Peter,
I wasn't saying you are ignoring waves, but the whole digitized establishment. Foregive the fact I tend to riff whatever comes to mind, since my time to participate in these conversations is constrained at the moment.
Conversationally, sometimes it's easier to argue with someone you disagree with, than make connections to someone with similar views, but working from their own perspective.
Mousse,
Not to be overly persistent, but just think through this one observation; Does the earth travel a narrative timeline from yesterday to tomorrow, or does tomorrow become yesterday because the earth rotates? It sounds simple enough, but it really does require some serious mental resetting to begin to internalize, since the very concept of human history and linear cause and effect logic is based on that narrative timeline.
People are very linear, focused beings in a manifestly non-linear and distributed reality.
Tom/Constaninos/All
"I agree there are no fundamental physical laws that can describe the Universe"
Incorrect. And that encapsulates the real problem physics currently has. Because there has been no attempt to identify properly what constitutes the physical existence we can know, ie as opposed to what we can believe in, and how that must occur. This being what is supposed to be being investigated, so this failure is a somewhat fundamental flaw. And, in the absence of such a proper understanding, physical theories about physical existence have evolved on the basis of metaphysical conceptualisations of it. For example, that 'every event has its own time', or physical existence innately involves some form of indefiniteness, or that sensing (particularly observation) has some effect on it, etc.
Paul
Anonymousse
There is nothing "unexplained" about the flow of time, in the sense that this is just the sequence of physical existence. By definition, whatever constitutes it can only occur in one definitive physically existent state at a time, there is alteration, and so a different physically existent state occurs. The rate of change, in any given circumstance, is what timing is measuring. There can be no change within any given physically existent state, otherwise there can be no physical existence. Change (and hence timing) concerns the difference between subsequent states in the sequence. In other words, the physical existence we are investigating is a spatial phenomenon which alters over time.
Of course, explaining what is happening, and why, is a complex issue.
Paul
Peter
So what is a wave then. Some mystical physical entity which comprises no physical entities?
Neither will anybody find any resolution of SR in this. Leaving aside what SR actually constitutes, as defined by Einstein, and just addressing the underlying concept of relativity, the "paradoxes" are not a function of observation. Because there is none. There is no observational light in Einstein. What light is, etc, etc, is irrelevant to understanding Einstein and the mistake he made.
Paul
Paul,
If you already know the answers why do you ask? A wave is a graphical representation of a fluctuation of a physical quantity or quality.
So now consider carefully what a detector is, and what happens when waves encounter the detector to allow it to detect.
A detector is a physical 'lens' medium with 'sensor' links to a processor (brain). The sensor detects the new fluctuations in the medium, which propagate to the brain which then interprets them.
No new 'wavelength' in the medium, = no detection!!
Now brains must interpret the fluctuations, which they do against time, giving the derivative RATE which we call 'frequency'. Now some brains are better developed than others. Most think only frequency, and think its somehow 'real'. but we are after all developing our intelligence to find the underlying mechanism for the apparently illogical effects we call 'Relativity'.
Those effects are only illogical when not thinking any deeper than 'frequency'. As soon as the fundamental wavelength (lambda) is considered, then the constant c = f*lambda resolves to CSL by conserving the formula including a delta lambda (Doppler shift IS of wavelength - astronomy does not work otherwise!).
Each lens is a discrete field (DFM), all light movement is propagation. So it's also curved; AE; "A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position." (GR. PoR Inferences. Ch 22).
Think that through slowly, visualising it, to give your processor a chance to rationalise and assimilate it (you should get a Eureka moment).
John.
I agree, and falsification is essential, But so is seeking out the "hidden likenesses" and commonality. Otherwise we never progress.
Best wishes
Peter
John,
Regarding: We're trying to tie down reality yes?
Ya mon. I n I ask whose reality mon?
I n I tink CIG Theory, no?
Guys,
Would you please post your off-topic discussion in another forum. It's as if you are painting over important and potentially groundbreaking work with graffiti.
Tom
Tom,
I agree. I'm in a very interesting discussion on the Albrecht finding on the APS blog below, including a proposed new law of physics. I'll try to transpose some of that if I get a mo.
I hope you're working hard towards keeping your promise above. I looking forward to your response.
Best wishes
Peter
I'll try to stay on topic:
OK Regarding the link & Origin of probabilities and their application to the multiverse, & For example, if we consider the value of one bit we know nothing about, we are inclined to assign probabilities to each value. Furthermore, it seems natural to give it a "50-50" chance of being 0 or 1. This everyday intuition is often believed to have deep theoretical justification based in "classical probability theory" (developed in famous works such as [1]). :
The zeros and ones can both be zeros and ones, and at the same time. What is a one to another entity can be a zero to yet another. For instance, I bombard an opening (say a door) with a particle, say a tennis ball. The ball goes through it. The door is a zero to the tennis ball. I then try to walk an elephant through the same door. The elephant wont go through. The door is a one. So, the door can both be a one and a zero. Such is the case with particle physics and the here or not here of the very small.
So, what exists to one observer doesn't necessarily exist for another.
And, a computer should be able to exploit the above (if it doesn't already).
Everything, including information, can be both a one and a zero and simultaneously. Who is doing the observing and what is the frame of reference.
How is this currently exploited in computer technology I don't know. But, there has to be a way.
THX
doug
Tom,
It presents an entirely logical and well reasoned argument, but it does raise a significant issue; How do the emergent, higher orders arise from this apparently chaotic, quantum state? How do the probabilities collapse into actualities? Presumably it isn't observer generated.
Paul,
The fundamental question for me is whether we can truly know "what is" the Universe. I compare this question to truly knowing another human being. In this way of considering the question, the answer for me is clear. NO! What is your answer?
Constantinos
They are not probabilities! Actual Space, the new Space that was created during the quantum expansion, collapses to a point particle. This collapse is analogous to the Spacetime [Space in the form of Volume / Time in the form of a slowing down] curvature collapse whereby black holes are formed. The "probability" is reality in the form of a newly created extended space. This is the same space (wave) that goes through both slits in the duble slit experiment.
And, the process follows a desire to reach Time Equilibrium. Everything is tring to reach time equilibrium.
Why can't anyone understand this?
Where am I going wrong with my explanation?
Peter - how does your theory explain the double slit (no math please) ?
Tom,
Since virtually everything else breaks down into that elemental quantum foam, why is it a mystery classical probability does as well?
The mystery is how the classical reality emerges in the first place. Currently the sum of leading physics theories is that it's some observer generated anthropic perception of a quantum multiworlds. That is a pretty broad range of possibility from which this particular reality on this particular planet has coalesced. Given the nearly infinite range of quantum probability in a spoonful of sugar, it is safe to say we are not much closer to really understanding reality than Plato trying to figure out the shadows in that cave.
I still don't see why the thermodynamic properties of that quantum realm are not considered as or more foundational as the vector of change called time.
Constantinos
Absolutely, no we cannot know the "universe". I am assuming this is another word for existence, or what 'really' exists. The reason for this being that we are part of existence, and therefore cannot transcend it in order to know what it is. And that is the whole point. The corollary being, we can know something, but that is a closed system. And so the question becomes, what physical process underpins knowing/that closed system (as opposed to believing), and then how can that which we can know physically exist. [Note: somewhat obviously, but I feel the need to say it, knowing includes properly constructed hypothesis, ie to overcome instances whereby the process is impeded by some identifiable issue, and therefore in the absence of 'directly' knowing, we can hypothesise what was potentially knowable].
I would suggest that anybody on this forum, when given a blank sheet of paper and faced with the question: 'what, generically, is happening?', could come up with a reasonable to comprehensive response within an hour. It is simple. The real issue is that this then highlights the underlying flaws in certain theories.
Paul
Peter
"A wave is a graphical representation of a fluctuation of a physical quantity or quality"
So, how has your "whole thesis rejected point particles"? One has to have point particles to have a wave, and reference one over time to know that it is a wave.
Your next point in your response is incorrect. A 'detector' is any entity which comes into contact with light. Whether or not that entity can subsequently process some physical effect in the photons (aka light) received is irrelevant. Light is a physically existent phenomenon, which needs explanation, as such, ie what is it, how does it move, etc, and not what the brain does with it.
Paul
If it moves, it becomes spatial, and is no longer a point particle. It is a wave, and the faster it moves, the more it waves, and the more it can experience diffraction, interferrence (constructive and destructive). Somewhere I posted that Quantum reduces to Classical only when the "now particle" (black hole) stops. Only then is it no longer waving.
Time dilation manifests itself as the Space Creation. As a spatial object, the particle can go through both holes rather readily. The wave is not a Probability. It is reality.
It collapses (reality) according to the desire to reach Time Equilibrium (alternately, rate of travel). "c" is the limit at which the entire particle has turned completely spatial. Anything less, and we have spatial forms of less than Dark Energy. At zero "c" we have a black hole (point parrticle).
As it moves, it sheds mass. Einstein is incorrect when he states that mass gets infinitely heavy as it approaches "c". On thhe contrary, it has lost all its mass. This mass has become the Space that accounts for the expanding uiniverse.
Energy has been conserved.
Does anyone agree with my theory? www.CIGTheory.com
John,
First, we have to be on the same page .
You and others assume what you expect "reality" has to be, according to your logical intuition, thus letting your personal beliefs color your opinion. Albrecht and Phillips don't make that mistake -- whereas you ask, "How do the emergent, higher orders arise from this apparently chaotic, quantum state? How do the probabilities collapse into actualities?" -- they ask, what happens if all randomness is fundamentally quantum?
Then there is no collapse. The "equally likely" hypothesis of mathematical probability applies across every scale. This is the same essential finding of the Joy Christian model -- though while Christian's research is concerned with reproducing quantum correlations in the S^7 topological limit, Albrecht generalizes without limit, finding that n-dimension extension of quantum probability implies a continuous function. If one understands how analysis and probability fundamentally work, this should be a VERY exciting research direction, because it points to how they can work TOGETHER -- i.e., continuous probability without boundary is a continuous function of unbounded time.
The framework also has the potential to explain the relativistic limit of our own "pocket" of the multiverse -- why time is a simple parameter of reversible trajectory, while other pockets are not constrained by this parameter. Which might be a very strong clue to the apparent self organized nature of our world, for which self-limitation is essential.
Tom
Paul,
In an earlier post, to my "I agree there are no fundamental physical laws that can describe the Universe" you say, "Incorrect".
In your last post to me, you write "no we cannot know the universe".
How can we know "fundamental physical laws that can describe the Universe" yet not know what is the Universe?
Please explain.
Constantinos
Sorry, lost my log in.
Tom
