An Accidental Universe

Paul,

So essentially he places light at the center and molds a geometric frame around it, a bit like epicycles places the earth at the center and builds a geometric frame around it? His absolute frame isn't spacetime, but light. So the idea of blocktime as "physically real" overlooks this basis?

Anonymousse,

What if we simply do away with time as fundamental and let it emerge as effect, similar to temperature. Then it wouldn't be a vector along which the present moves from past to future, but the changing configuration of what is, that turns future into past. So in QM, it isn't moving along that single external timeline from a determined past into a probabilistic future, but is the occurrence of events collapsing probabilities into actualities. With relativity, it is nothing more than frequency and quite logical that each clock is recording its own rate of change. There is no vector external to the present, because duration is not external to the present. It is the state of the present between the occurrence of events.

We experience it as a sequence of events, but then we still see the sun as rising in the east, moving across the sky and setting in the west.

Hi John,

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?

Kostas,

" ... 'metaphysics' is knowledge of 'what is' beyond our senses."

I suspected that's what you meant. It isn't what I mean, however, nor what science and non-theist philosophy means. There may exist things one cannot sense; short of mystic revelation, though, one cannot have knowledge of them.

Though Aristotle's metaphysics, from which the idea originates, is concerned with 'incorporeal being' that can't be sensed yet exists -- whatever actual knowledge we have of the world is sensuous.

What philosophers call "metaphysical realism" OTOH, allows objective existence of unmeasured (though not unmeasurable) objects.

I find Albrecht's program objective and consistent with metaphysical realism.

Tom

"The point is that spacetime is conjecture."

Only one who doesn't know the fundamentals of relativity could make such a statement. It puts you in the company of Pentcho Valev and others who simply deny the science.

John, I found it startling that you invoked Julian Barbour to support your relativity denial, since his program is the most fundamental relativity research possible.

Tom

Jim,

That's basically what clocks do, but the arrow of time emerges from the non-regularity of action. Otherwise there would be no arrow of time, just cyclical metronomes.

As effect, it's like temperature, color, etc. Given we are a much higher order effect, if they didn't emerge, neither would we. In fact knowledge, being largely based on narrative and cause and effect logic, is emergent from the effect of time. That's one reason why it seems more fundamental than temperature, though the ambient energy of thermodynamics is conceptually more primal than the change of time.

Tom,

I have no problem with relativity as math, I just don't think the "fabric of spacetime" is "physically real."

After all these years of debating this, is it really that hard to see I distinguish between the two? To go back to one of our much earlier discussions, the math of epicycles was quite accurate for its day and could be made as accurate as any model out there, for the very real reason that we are the center of our view of the universe. Much as driving, from one's perspective, it is the road moving. The sun still appears to move across the sky and it can thus be mathematically modeled that way. That doesn't mean Apollo's chariot, or cosmic gear wheels are real, just because the math works. Nor is there a real four dimensional spacetime, with all the wormholes, blocktime, multitudes of present moments, etc. that this theory allows. Change is fundamental to physics. It is not an illusion. The events are ephemeral. They don't exist in some eternal blocktime. Ockham's razor weighs strongly against it. It is a belief system and the fact many otherwise smart people believe in it, doesn't make it real.

Who knows though. Maybe I'll fall in a wormhole one day and find it really is Wonderland, but I don't really want to go there. I like the little bit of sanity I've managed to carve out of this crazy world.

Tom,

"'metaphysics' is knowledge of 'what is' beyond our senses"

This describes "atoms" as well as "spirits". And that's the problem with 'metaphysics'. Since one man's "atoms" is another man's "spirits". To a mystic, modern physics is as nonsense as mysticism is to a physicist. This is the reason (i.e. the 'metaphysical nature of physics') why so much bitter opposition, intolerance and down right persecution exists among physicists; while lacking among mathematicians. Mathematicians do not claim any knowledge of what is the Universe. Any claim of such knowledge I say is metaphysical. And ALL metaphysical claims ultimately fail.

You write, "There may exist things one cannot sense". What we cannot sense is not the issue for me. Rather, our claim such nonsensical knowledge is sensible I find flawed. I can restate this as follows. There is nothing real about any theory! It's all an elaborate 'made-up story'. Where physicists fail, imho, is in believing their theories are real.

From my brief reading of this article on Albrecht, I agree there are no fundamental physical laws that can describe the Universe. To believe there are is no less absurd than believing you can truly know another human being. Such laws as we understand may indeed depend on our sense of time. As 'time' is what gives 'existence' to everything that is for us.

In my essay, The Metaphysics of Physics., I argue we can end the metaphysical in physics if Basic Laws are mathematical truisms we use in our analysis of our measurements. Planck's Law, for example, I show to be just such mathematical truism and not a physical law per se.

Constantinos

John,

I'm with Jim George. We've greatly overcomplicated the simple concept we call 'time'.

Identical clocks, of any type, only tick at different rates if they are moving different physical conditions.

The REAL PHYSICAL truth is only then motion. The only other realisation needed to resolve every other mystery is then that the emissions representing 'DURATIONS' have physical representations, and are ALSO liable to changed due to differing physical conditions.

So an emitted one second light pulse will be found different when measured against the ticks of an identical clock in motion relatively. Yes/No?

This is because the 'wave'(length) is varied by the interaction, in all cases.

Please explain to me what mysterious phenonomena is there in the universe that this simplified understanding does NOT fully explain? Think it through and let me know. I predict you'll find there are none.

Peter

"Ockham's razor weighs strongly against (spacetime)."

Absolute nonsense, John. Please, learn how the extension and unification of physical theories has actually evolved.

Tom

John,

"You first have to clear away all the current theoretical debris to start another model."

See the link I've just posted to Edwin below. Until the better model exists for comparison none of the current theoretical debris pile can be cleared away.

So we can't do it 'first', and it can't come after, so we're stuck in this catch 22 with increasingly divergent un-unified physics (though I see Tom has just decided to unify it - well done, long overdue). The increasing anisotropy and non homogeneity of space, (let alone the Higg's field), hardly fitted under the carpet any more!

The new AGN based recycling model also entirely unifies physics and removes something over 30 major anomalies at last count as well as all the paradoxes. consistent with the excellent Montevideo interpretation of QM in one of this years essays. Or perhaps wait 'til next time around?

Tom, if you read this, do let me know how you've done it if you have, we may find consistencies.

Best wishes

Peter

Constantinos,

"There is nothing real about any theory! It's all an elaborate 'made-up story'. Where physicists fail, imho, is in believing their theories are real."

I don't disagree. Sure, the theory is contrived. What is not contrived, is the science -- i.e., the correspondence of theoretical prediction to physical result. Science just doesn't have anything to say about what may lie outside of science.

"From my brief reading of this article on Albrecht, I agree there are no fundamental physical laws that can describe the Universe. To believe there are is no less absurd than believing you can truly know another human being. Such laws as we understand may indeed depend on our sense of time. As 'time' is what gives 'existence' to everything that is for us."

I don't go that far -- I find it a handicap to believe in any framework. To do science, one sets personal belief aside. The crafting of physical theories has to be independent of the physics, or else we won't know whether something exists because we believe in it, or actually corresponds to something "out there." An anti-realist (and many interpretations of quantum theory take this position) says there is nothing out there; our measurements create the reality. My own choice of realist philosophy is metaphysical realism (the moon is really there when no one is looking). I think Albrecht's program respects objective reality, in that the free choice of random conditions depends on the choice being available.

Tom

Tom,

"To do science, one sets personal belief aside." Commendable words, but can you truly say that's what you do?

If so, why do you almost unfailingly revert to mainstream interpretation of relativity to refute any suggestions of other interpretations?

And if your answer relates at all to such things as established 'proofs' and 'consistencies' then you have failed your own test. This is because other models may well prove more consistent, but you have prejudged on beliefs not honest comparables of logical consistency.

If you claim not to do this, then perhaps address my posts and links above and below as a demonstration.

I'm not suggesting yours is a unique case, but that we all have far more deeply rooted hidden beliefs that we are normally prepared to seek and recognise, and more effort is needed to genuinely identify them and set them aside.

Only then can fundamental science genuinely progress.

Peter

Peter,

"'To do science, one sets personal belief aside.' Commendable words, but can you truly say that's what you do?"

To every extent possible, yes.

"If so, why do you almost unfailingly revert to mainstream interpretation of relativity to refute any suggestions of other interpretations?"

Because the refutation is complete and correct. I agree with Vesselin Petkov that "science never moves backward." There is no "non-mainstream interpretation" of relativity, because relativity is mathematically complete, and not in need of interpretation. What that means, is that the mathematical model is demonstrably independent of the physical phenomena the model predicts. Logical consistency is not enough -- personal beliefs can be logically consistent and have nothing to do with the physical world.

"And if your answer relates at all to such things as established 'proofs' and 'consistencies' then you have failed your own test. This is because other models may well prove more consistent, but you have prejudged on beliefs not honest comparables of logical consistency."

Show your work, then. If I find a mathematically complete model that competes with relativity and predicts the same physical results, and if the results are experimentally confirmed, then I will support it as a genuine alternative.

"If you claim not to do this, then perhaps address my posts and links above and below as a demonstration."

As I have said before in these fora, a mathematically complete theory only explains what it contains. It does not explain what's not in the theory. Observational anomalies for which there is no theory do not falsify what you call "mainstream science." As an example -- and I've given it often -- the discovery (Penzias and Wilson, 1965) of microwave background radiation does not falsify the steady state theory of cosmology. However, because big bang cosmology can explain CBR and steady state cannot, the discovery is one more verification of the mathematical completeness of general relativity.

"I'm not suggesting yours is a unique case, but that we all have far more deeply rooted hidden beliefs that we are normally prepared to seek and recognise, and more effort is needed to genuinely identify them and set them aside."

Right. As I said, though, logical consistency is no test.

Tom

Tom,

The most insidious mistakes are those we don't even know we are making. The safest position to take (drawing from our broad human experience) is we cannot know what is the Universe. As this requires the same 'mind set' as believing we can know another human being. And though we can all agree 'something is' out there independent of us (what I think you call 'metaphysical realism') this should not lead to the arrogant position what we 'know' of it is what is out there. Just like, what we know of another person is what that person truly is.

You write, "Sure, the theory is contrived. What is not contrived, is the science".

Can you really separate "theory" from "science"? Even after all the quantum weirdness we have come to know and some love while others hate? Science is no longer making 'objective observations'. There is much greater 'interpretation' of the objective data based on the theory we hold. It is reassuring to think such 'objective interpretation' is 'science'.

I too believed in that innocence. But have become increasingly skeptical. Add to this the design of our instruments to produce the outcomes we search (all based on our theories of what we search) and the picture becomes even more enigmatic. I fear we may be deceiving ourselves believing in our own magic. And that, in my view, is The Metaphysics of Physics..

You write, "To do science, one sets personal belief aside". But can we put aside our mind? Or all minds are the same everywhere and for all times.

Constantinos

Constantinos,

I don't think the philosophical discussion contributes anything to the topic of this thread. I have given my own opinion on Andreas Albrecht's research, applying the conventional rules of scientific falsification (Popper) and from a realist perspective. So nothing in my opinion is "hidden."

That's as far as I want to take it.

Tom

Instead of spending all my time on this thread defending relativity (I am finished with that now, for good) -- I would have liked to have been involved in a high level exchange on the genuine merits of Andreas Albrecht's research program, which I think are considerable.

In my opinion, most participants in this discussion don't have a clue as to either the content of that program, or its implications for science, particularly cosmology. In fact, I think it is a potentially big step toward legitimizing cosmology as a hard physical science.

I've also not been shy of expressing my opinion that Vesselin Petkov's essay this year ("Can gravity be quantized") was unjustly ignored. For the same reason.

Allow me to suggest that Petkov on the side of relativity, and Albrecht on the side of quantum mechanics -- have a common meeting ground; i.e., that the mathematics of random variables and the mathematics of continuous measurement functions converge on an underlying unitary structure of topological foundation. I've devoted considerable research to that proposition -- would anyone like to seriously discuss it?

Tom

Tom,

You well know nothing can be constructively proved complete, so with; "Because the refutation is complete and correct." you've exposed that deeply embedded belief you always invoke. If you disagree let's test it. You must then show that the alternative is less complete and consistent. I do appreciate your offer to do so, so off we go;

Now, as I've said before, the model agrees with both the SR postulates and that the mathematical formalism represents a perfectly adequate representation. But the maths is not the nature, and other maths can give identical results. The only other valid falsifications of the 'nature' (reality) then are of consistency, self, logical and with observation (data).

So if one interpretation turns out to have less inconsistencies and anomalies it is possibly a more accurate model of nature, Yes?

First the maths. The only change is as the algorithms in my essay and end notes. These have been verified, never challenged or falsified, and produce CSL, via the instantaneous delta lambda implicit in detection. Thus also comply with QM!!

(resolving the 'measurement problem'). Please check them again. In fact there's a better version here; MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING v2

Now let's lift the carpet (no longer just the corner!) and pull out a few things pushed under there as it doesn't fit current interpretation, arising from the only varying assumption; that any background medium has also to be 'absolute'. The DFM resolution is in parenthesis.

1. CMBR Anisotropies, with severe lack of isotropy and homogeneity. (derived)

2. The host of apparent paradoxes, which won't quite ever go away. (removed)

3. The IAU 2000 resolutions regarding inconsistent theoretical basis. (found)

4. Stellar Aberration not possible with waves and needing refraction (resolved)

5. Pre Big bang conditions. (Logically defined and evidenced).

6. Re-ionization (ditto)

7. Unification of SR and QM. - all about time really. (complete).

8. The Higg's Field. Yes! a field with an assumed spatial identity! (allowed).

9. The flat 'lockstep' galaxy rotation curve. (Precisely derived)

10. The kinetic SZ effect, decoupled halo rotation etc. (predicted).

11. Dark Matter and Dark Energy. The non relativistic 'special agent' even the eminent Sandage had to assume for the Hubble constant and acceleration. (solved)

12. The 'Ether' George Smoot had to invoke (2004 Nobel) explain CMB 'frames last scattered' etc. Again with a kinetic identity. (fully implicit).

13. Kinetic Reverse Refraction. (derived)

14. Non linear Optics effects. (ditto).

15. Lensing delays of over 3 years!! - Abel. (longer predicted)

16. Intrinsic rotation of matter in space. (predicted)

17. Pair production. (matter from nowhere). (predicted)

18. Violation of Snell's Law and loss of 'Fresnel refraction' in favour of 'Fraunhofer reraction' at Maxwell's near/far field transition zone.

I'll stop there but could fill a book with astronomical anomalies alone, such as the very Ecliptic Plane itself (USNO Circ. 179 p6). and JPL's Dan Gezari's continuing problems with Laser Lunar ranging theoreticals. All resolved in the more simple interpretation.

Most are in complete denial that those exist as they're immediately ignored if they don't 'fit'. So Only 'beliefs' keep the present interpretation alive. But human nature won't let most face up to realities, so it's claimed, with no basis, that all the above are just 'misunderstandings'.

This is your test. Can you really drop your beliefs and compare honestly?

Peter

Peter,

"So an emitted one second light pulse will be found different when measured against the ticks of an identical clock in motion relatively. Yes/No?"

Yes.

"This is because the 'wave'(length) is varied by the interaction, in all cases."

The frequency.

I'm not trying to complicate it, I just don't want the argument to be "There is no time." Time is a primal effect.