as with the reality I propose: one that is finite in space and unbounded in time.


*Einstein, _The Meaning of Relativity_ Princeton 1956


report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jun. 29, 2011 @ 14:24 GMT
Correcting link again. :-(

"time barrier"

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jun. 29, 2011 @ 16:08 GMT
In the arguments between Bohr and Einstein I think it is clear that Bohr got the upper hand. Einstein was frankly wrong about all his concerns over quantum mechanics. He insisted there must be some noncontextual reality, but from Bohr, to Bell and then to Kochen-Specker it is clear that to impose such leads to logical contradictions.

Quantum mechanics is just plain weird.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 9, 2011 @ 12:24 GMT
I decided to start another column, for this is getting too nested. The link is:


where sometimes if links are embedded there is a http://%20 automatically put in front of the address which screws it up. These results are serious game changers, and a lot of theory may be headed for the paper shredder as a result.

Special relativity is so central to physics these days that there are really no question with respect to its basic form and applicability in its appropriate domain of observation. General relativity is still a subject of research. In the Parameterized Post-Newtonian (PPN) formalism general relativity has been supported by data out to second order. The third order involves weak gravity waves. The Hulst-Taylor observation of pulsar orbital period change supports indirectly the existence of gravity waves, but gravity waves have yet to be directly detected.

The arrow of time problem, assuming it really is a problem, may involve some CP violating mechanism. The discrete symmetry CPT = 1 C = charge conjugation, P = parity change, T = time change, with ψ = ψ_q(r, t) (q = charge, r = position and t = time) acts as:

Cψ_q(r, t) = ψ_{-q}(r, t)

Pψ_q(r, t) = ψ_q(-r, t)

Tψ_q(r, t) = ψ_q(r, -t).

Then CPTT = CP = T, and if CP is violated then T is violated. That TT = T^2 = 1 is easily seen by how it acts on a wave-field above. A CP violation would then mean there is some underlying breaking of chiral symmetry which underlies gravitation. A chiral breaking on CP is then equivalent to the breaking of time symmetry with T.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 9, 2011 @ 14:21 GMT
"Then CPTT = CP = T, and if CP is violated then T is violated. That TT = T^2 = 1 is easily seen by how it acts on a wave-field above. A CP violation would then mean there is some underlying breaking of chiral symmetry which underlies gravitation. A chiral breaking on CP is then equivalent to the breaking of time symmetry with T."

An expert summary, Lawrence, as usual.

I find CP violation equivalent to scale invariant information loss, as described mathematically in my 2008 FQXi essay, and my "time barrier" preprint, applying complex analysis to Kepler's classical second law of orbital motion.

This works, by giving the time metric a specifically physical definition requiring n-dimension infinite orientability (and therefore, a Hilbert space domain of infinite range).


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 9, 2011 @ 17:41 GMT
.htm reminds me of a predicted impossibility to discover more galaxies. Admittedly, I did not wonder if there was no limit of resolution at all. Is there any compelling reason to consider space and time grained?


report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jul. 10, 2011 @ 13:01 GMT
The graininess of spacetime is because of quantum fluctuations. If I invoke the Heisenberg uncertainty principle ΔEΔt = ħ and use E = mc^2 there is then a fluctuation of mass given by Δm = ħ/Δtc^2. The uncertainty in time is and uncertainty in position Δt = Δr/c so that Δm = ħ/Δrc, and a metric δg_{00} = 1 – 2Għ/(rΔr c^3), where the metric radius r >> Δr.

Now let the length uncertainty be Δr ~ L_p = sqrt{Għ/c^3}, and we substitute this into the metric uncertainty

δg_{00} = 1 – 2Għ/(rL_p c^3) ~ 1 – 2L_p/r.

This is a nice compact result. Now let the radius term be the probe length, which is given by the wavelength of the different radiation r = λ, and we assume λ >> L_p. The approximate metric for radiation of a certain wavelength is then

ds^2 = c^2δg_{00}dt^2 – dx^2 – dy^2 – dz^2

= c^2(1 – 2L_p/λ)dt^2 – dx^2 – dy^2 – dz^2.

For EM radiation ds = 0 and for radiation propagating along one of the directions we have

dx/dt = c sqrt{1 – 2L_p/λ}.

This predicts then a wavelength dependency on the speed of light

c’ = c sqrt{1 – 2L_p/λ}

So if radiation travels a distance D = c’T the time of travel is T = D/(c sqrt{1 – 2L_p/λ}) and I use the binomial theorem for λ >> L_p

T ~ (D/c)(1 + L_p/λ).

So this is the effect of quantum fluctuations, really a naïve theory of such fluctuations, should have on radiation. Clearly very short wavelength radiation is slowed down.

The FERMI spacecraft detected gamma rays of 33GeV and much radiation at the bottom of the bandwidth at about 10^3eV from a Gamma Ray Burst event GRB 090510 out 7.3 billion light years. We can use these to estimate the time of arrival for the two forms of radiation. L_p/λ = E_γ/E_p =~ 33GeV/1.2x10^{18}GeV = 2.7x10^{-17}. For the softer gamma ray this is E_γ/E_p ~= 10^{-24}. Input this into our formula for the change in speed of light and we get

T – T’ = (D/c)( 2.7x10^{-17} – 10^{-24})

=~ (7x10^{25}m/3x10^8m/sec) 2.7x10^{-17} = 6.7sec.

The GRB event observed had a time spread of 2 seconds and the two photons which a 10^6 spread in energy arrived at the detector within .8 seconds. Given the error margins and so forth this puts some pretty tight constraints on the role of such fluctuations on physics.

This type of spacetime fluctuation is basically ruled out, which are fluctuations that on a small scale violate Lorentz invariance. With heterotic string theory E_8 -- > SU(3)xE_6, which gives a twistor type of theory. Twistor theory does not invoke this sort of energy dependency on light cone structure. Rather the uncertainty is in a null congruency, but where all null rays in the bundle, such as a null plane, all have the same spacetime direction.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

J.C.N. Smith wrote on Jul. 9, 2011 @ 12:36 GMT
What we perceive as the flow of time is, in reality, nothing more and nothing less than the evolution of the physical universe, an evolution which is governed by rules which we strive to understand and which we refer to as the laws of physics. This view is fully consistent with Ellis' concepts of a crystallizing block universe and free will. As sentient beings, we are able not only to perceive the ongoing evolution of the universe around us, but also, by our own actions, to influence that evolution, albeit in limited fashion.

When viewed from this perspective a causal arrow of time is inevitable, as is discussed further here and here.



report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 9, 2011 @ 17:46 GMT

Doesn't the idea of a block universe contradict to causal evolution? Doesn't Poincaré (de)synchronization mingle past and future?



report post as inappropriate

J.C.N. Smith replied on Jul. 9, 2011 @ 19:28 GMT

You raise a good point. I have always been personally uncomfortable with the "block time" and/or "block universe" concept and terminology. As discussed in this FQXi article, however, I can coexist with it. I take Ellis' "crystallization" to represent the evolution of the physical universe from previous configurations into the current configuration (i.e., "the present,") which, in turn, will evolve into yet other configurations which we refer to as "the future." These hypothesized future configurations, unlike the configurations which we refer to as "the past," have never been objectively real.

I can accept that someone might consider the set of all previously objectively real configurations as constituting an unchangeable "block" of past reality, despite the fact that those past configurations are not now objectively real. Future configurations, on the other hand, are not determined, nor can they be, due to the impossibility of precisely knowing their initial conditions. This leaves the future open to to the possibility of being influence by any number of factors, including by sentient beings such as ourselves. Unfortunately, the long-term consequences of such influences also cannot be predicted.

This comes down to the long-ongoing Heraclitean vs. Parmeidean debate; i.e., between "presentism" and "eternalism." I side strongly, of course, with Heraclitus in this debate.



report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 9, 2011 @ 22:13 GMT

Einstein followed Spinoza who equated nature and God, which are both imagined to be inexhaustible. With respect to such original meaning of infinity, I consider Spinoza correct but Cantor and Zermelo wrong. On the other hand, I do not see any justification in science for religious eternalism, rebirth and fatalism. Zeno's defense of Parmenides looks ridiculous to me. Einstein put himself outside science when he did not object to Popper who called him a Parmenidean and even more when he uttered that for him as a believing physicist the distinction between past, present, and future is just an obstinate illusion.

Unfortunately, SR and spacetime have been based on this denial of necessary in reality distinctions between past and future as well as reality and theory. I do not yet see my position represented in old debates, neither in presentism nor in eternalism. I am arguing that the concrete future can never be completely modeled for sure. Closed systems are idealizations.



report post as inappropriate

Det Ector wrote on Sep. 7, 2011 @ 21:30 GMT
Misleading presentation of the experiment.

In this article there is a suggestion that the detectors "placed behind the screen" somehow detect trough which slit the photons went, -detect some time after! the photons have passed the slits. But that is misleading! There are no such detectors. In the actual experiment the detection happen at the time the photons pass through the slits (before they hit the screen). Big difference.

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Mar. 28, 2015 @ 09:46 GMT
the solution for time is: time is a mathematical parameter of motion in space where is only NOW.

report post as inappropriate

Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Mar. 28, 2015 @ 09:50 GMT
here is the paper

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.