An Accidental Universe

That's not physics, it's philosophy, and bad philosophy. You should be on a philosophy site - but even there, unlike you, they will see the need for answers that you don't give, and that your view can't give. You don't understand the questions others are trying to answer, and at the same time, you think you've solved it all.

Well here's a question. Imagine you're looking through a microscope at two bacteria (or it could be two particles). They're in the same place, right under the microscope, very near each other. But one is not moving, while the other is moving to the right at 0.00005 cm/sec. The two bacteria are ageing at different rates, and in a measureable way - this has been effectively proved by experiment, because measurements have been made in equivalent situations. Do you not see the need for an explanation for this? As your fingers type on the keyboard, you're seeing them in slow motion, because they're moving in relation to you. They are ageing slightly more slowly than your face. Later on the cells will be older than those in your face. If you can't explain this, then you should face it, and admit that there are unanswered questions, instead of saying that you know it all. If you knew a little more, you'd know what you don't know.

PS. Sorry, correction - 'later on the cells will be younger', not older

PPS. I'm amazed - I just read your last post more slowly. Yout think we don't allow for the Doppler shift, and light travel times. We do.

"But, when relative distance is altering (ie there is changing relative movement), then the perceived (ie received) rate of change alters, because the delay is ever increasing (or decreasing) at a rate which depends on the rate at which the distances are altering. To the observer this gives the impression that the rate of change is slowing/speeding up, over time, but is an optical illusion, as the actual rate of change does not alter."

No, we allow for the Doppler shift, and light travel times. You can't explain time dilation that way, by deciding we're all too stupid to see that! Do the reading.

Tom,

"A discrete decision based upon an input having a continuous range of values cannot be made within a bounded length of time."

Start listening to a sound with a "continuous range of values", like a sinusoid. Then attempt to make a discrete decision - that you have tired of listening and wish to stop and reply to this comment. If what you say is true, I suppose I will never hear from you again, since you will be unable to ever make the decision.

"I do not assume memoryless particles".

You have, whether you realize it or not. An entity with sufficient memory can *always* use the contents of that memory to modify an input signal, to avoid all the problems you have discussed. If nothing else, it can digitize it, so that it is no longer continuous.

"You don't seem to understand that if the world cannot be described by an algorithm shorter than itself (Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity) -- i.e., is not algorithmically compressible -- then it *is* random at foundation. "

I understand that quite well. However, I was not discussing how to formulate algorithmic descriptions of the world, I was discussing the "hardware" requirements for running any such algorithm; the entire universe does not seem to contain enough "hardware" to predict some events before they occur. That is the ultimate "cause" of free-will.

"logical consistency alone is no test of a physical theory"

I did not know we were discussing a testable physical theory. I was discussing the untestable, metaphysical multiverse hypothesis. What have you been discussing? If you have a testable physical theory that you wish to discuss, please identify it and the test.

Rob McEachern

Tom,

Generalities often push reasoning to the fringes of reality where the meaning of words get diffuse and ambiguous. I'll try to avoid such 'blackholes of reasoning' where no light escapes! And narrow the scope of our discussions to specifics.

Specifically to the Pythagorean Theorem, you write "the Babylonians ... applied the Pythagorean theorem in measuring land. ... there was no mathematical necessity for these applications; the phenomena were known long before being described in formal language."

Counterpoints:

1)The Pythagorean Formula at the time of the Babylonians and the Egyptians was NOT a proven mathematical theorem. Rather, this was a 'physical law' since it was discovered in the measurements of physical distances. Its validity at that time was found only in the empirical evidence. The Babylonians realized this as a 'fact of Nature' and not a 'fact of Math'.

2)No mathematical necessity is requires to apply any mathematical identity to anything. Only the will and judgment of man. The 'mathematical necessity' is in the proof of its validity.

3)The Pythagorean Theorem is not the formal symbols that describe this "phenomena". It is the mathematical reasoning and proof that makes this a 'mathematical identity' and not a 'physical law' per se.

4)In an analogous way, I have shown Planck's Law to be a 'mathematical identity' and not a 'physical law' as is currently believed by our own 'Babylonians'.

5)I am arguing all Basic Law of Physics likewise can and should be formulated and derived as 'mathematical identities'. Take this as a call and not an established fact. Were this to be done, as I believe it can, it would solve the philosophical enigma why Nature should follow our mathematical calculations and derivations. And it would also keep physics from morphing into metaphysics. As we now see happening, with such metaphysical beliefs as 'backward causation', 'multiversies', 'time travel', and 'spooky action at a distance'.

You write, "No mathematics describes what is". We agree. The problem is many physicists believe it does! Spacetime, for example, is not real yet believed to be real. On the other hand, "the moon really is there when no one is looking"!

As for "domain" and "range", are you saying "Domain" is Math while "Range" is Nature? More reasoning at the fringes of reality!

Constantinos

Paul,

Try to understand what I am saying here. I am arguing for an analogy, not an equivalence: "knowing 'what is' the Universe is no more possible than knowing another human being truly".

Constantinos

Peter,

The cat is dead. It's been in the box for at least 54 years.

CIG Theory is alive and well... well...causality is alive... and...well, just needs a little nudge..and understanding.

last line: The Spacetime Curvature becomes the Matter. Why not include that too?

The probability is real, as it is the spatial manifestation of traveling mass. The collapse is real.

Buy a round on me.

& thank you for understanding CIG Theory

Your thought on the Fourth Law? (i.e. Gravity & radiation follow the same force)

As excerpted from CIG Theory & relevant to time (applicable to this topic)

THX

doug

FOURTH LAW OF SPONTANEOUS MOTION:

ANY accumulation of matter (i.e. pencil) occupying space and without motion with respect to its directly accompanying surrounding frame of field reference, which when allowed to be free of another holding field (the hand in this case being the holding field), and which then moves (the pencil in this case) with respect to that initial surrounding frame of field reference, are ALL THEMSELVES ABIDING BY the SAME PHYSICAL FORCE (tendency). That force being and the motion of the object also being according to the following:

The Spontaneous Motion will proceed from one pressure gradient {field densities with high Time "T" value variations per unit volume}to another pressure gradient {field densities with a different Time "T" value variations per unit volume}, {and/or the same "Time" density per unit volume space but with different volumes observed}, {and/or equal volumes observed (i.e. same volume but different pressures = more time per given space!)} until such time that they ( the reactive parties) reach equilibrium with one another (in this case, the pencil reaching equilibrium with the desk and now resting on the

desk). The pressure difference being the relative field pressure between the two fields, AS PERCEIVED ONE FIELD TO ANOTHER. The field itself being the amount of matter per given volume of space (or, per MT=S, this represents the amount of Time per given volume of space). Here, the concept of pressure is being applied not only to gaseous elements but to all of matter, and in a field-like manner. This Spontaneous Motion holds true for: objects released in air (at my desk) (Gravity), objects released in space (no movement is equal to equilibrium between perceived fields), electricity through copper wire, light through fiber optics, a rubber band stretched and released, Big Bang, metal fillings allowed to be free within a magnetic field until their

movement is so stabilized, beta radiation, a burning match, a bubble of air under the water and released to allow it to "float" to the surface, the combining of elements and all of chemistry, and

ALL ELSE, WHEREIN PARTICLES/FIELDS/OBJECTS WITHOUT MOTION RELATIVE TO THEIR INITIAL SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT THEN FIND MOTION, UNTIL SUCH RELATIVISTIC FIELDS OF THE ENVIRONMENT HAVE BEEN STABILIZED TO REACH EQUILIBRIUM (TIME!) AS

PERCIEVED ONE FIELD TO ANOTHER. This equilibrium appears consistent with entropy, however, "The Theory" views entropy as a sate whereby things are moving from a state of disorder to a state of order, or equilibrium, a very ordered state, a very very ordered state. Entropy - disorder to order.

Using I and II above, along with Sir Newton's three Laws, and substituting the Law of Spontaneous Motion for Sir Newton's Law of Gravity, all things may be better understood. The four laws of motion now include gravity, radiation, etc. etc., and can be applied to everything. Part of "FLEA" in four simple laws of motion. The concepts of gluons, electrons, protons, leptons, quarks, elements, etc. as these particles have been described as such to "explain" our world, are still simply variations on the underlying MT=S theme. In the

current Standard Model, there is no end to the number of particles, simply keep simply colliding, and for that subject, why not simply extend the standard model upward and outward to the cosmic scale, where the planets themselves can be considered particles to the solar system and solar systems particles to the galaxies, for this is what the Standard Model offers, but on the micro way down, not the macro way up. "The Theory" rather states that there are only GODROPLETS in a GODROP, following Newton's Laws 1, 2, and 3, and the above Law of Spontaneous Motion, now Law Number 4. The pressure differences explain why one particle needs an anti-particle, why a south pole needs a north pole, etc., since things are being viewed with respect one pressure gradient to another. From the above, one can see that there are no gravitons; rather only Godroplets (Things Two) trying to reach equilibrium with each other and within the Godrop (Thing One). The Standard Model is Not Wrong, but the One Particle Aspect of The Theory Consolidates!

The law of gravity & the law of charges are not arbitrarily so very identical, rather they are explaining the same thing, though on different scales. The Theory looks at "m" and "q" not as "m" and "q" but as time-field densities. And the further these fields are apart (r^2), the less direct they "see" each other.

b)

On Motion Alone

All motion is simply the rate at which equilibrium is attempting to be reached. The greater the mis-equilibrium, the greater the rate of motion (the reason for catalyst in chemistry) to have the constituent particles/fields reach equilibrium. The ball dropped on the moon (as perceived by the ball to the moon) has less of a mis-equilibrium than the same ball looking at the earth, consequently, the resultant motion is also less. The greatest

mis-equilibrium possible is that of the electromagnetic spectrum, wherein the rate at which equilibrium is met is the speed of light (c). My offer, though rather obscured, is to the effect, can someone create a mathematical model/formula which determines the rate at which motion will arise, when one knows the equilibrium difference between fields (mis-equilibrium). All motion is a direct result of equilibrium being attempted to be reached (i.e. a thrown football, gravity, catalyst reactions, and speed of light). Perhaps with respect to gravity, and synthesis with strong force, weak force, and

electromagnetism, monopoles etc. one can consider the fact that a body resting on the earth's surface, having been dropped accordingly, that that body itself does not proceed directly to the center of the earth, to the gravitational center that is, that this represents a link analogy to a repulsive force, as is viewed by a positive nucleus, with a surrounding field of negative electrons. In this case, the body so dropped would be the electrons, and

the center of earth's gravity, the very center of earth, would be the positive nucleus. Here justification through this analogy may view gravity as a repulsive force, thus further strengthening the notion that one is seeing the same thing in electric fields as we are in gravity - The Theory simply states it is the way we look at it.

c) More

Consider this input:

Find two things (particles, fields, softballs, ants, etc.) going at the same rate (speed), and even though these things may be totally different (i.e. ball dropping, car moving, hurricane movement, etc.), and we can positively state that the proportionality of these two different systems attempting to reach equilibrium, (ball to ground, car to stop, hurricane to New Orleans), as perceived one equilibrium to the dis-equilibrium (misequilibrium

& dis-equilibrium are used interchangeably in this technical paper) they are

attempting to reach equilibrium with, are the same (when they at the same speed - obviously when the car stops their proportionality of equilibrium-disequilibrium is now different & all bets are off!). This leads to:

Lipp's Law of Proportionality

The states of any two systems having the same rate of motion see equal states of equilibrium to dis-equilibrium. (Internal note: The tie in with constant motion appears elsewhere in this paper) So the above is the reason for all motion, and their rates, & explains Gravity! END -Synthesis of Gravity into the normal realm: Fourth Law of Motion

Constantinos

Now it depends whether you meant it is not possible to know another human, because as with many physical entities it is too complex to know acurately and comprehensively (which I do not think you did mean). Or whether it is not possible because the human has certain attributes which are difficult to 'pin down' (ie know), which is not correct because you are referring to features which are not physically existent (ie temperament), but these do have a physical basis (which is what I thought, and indicated, you meant).

Furthermore, a definition of Universe is required, something I alluded to in the first post. Is this an allusion to what is 'really' there (ie what existence 'really is'), or is this meant to refer to existence as in what is knowable to us? The former being unattainable, existence might be anything, we can never know. The latter being what must be presumed to be a particular form of existence, but we can never know whether it is or not so that presumption is irrelevant. As long as it is examined on a bassis which ensures its independent identity, then that is it/real/correct, for us.

In short, in physics, the subject of investigation is the physically existent state of whatever is referred to. Humans have a tendency to refer to entities which are not actually physically existent. Indeed, the whole way in which physical existence tends to be conceived is incorrect, but that is another level of detail....

Paul

Anonymousse

"That's not physics, it's philosophy, and bad philosophy"

As per previous responses to such an assertion, the question is, what specifically was, and why?

What experiment has proven that, given two entities, which are both moving, but are moving at different rates, age at different rates? And how can this be so? The duration of their physical existence is not dependent on movement.

"As your fingers type on the keyboard, you're seeing them in slow motion, because they're moving in relation to you. They are ageing slightly more slowly than your face"

This is incorrect. Movement does not determine duration of existence. Furthermore, it is not the physical entity which is 'seen' but a physically existent representation of it, commonly known as light. Indeed, in my last post, somewhat anticipating your flawed way of thinking, I explained an optical illusion associated with differential movement.

"No, we allow for the Doppler shift, and light travel times. You can't explain time dilation that way"

How? And what is 'time dilation', in proven physical terms, if is not the time differential of receipt of light. I do not want to hear about perceptions, they do not create physical existence.

Paul

Constantinos

"Your "factually correct statements" may be factually correct to you. But they are "blatant misunderstandings" of my arguments"

Ironically, this assertion has made the very point I am making. There can only be one form of existence which is 'correct', for us. We can only know what it is possible for us to know. Whether this is then expressed in the form of a mathematical identity/theory is irrelevant. The reference for validity can only be what is knowable (obviously that is limited to what has become known at that time, but that is a practical point associated with the development of knowledge, not a metaphysical one).

You might notice that others are arguing against what you are asserting, except that they are using specific example. I am pointing out your fundamental confusion over what can constitute valid/invalid, which is dependent on a particular reference, given our existence.

Paul

You're quite simply wrong. People have believed that time dilation exists for a century, having derived it from theory, and then having confirmed it by experiment.

You consult your intuition, and decide that we're all less smart than you, and decide this is wrong, without even studying it first. And yet physics is often not intuitive, we know that. You admit you haven't done the reading.

In the many experiments that confirmed time dilation (see for example Chou, C. W. et al, Optical clocks and Relativity, Science 24 Sept 2010: Vol. 329 no. 5999 pp. 1630-1633), we of course allow for other effects, though your ridiculous attempt to explain it depends on us having failed to allow for the Doppler effect. You also try to use light travel times to explain it sometimes.

If you could explain it away using intuition, we wouldn't have an unexplained effect, now would we? A century of thinking dismissed with a wave of the hand from someone who hasn't even read about it! This conversation is now closed - I'm terribly sorry, I didn't fully realise where you were at until now.

Rob,

You write, quoting Buridan's principle (Lamport): 'A discrete decision based upon an input having a continuous range of values cannot be made within a bounded length of time.' And comment:

"Start listening to a sound with a "continuous range of values", like a sinusoid. Then attempt to make a discrete decision - that you have tired of listening and wish to stop and reply to this comment. If what you say is true, I suppose I will never hear from you again, since you will be unable to ever make the decision."

As I said before, you are trying to apply anthrocentric reasoning to a general problem. Buridan's principle applies first to the arbiter problem -- how to assure allocation of computing resources to a fair decision at any particular moment. As you allow, *some* decision can always be made. What Lamport found, is that in any *bounded length of time* there is no way to prevent some 'ass' from starving, i.e., to prevent accidents: "The status of continuity in quantum physics is less clear than in classical physics. The laws of quantum mechanics (such as Schroedinger's equation) are continuous, and the Uncertainty Principle, like random noise, seems to prohibit only the deliberate starvation of the ass, not its accidental starvation."

Applied to the multiverse and assuming an unbounded length of time, Buridan's principle makes an accidental universe not only plausible but inevitable.

Quoting me: 'I do not assume memoryless particles'.

"You have, whether you realize it or not. An entity with sufficient memory can *always* use the contents of that memory to modify an input signal, to avoid all the problems you have discussed. If nothing else, it can digitize it, so that it is no longer continuous."

Right. See above. The problem is not that a decision cannot be made, it's that there is no schema to guarantee that any decision in a bounded length of time won't lead to "starvation."

Quoting me, 'You don't seem to understand that if the world cannot be described by an algorithm shorter than itself (Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity) -- i.e., is not algorithmically compressible -- then it *is* random at foundation.'

"I understand that quite well. However, I was not discussing how to formulate algorithmic descriptions of the world, I was discussing the 'hardware' requirements for running any such algorithm; the entire universe does not seem to contain enough 'hardware' to predict some events before they occur. That is the ultimate 'cause' of free-will."

A program can run on any substrate (that's the source of Minsky's description of humans as computers made of meat). What Chaitin found, is that the choice of program (equivalent in our context to Albecht's choice of clock) affects the computation; Chaitin's number - the halting probability of a Turing machine -- outputs a different result depending on the computer language running the algorithm. There's randomness even in arithmetic. (If you are interested, my ICCS 2007 powerpoint and paper discuss this subject.)

As to free will, I don't find it to be based in the inherent randomness of the universe; rather, I find that Wheeler's hypothesis of a participatory creation consistent with both relativity and quantum theory, in the free choice of initial conditions. I am also encouraged by Joy Christian's research in continuous measurement functions and quantum correlations -- because if nature has a free choice ("God had a choice in creating the world") so do we.

Quoting me: 'logical consistency alone is no test of a physical theory'

"I did not know we were discussing a testable physical theory. I was discussing the untestable, metaphysical multiverse hypothesis. What have you been discussing? If you have a testable physical theory that you wish to discuss, please identify it and the test."

Working on that. We haven't even gotten that far in this discussion, however. One has to accept that given an unbounded length of time' Albrecht's hypothesis *is* testable. Einstein relativity describes the universe as "finite but unbounded" -- meaning bounded in time at the cosmological singularity and unbounded in space by Riemannian geometry. I maintain that the theory does not suffer any loss of meaning when describing the world as finite in space and unbounded in time. Can one disprove my conjecture? -- if not, we have the physical basis for Albrecht's clock ambiguity.

Tom

PS. The above cited experiment was on particles observed from very close by, and moving comparatively slowly, rather like my example with the bacteria. There are many other experiments that confirmed SR listed here

http://www.aei.mpg.de/~mpoessel/Physik/RT/srtest.html

In your last post you say 'how can this be so?' That's ironic - I keep telling you, we don't know, we're trying to find out.

Constantinos,

You write, " ... I am arguing all Basic Law of Physics likewise can and should be formulated and derived as 'mathematical identities'. Take this as a call and not an established fact."

I have tried to explain to you that it is not possible to make it a fact (i.e., a theorem). Here is the simplified reason: For any self-consistent mathematical formulation that describes a physical phenomenon, there are any number of equivalent formulations that do not. Conversely, for any physical phenomenon described by mathematics, there are any number of phenomena that remain unexplained by mathematical language. We only say that we have understood a phenomenon when we do formalize it in mathematical language.

" ... Spacetime, for example, is not real yet believed to be real. On the other hand, 'the moon really is there when no one is looking'!"

Spacetime is most certainly physically real in the theory of general relativity, as the eclipse experiment -- and the accurate prediction of the precession of Mercury's orbit -- demonstrate, and which are validated by physical measurement.

"As for "domain" and "range", are you saying "Domain" is Math while "Range" is Nature? More reasoning at the fringes of reality!"

It's truly astounding to me that you would make such a statement -- domain and range, along with other concepts such as limit and function, are simply fundamental tools of mathematics.

Tom

Paul,

Easy to get lost in your own thinking. Let me rephrase!

Are you married? Do you truly know your wife?

Constantinos

Paul,

I am glad you agree with me that, "Your 'factually correct statements' may be factually correct to you. But they are 'blatant misunderstandings' of my arguments". I should leave it at that! But you wont like that! So ...

If you are trying to say you can doubt and dispute and deny any argument anyone has to make, I have no doubts. If you are trying to say only what you 'know' has any meaning and relevance, again I fooly agree with you. If you are trying to say you are the 'absolute reference' of all that you know and understand and exists, you have no argument from me.

But if you are saying, all that you know and all that exists for everyone and forever is what you know and in principle exists for you, than we'll butt heads over such claims. And this is what happens with all 'metaphysical/religious' claims. As yours is.

I have a more inclusive view! And no 'metaphysics'. But it does require that you understand the Nature of Mathematics! And how mathematical identities are valid for everyone! The Pythagorean Theorem, for example, does not depend on whether you understand it or not. It simply does not need your 'absolute self-reference' in order for it to be true! It is objectively true for everyone forever.

And that is the difference that makes all the difference!

Constantinos

Tom,

The "hardware" problem is not the amount of computing power, to run some program, or when it will halt. The problem is the amount of memory required to store all the initial conditions; the universe lacks the memory capacity to "symbolically represent itself" in any way other than simply "being there" - it symbolizes itself, by merely being itself.

Suppose one creates a universe, one elementary (memoryless) particle at a time. Start with one particle, then add another. Specifying the position and momentum of the second particle, relative to the first, in a 3-D space, requires a 6-fold infinity of bits of information, *if* those positions and momentums can take on any random value. This two-particle universe has no memory capacity to store those initial conditions, *except* by simply being itself. As you add more particles, to create bigger universes, you only compound the problem.

However, if the particle positions and momentums are merely pseudo-random, then this problem is eliminated. But then so is the need for any multiverse - all the initial conditions are fully determined by a finite pseudo-random generator - no infinity of universes is needed to account for that.

Lamport's paper begins by stating a problem in which no decision is made; The ass never moves at all, because it cannot decide in which direction it should proceed - it never "get off the dime". The author then says he can describe this situation mathematically. However, instead of doing so, he proceeds to describe an entirely different situation. In this second situation, the ass has *already made the decision to move*, and the author proceeds to describe a Zeno-paradox-like reason for why the ass cannot implement the decision - it cannot arrive at the end-point. Even if the author had managed to describe an actual decision problem, I would nevertheless maintain the the problem only lies within the mathematical model of a physical system, not the physical system per se. Unlike some, i believe they are not one and the same thing.

Rob McEachern

Tom,

Obviously Buridan never owned an ass. They may be dumb, but not indecisive. It would first go to one, pick through the best and go over and check out the other. Never know when another ass might show up, so desert first.;-)

Keep in mind that opposites balance, they don't necessarily cancel, or nothing would exist. Yin doesn't negate yang. What you have are two inclinations; that of mass to coalesce and of energy to disperse. So not only does inertia pull opposites together into balance, but the void of infinity disperses them out.

So yes, reality is both bounded by inertia and unbounded by infinity. We think of infinity as space, while inertia is the cessation of action, thus time is bounded. Yet it is not bounded by some spatial focal point 13.7 billion years ago, but by the elemental inertia of now.

Absolute and infinite.

Jim:

Jim George Snowdon feb. 14

"What if we simply do away with time as fundamental and not let it emerge? What if we have motion in our timeless Universe? What if our clocks only measure durations elapsing?"

Answering your post of February 14, I think you are right to reject "time" because as I say is just a remnant word, and also right when you leave motion in the universe, just because "time does not have existence, and right in that clocks just measure "movement", because if you said "measuring durations elapsing" the intent dictionary definition of "duration" implies the use of the word "time" for which we don't have definition, so my definition of Duration is: A period of change or transformation allowed for movement and limited by men. There it is not change, transformation or alteration without movement. The so called "time" is movement any kind of movement, every movement.

Héctor