An Accidental Universe

Rob,

You write, "Darwin made many such predictions."

No he didn't. He conjectured common ancestry and common ancestry has been successfully tested without being falsified within many other disciplines including paleontology, archeology, geology, cosmology and of course -- biology -- where it forms the foundation of that discipline.

By the very same criteria, string theory (extended quantum field theory) conjectures the origin of physics, and is successfully tested and not falsified within many other subdisciplines of physics. The myth that it is "just math" needs only one novel prediction to be busted. The theory is, however -- legitimate science and foundational.

Just as Albrecht's research is.

Tom

Constantinos,

You write, "Are you arguing my mathematical derivations in 'The Thermodynamics in Planck's Law' are wrong? Have you studied them?"

Your derivations are not connected to the question of whether or not physical laws exist independent of the mathematics that describes them. I have already explained my position that if mathematical language were not independent of physical meaning, we would -- demonstrably -- have no means to express objective statements of physical reality. I'm a realist in that regard -- the moon is really there.

And that's really all I have to say about it.

Tom

Rob,

Agreed. We are spatially and temporally finite entities, on a linear trajectory. It does introduce a set of biases. I find though, as you expressed in your contest entry, that other fields, from biology to information theory, have gone through various systemic revolutions, which might provide insights to some of the stumbling blocks that physics is encountering, but there is significant institutional hubris and inertia that has to be overcome and this goes back generations, so those practicing now are loath to really question the foundations.

Rob,

You write, "My point is that the wording of the article seems to imply that the above assumption may have been violated. The two clocks of concern are the clock, implicitly assumed within the structure of a mathematical equation, and the clock in the computer model, that is modeling that equation. The designers of the equation assumed the clock does not 'evolve'."

Okay, now I better understand. What I'm seeing in this fledgling research, however, is that the free random choice of clock refers to a clock that has *already* evolved. Think of Wheeler's delayed choice experiment. The idea is also entirely compatible with 4-dimensional Riemannian geometry; i.e., if one asks the question, "Where did creation begin?" one may pick any of infinite points. And yet one more supporting theorem is one of arithmetic: one point may approach any set of points simultaneously, provided that it is far enough away.

It makes perfect sense to me, that Albrecht's hypothesis follows from the assumption that the wave function does not collapse. (Joy Christian's research follows from the same assumption.)

"If the designer of the computer model choose to model an evolving clock, then there is no reason to suppose that Einstein's assumption will be valid."

Again -- I am confident Albrecht refers to a clock that has already evolved. Classical physics is time reversible, as Einstein's speech allows, beginning to end, back to front. Spacetime conservation, and conservation of angular momentum, coupled to an "equally likely" set of universes in our multiverse, makes it possible to avoid the singularity of a comsological initial condition -- the problem that vexed Einstein till the day he died.

Tom

Tom,

Darwin did not become famous because he "conjectured common ancestry". He became famous because he hypothesized "Natural Selection" as the primary process by which evolution occurred. The issue, for Darwin, was not "if evolution occurred", the issue was how it occurred.

He made a number of significant predictions in connect with that process. For example, he hypothesized that flowers and their pollinators must have co-evolved as a result of natural selection. Consequently, when he observed a very peculiar flower, with a very long and curved structure, that no known pollinator could enter, he predicted that a pollinator with a similarly shaped, never before seen pollination apparatus, would be discovered. It was.

Rob McEachern

Paul,

I consider Einstein's work to be valuable and I don't want to dissect it and then declare it simply wrong.You want to do otherwise. Einstein's relativity is a major pillar of physics and allows accurate predictions of what will be observed. Quantum Mechanics also gives very accurate predictions. With a change of interpretation the problems are overcome and they can be united into a more complete model, which I think is helpful progress.

Good wishes - Georgina

Tom,

Regarding Wheeler's Delayed Choice experiment, which I regard as badly designed, see the discussion of it in the comments under my FQXI essay.

The question "Where did creation begin?", assumes that it did. I have never encountered any evidence or argument supporting that assumption. How do you know "nothing" existed in the natural world, prior to the last big bang?

Regarding "that Albrecht's hypothesis follows from the assumption that the wave function does not collapse.", that which does not exist, cannot collapse. There is no evidence that wave-fuctions exist, except as part of the (non-unique) mathematical language, used by physicists, to describe their observations of the world. As far as I can tell, wave-functions exist in the exact same sense that the English language exists; it is a man-made creation, used to communicate man-made ideas about the natural world. There is no one-to-one correspondence between wave-functions and any physical entity, observable or otherwise. It is not necessary, it is merely sufficient.

To say that "Classical physics is time reversible", is merely to say that our mathematical descriptions of the world is time reversible. There is no evidence that the world, itself, is time reversible. In other words, our existing mathematical descriptions of the world utterly fail to correctly described some very OBVIOUS observations of that world. This too was further discussed under my essay.

Rob McEachern

Tom,

You may choose not to say more, but I cannot choose to let what you said stand. Because it simply is not correct.

You write, "Your derivations are not connected to the question of whether or not physical laws exist independent of the mathematics that describes them."

The question is not whether or not "physical laws exist independent of the mathematics that describe them". Rather, "the mathematics that describe them ARE the physical laws!" There are no 'physical laws' per se! Planck's Law is a mathematical truth. F = ma is a mathematical truth. The Law of Inertia is a mathematical truth. Same as the Pythagorean Theorem. Nothing to do with "how Nature really is". Rather, "how Math really is". This I demonstrate mathematically and by not assuming any "physics".

Constantinos

Paul:

Probably I wrote to many words, but finally you would see they have a concrete and heavy meaning.

With your answers to my January 16th and February 18th mails about "time nature" and some other themes, because Albrecht article, many of them directly or indirectly related with "time" I believe you awake a chain of answers by many people anonymous and no anonymous and most of them connected one way or another with "time", why not if it is considered at the basements of physics? . Everybody relates "time" with change, transformations, movements, measurements, rates, even Heraclito considered "time" a manifestation of movement, but when you said a manifestation, implies that there can be other manifestations, but "time", so it is completely different when you say "time" is movement, can't be anything else, and I think this make an enormous difference, movement existed since the very beginning, if there was one, and we are humanly certain that everything with physical existence moves, so movement as a quality or property of existing things, is related with everything else, so most probably when men try to measure movement because he need it, invented "time". Because "time" has not known definition or empiric meaning, and because nobody prove its existence, I feel right to say, that "time" is just a remnant word of that men invention. What people did and keep doing, is measuring movement with movement without being conscious they are doing it, and believing and they are measuring "time" with movement

Most people would say, so what's the difference to say that "time" is related with everything with physical existence, that saying "that movement is related with everything with physical existence.

One difference consist that nobody knows how to relate "time" with gravity or inertia., but most would be able to relate movement to gravity and inertia. Simply because movement is a quality or property of all physical existing things and gravity and inertia as proved physical forces (probably both are one, as Mach thought) can affect qualities and properties of physical things, as movement is.

In an spatial sheep that carries an analogical clock, when the sheep velocity increases respect to an inertial system, increases its mass /inertia, of the sheep and the moving parts of the clock , the increased inertia of the clock moving parts will slows the clock functioning, slowing the clock and not the "time". The clock on the mountain top and the one in the valley experience, will show the action of gravity slowing clock functioning.

Marvels me that Einstein with general relativity mathematically proved that velocity and gravity slows movement (time) without knowing that the so called "time" is movement, so he could not explain himself the slowing because inertia and gravity forces, then he had no explanation for that fact, and that I know, nobody else had, as technology shows with GPS . Of course he uses light (1905) on the explanation, is the fastest thing of constant speed known, to be able to discard it as the smallest error. Knowing that the so called "time" is movement, light it is not needed at all for the explanation, even if electromagnetic waves did not exist, inertia and gravity will slow movement (time)

Problem is that people like Carlo Rovelli since he was a boy was looking for "the nature of time" he failed to find it, so he decided that "time does not exist" and is looking for a physics without "time", this implies physics without movement. Worst, to Julian Barbour the same happened to him but he already find a theory to make physics without "time", static with no movement.

Maldacena, and probably hundreds of people who long ago I know some also were looking for "the time nature" failing with this, keep their way for a "theory of everything" with "the string theory" using the Newton absolute "time" not knowing that the string vibration that identified different particles in the theory, is the movement (time) in their theory.

Many physicists agree that because of not knowing "the time nature" a big part of theoretical physics became stagnant as Chris Isham from the London imperial college said.

Knowing that the so called "time" is movement, I think will open many doors in physics. Loosing heat the object will loose molecule and atomic movement, there would be less free energy, then there would be slower chemical combinations, so change and transformation would be reduced, so stake catabolism in the freezer will slow or stop putrefaction, so duration would be increased as something edible.

So, less molecular and atomic movement would increase duration of everything, cold is slowing movement. I intent to say, that not only what general relativity proves, describes reality, when says that velocity and gravity slows movement (time), cold also do it.

I believe everybody should ask now and in the past, What we are measuring? and no What is time? If they would do it, we would save more than two thousand years in this subject. By the way we need to now a new duration definition: Is a period of change or transformation allowed by movement and limited by men.

Héctor

Robert,

"Darwin did not become famous because he "conjectured common ancestry". He became famous because he hypothesized "Natural Selection" as the primary process by which evolution occurred. The issue, for Darwin, was not "if evolution occurred", the issue was how it occurred."

That is an interesting contrast. Yes, Darwin did hypothesize natural selection, but he became famous due to the issue of common ancestry, as much as he tried to avoid it. What I find interesting is the two different prespectives you and Tom focus on. He on the linear from there to here projection of ancestry and you on the networked feedback of self organizing systems. The reason I find it interesting is it reflects the point I make here most often and to which Tom is entirely resistant. That time is not a fundamental vector from past to future, but the changing configuration that turns future into past. For example, the earth is not traveling some fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. While Tom insists this is an entirely trivial point, I see it differently, as it means time is a property of action, like temperature, not the basis for it, therefore spacetime is correlation, not causation and there is no conceptual basis for the universe to expand. Which would in fact be a significant point in terms of cosmology.

So, since you seem more able to use the cognitive aspects of the right brain and not only the linear rationality of the left, I thought I might put it out as a thought for you to ponder.

Keep in mind we still experience time as a series of events, but then we still see the sun as moving across the sky.

Peter,

What is the mechanism by which Space is "created" in your theory?

And, is your concept of the smallest spatial volume of the smallest point particle:

4/3 pi r3, where d is the planck length?

or, does it disappear altogether?

& thanks for understanding CIG!

I think if we stick with it here, we can tie down reality... really

Rob,

This thread keeps drifting off topic. However, Darwin's theory most certainly *is* the theory of common ancestry. Random mutation and natural selection is the *conjectured* mechanism, and is not falsifiable (we cannot observe the crossing of the species barrier in real time).

Whether it is in plant biology, animal biology or any other evolutionary discipline, though, the falsifiable sub theories of common ancestry are not unitary with the theory. Only the unifying theory of common ancestry makes sense of the results.

Tom

Rob,

We're going to have to agree to disagree.

Tom

The discussion is indeed moving off topic, nonetheless:

Constantinos:

I have to side with Tom on this one. The statement that "F = ma is a mathematical truth" might be "true by definition", however, if you think this truly describes the behavior of objects like rockets, then you are mistaken. When I was studying physics, in grad school, a former college roommate wrote to me thus: I just formulated the motion of a rocket, as a differential equation, starting with the equation F=ma. When I solved this equation, I obtained an absurd result. What is wrong? I quickly verified his absurd result (Try it! Solve the equation). What is wrong? Hint: Even in the classical case, F=ma is valid only if "m" does not change. But most of "m", for a rocket, consists of the fuel, which is rapidly burned away, so that "m" does change.

John and Tom:

Up until about 1800, it was assumed, by most biologists, that the number of species existing in the world could never change; existing species could never go extinct and new ones could never appear, because it was thought that would disrupt the perfect order of the world, created by God. Then, something was discovered in the USA. Much later, it was identified as a fossilized Mastodon tooth. But at the time, no one had any idea what it was, until a slave, from Africa, noted that it resembled an elephant tooth. Since it was assumed that species could not go extinct, it was concluded similar creatures must still be alive. So Thomas Jefferson ordered Lewis and Clark to look for it, while on their western expedition. Their inability to find one, prompted some to begin to seriously consider that some species had disappeared. But if species could disappear, why could they not also appear? But how would they appear? That was the question of the age. Finding the answer is what put Darwin and Wallace "on the map".

Rob McEachern

Don't know where the thread was, but regarding:

"ROBERT wrote:

Constantinos:

I have to side with Tom on this one. The statement that "F = ma is a mathematical truth" might be ......"

My thoughts:

The equation F = ma only holds true when objects are moving relatively slow (

Robert,

"I have to side with Tom on this one" does not say much if you have the same misunderstanding as Tom. Lets take this one idea at a time:

1)Mathematical theorems are different from physical laws in that no physics is assumed in their derivation. The Pythagorean Theorem, for example.

2)Physical laws, though using math symbols and methods, are not mathematical theorems. Rather, these are based on experiments for their validity. The Law of Inertia comes to mind (though see below on this).

3)Planck's Formula is thought to be a physical law. And though it can be derived using mathematics, in the derivation certain physics is assumed. Most notably, the "quantization of energy" hypothesis.

4)I have demonstrated that Planck's Formula is a mathematical truism and not a physical law per se. It can be mathematically derived without using the "quantization of energy" hypothesis or any other physics. This explains why the experimental blackbody spectrum matches so perfectly the theoretical curve. See, "The Thermodynamics in Planck's Law"

5)I have also shown other "physical laws", as for example Newton's Laws of Motion, to also be mathematical truisms and not "physical laws" based on experimental evidence.

6)I suggested that all Basic Laws of Physics can likewise be mathematical identities which we can apply to analyzing our experimental data. And more specifically, I argue that QM is such a mathematical tautology. Something that Tom also agrees, I think. This would explain why QM fits so well the experimental data. Further, this approach will keep "physics from morphing into metaphysics" (with counter-intuitive results). And would solve the philosophical question why the Universe should follow our mathematical calculations and derivations.

Hope that clears my argument with Tom and now you.

Constantinos

Don't know where the thread was, but regarding:

"ROBERT wrote:

Constantinos:

I have to side with Tom on this one. The statement that "F = ma is a mathematical truth" might be ......"

My thoughts:

The equation F = ma only holds true when objects are moving relatively slow (

(continued) slow...... (

Constantinos

It is not what is "out of our mind", it is what was physically received, before then being processed via the sensory/brain system, ie what were we aware of. The point being that the output from that process, and indeed the process itself, is not a physical concern. Literally, we need to know the output, in order to initiate the analysis of what occurred. And physics would be facilitated considerably if the process was fully understood. In other words, when it is said we see colour, shape, whatever, obviously having eradicated any individualistic enhancement, we could then have a definitive understanding of what was, at least generically, physically received.

Physics is concerned with what was physically received, not what the sentient system subsequently processed it as, and what was the physical cause of that. Attempting to explain a physical circumstance by how the sensory system/brain works is obviously wrong. That physical circumstance has occurred before the sensory process is initiated. The physics is the same whether a particular light interacted with a brick or an eye. Certain entities have just developed system which can then utilise that physical input, if they receive it. The brick remains unaware of the physical circumstance. The differential between know and not-know (ie belief)being the correlation between the processed output and what was physically received, having allowed for how that processing works. The independently occurring physical circumstance is the determinant of knowledge.

Paul

Paul