An Accidental Universe

You've got got it wrong, Pentcho. One does not find it possible to choose a clock "in the early universe." One chooses a clock in the present universe, and finds that this free choice affects what the cosmological condition (the early universe) would have been. As Swarup sums up elegantly:

"The implications are groundbreaking: Our universe did not arise with one single set of fundamental laws prewritten, which governed the evolution of particles, planets, galaxies and people, or even the dimensionality of space. Instead, the basis of our universe would be an underlying random structure through which the observed laws of nature emerge as probabilities."

Because the probability of our universe existing is 1.0, the particular Hamiltonian that characterizes our domain should be self limiting by a constant value that restricts its time evolution. That would be the constant speed of light, something else that you've gotten wrong.

Tom

Tom,

Let's do a little mind game. Call it trying to understand what the other person is saying. As I keep describing it, time is an effect. Obviously it is complete nonsense to say it flows equitably all over the universe, because situations vary. Just like temperature. If one candle gets more oxygen than another, then not only does it burn hotter, but it burns faster, ie. its clock is faster. Just like the twin that stays home.

Now it takes action and thus time to cross space and so information from various regions takes different speeds and thus time to arrive at any point. This doesn't negate the fact that what is present is the extant energy. Time is simply an effect of this energy changing shape/traveling around, whatever. The present is what exists, whatever its form. Presumably other parts of the universe co-exist with our part of the universe, even if the current information from them obviously hasn't reached us, because we are still receiving prior information, as the light which left there is now arriving here.

Now if you wish to stick with multiworlds, because the math says so, that is certainly your right, but you haven't convinced me that time is actually a physical vector of points on a timeline, as opposed to a dynamic process of change.

"As I keep describing it, time is an effect."

An effect of what? John, if you want to play a game called "let's try to understand what the other is saying," we have to speak the same language.

Try to understand the contradiction between what you believe and what we objectively know, that even in your words: " ... it takes action and thus time to cross space and so information from various regions takes different speeds and thus time to arrive at any point ..." means that space and time are not independently real.

You are assuming that space is a static background over which time flows at varying rates. That is exactly how Newton framed it, even inventing the calculus to show the precise rates at which the flow varies according to the varying energy field, just as you say.

Einstein showed us that there is no privileged background; i.e., spacetime and energy are interactive.

Tom

Tom,

An effect of activity, very much like temperature, as I keep repeating!!!! Of course it's related to space, just like temperature. Try describing temperature independently of volume.

"Flow" is a spatial concept, try thinking of it as process. Given the energy is conserved, the initial event no longer physically exists by the concluding event, because the process means the energy has transformed from one to the other. Unlike two places in space that can physically co-exist.

Energy and space co-exist, while time and temperature are effects, like color. Can you imagine color independent of energy and space? Does that make it fundamental?

As I keep pointing out, by treating it as a measure, physics only re-enforces the narrative timeline. The reality is the energy, while the events are ephemeral, so it is the events coming and going, not a point on the timeline moving along it. The time as vector is nothing more than a formalized narrative., no matter how accurately events are measured.

Tom,

By the current model, every event, every relationship, every process, plus all the infinite number of quantum probabilities are physically mapped out in that four dimensional spacetime, because too many smart and educated people think it so to be wrong.

Consider the response of those believe in quantum entanglement, to Joy's argument that it is a mathematical sleight of hand. Given the practical matters weighing against this blocktime multiworlds model, how can you be utterly convinced there are no overlooked elements? I can understand the power of belief, but I fail to see the proof.

The "different rate" clocks manifest themslves as different cosmological non-constants. It's the same reality that all clocks live in and abide by. They do not live in their own distinct universe, no more than Bob Marley does.

Time clocks are % "c" dependent, and by the equivalency elevator experiment principle, likewise, gravity also suggest its equvalent couterpart. The field densities vary by distance from the mass center. Likewise, when stellar photon entities attempt to escape, they turn into Dark Matter, and full escape "c" turns into Dark Energy. Each field is different, Each clock is different in each field (because a faster clock on earth sees a more dense hand ticking, alternately, in spacial orbit, the hands are spread out into the field they are within, and hence tick slower) (you can trick these clocks into ticking faster by pressuring them into a like earth gravity vessel while still orbiting). But, the clocks are in the same Universal Reality. There is no need for multiplt clock realities, simply diffrent fields in the same reality. Time dilation presents itself as Space creatiion. This new Space comes in the form of many different densities(temperatures) ( here the horizon problem is explained - see CIG)

Peter should understand what I am saying. he may not agree, but should understand.

Equating energy to mass to space

0.02762u = 25.7MeV = 14,952,942.08 pico meters cubed of space*

(Mass) (Energy) (Space)

What kind of Space? The kind you get when mass travels at the % "c" density at which the reaction took place.

I am not sure of this number, but if "c", then Dark Energy. I think it must be close to "c", and that's how we all blow up when the bombs go off, which they won't. They can't, they shant.

The above is CIG.

www.CIGTheory.com

THX

doug.... on topic

Tom/John

What underpins the concept of time has nothing to do with observers, or the devices deployed to measure it. Physical reality is altering, and one aspect of change is the speed at which this occurs. The other aspects being a) what is the change, b) what is the sequence order. Timing is a measuring system to calibrate speed of change.

By definition, there is no change in any given physical reality, otherwise it cannot be physically existent. Any given physical entity cannot be in a physically existent state, and altering at the same time. Put another way, what is altering to what? There must be something which then occurs as something different.

By definition, at any given time, what exists does so. Observers and timing devices cannot affect that. The issue is that, assuming sight as the sense used for detection, then the photon based representation of that physical existence takes time to travel, and that will be different for recipient observers at different distances.

Paul

"Try describing temperature independently of volume."

John, I find it remarkable you don't understand that *because* temperature is directly proportional to volume, your argument is invalidated.

That the potential average rate of speed of gas molecules increases and decreases in proportion to volume, results from pre-relativity classical laws of motion. Those laws allow a background frame of arbitrary boundary conditions in space. The reason that general relativity fails to be a complete theory is that the boundary conditions collapse to a singularity at the cosmological initial condition, which contradicts the classical laws.

Now according to your belief, there is no cosmological initial condition -- "Energy and space co-exist, while time and temperature are effects, like color. Can you imagine color independent of energy and space?" No, but neither can I imagine, as your logic implies, that an ideal gas compressed to a point has boundary conditions; i.e., that the point exists in a background space. If relativity is true, your belief cannot be. I vote for relativity.

Tom

Tom,

As I recall, when Einstein was developing the theory of relativity, he was more concerned with final conditions, that gravity would cause space to collapse to a point, thus necessitating the cosmological constant to remedy it.

Now there very much does appear to be that mathematical singularity, ie. the black hole at the center of galaxies. Yet it has since been discovered that streaming out of these gravitational vortices are enormous jets and billowing bubbles of electrons and cosmic rays. Are black holes really portals into other dimensions/gravitational singularities, or are they cosmic cyclones, hurling back out into space whatever they sucked in? Wouldn't that be a function of those ideal gas laws? As the material is gravitationally compressed, it certainly does heat up.

As for that initial condition, what does it rest on, other than the assumption that light must travel as a point particle and can only be redshifted by recession of the source? Doesn't the double slit experiment show that when light is actually traveling, ie. going through the slits, it is a wave? If we treat traveling light as a wave and thus expanding from the source, wouldn't redshift be an entirely logical effect? Then we don't need all those fantastical patches, from inflation to dark energy, to make it work.

Along with the many other problems raised by others, no one has explained one of the points I keep raising; If space is actually expanding, how is it that we have a stable speed of light against which to judge it?

Not to mention that on large scales, space appears flat, ie. the contraction of gravity is matched by the intergalactic expansion. Galaxies are not simply inert point particles in space/raisins in the rising bread. They are gravity wells!!! Whatever it is expanding between galaxies, is quite evidently falling into them at an equal rate, so how can it be argued the entire universe is expanding, when the actual observed details show otherwise? Isn't that a case of the power of belief over evidence. I admit blocktime/multiworlds/inflation/dark energy/etc. is much more exciting than some boring old cosmic convection cycle of expanding energy and contracting mass, but I just don't buy into this lastest version of epicycles. Sorry.

" ... no one has explained one of the points I keep raising; If space is actually expanding, how is it that we have a stable speed of light against which to judge it?"

If no one has explained it, John, perhaps they thought it absurd to have to point out that the universe is expanding at less than the speed of light.

" ... I admit blocktime/multiworlds/inflation/dark energy/etc. is much more exciting than some boring old cosmic convection cycle of expanding energy and contracting mass ..."

And once again, I am compelled to tell you that this belief contradicts relativity, where energy and mass are equivalent and spacetime is continuous.

Tom

Tom,

"If no one has explained it, John, perhaps they thought it absurd to have to point out that the universe is expanding at less than the speed of light."

Well, when it is theoretically convenient, ie. inflation, space is presumed to have expanded at far greater than the speed of light.

You miss the point anyway. As expansion is proposed, the speed of light is used as an indenpendent measure of the expanding universe, given these other galaxies are eventually assumed to move beyond the point of being visible. Since it is taking longer for the light to travel between galaxies, that is a stable measure of space and there is just an increased amount of it. So what frame determines the speed of light, if it is independent of the expansion of space?

John,

" ... when it is theoretically convenient, ie. inflation, space is presumed to have expanded at far greater than the speed of light."

Not presumed. Calculated. Big difference. The problem that the theory of inflation purports to solve, is the cosmological horizon problem ( i.e., how two extremes of the universe can have been in communication in the distant past, when the distance between them is too great for light to have traveled). It can be seen that Albrecht's program also solves this problem, by making past events dependent on present measure values (equivalent, I think, to Wheeler's delayed choice proposal).

"You miss the point anyway."

I expect that I always will, when I see a contradiction, because I stop before continuing to buy into a propositioon.

"As expansion is proposed, the speed of light is used as an indenpendent measure of the expanding universe,"

No. The speed of light is never a measure independent of space.

" ... given these other galaxies are eventually assumed to move beyond the point of being visible."

Hence, the term "horizon."

"Since it is taking longer for the light to travel between galaxies, that is a stable measure of space and there is just an increased amount of it."

Not necessarily. Perhaps there is just more time. As Hawking explains by the device of imaginary time -- and as I explain by changing the convention of Einstein's 'finite but unbounded' model of general relativity that is finite in time (bounded at the cosmological singularity) to one finite in space (the manifold of the Riemann sphere S^3 with one simple pole at infinity) and unbounded in time. This does not change a single equation of general relativity.

"So what frame determines the speed of light, if it is independent of the expansion of space?"

What I've been trying to get across to you, among others -- is that there is no privileged reference frame in relativity. The speed of light is phenomenological; a measured value. It is not measured independent of space, because neither space nor time independently are physically real.

Tom

Tom,

"The speed of light is never a measure independent of space."

So, if space is expanding, why doesn't the speed of light increase proportionally?

"The problem that the theory of inflation purports to solve, is the cosmological horizon problem ( i.e., how two extremes of the universe can have been in communication in the distant past, when the distance between them is too great for light to have traveled)."

So it is assumed light traveled across this smaller universe, because the space is less, but the speed of light is not?

"So, if space is expanding, why doesn't the speed of light increase proportionally?"

It does. Why can you not understand that neither space nor time are independently real physical quantities?

"So it is assumed light traveled across this smaller universe, because the space is less, but the speed of light is not?"

Again -- you assume space and time as independent.

Relativity answers your questions, John.

Tom

Tom,

So if the speed of light increases proportional to expansion, wouldn't that mean it would take light the same amount of time to go from one galaxy to another, no matter how much they move apart, since the speed of the light is increasing proportionally?

Tom,

I must pull you up on that. As no underlying mechanism is offered 'relativity' doesn't 'answer' any questions!! It just offers a mathematical formalism to approximate it's effects. Sure if you're wedded to maths as a real and physical entity you'll believe otherwise, but a purist will point out your error.

I'm not sure why I give comments as they're simply ignored, but never yet falsified. Do someone at least try! Try this;

Once time signals have been emitted as physical representations they are AT LARGE to be tampered with. If the signals enter a co-moving medium approaching the source the wavelength reduces (or the distance between wave peaks or photons reduces, as you wish) There is a well understood but rarely used Doppler equation for this case. In this case the evidence of time emissions ('events') are contracted and dilated, NOT 'time' itself!!

Depending on your frame (relative kinetic state) as a detached observer looking at, say the cloud chamber medium, you will have observed light changing speed. But if you are IN the chamber so DETECT it, you will find it doing c, because all PROPAGATION is at c, even in the QV or Higgs field. The 'domain limits' are as found in the 'surfaces last scattered' CMBR, rendering CMB data consistent.

That DOES provide the mechanism for the SR postulates. I accuse all of failing to understand the problem, in which case the solution will remain invisible. Now can anybody prove ANY PART of the above simple intuitive model false or inconsistent in any way?

Best wishes

Peter

(PS. Yes, the model suggests the universe WAS smaller and light still did the same c locally, but also No, inflation is NOT accelerating).

doug,

I agree you're absolutely spot on. I do understand but don't agree. With much of it anyway. See my post to Tom on the long string above. It's really far simpler. Just two rules;

1. Everywhere is a medium, which includes a 'quanta' rest frame.

2. All quanta absorb energy, then re-emit it at c.

Electrons and protons (dark matter) have almost zero EM cross section as their index n=1 and they re-emit on the arrival axis only (well known 'coherent forward scattering'). They MUST then modulate c to being a local phenomena. I don't understand the problem here, what problem does that NOT resolve? Is everyone all brainwashed or what?? I must not have been looking when they did it! But do tell me if it's me who's mad.

Thanks. Best wishes

Peter

"So if the speed of light increases proportional to expansion, wouldn't that mean it would take light the same amount of time to go from one galaxy to another, no matter how much they move apart, since the speed of the light is increasing proportionally?"

John, try and remember that space and time are not physically independent. When we speak of "physically real" phenomena, we mean those that are or can be measured. The speed of light is always measured as constant regardless of the motion of objects, be they galaxies or spaceships. That an observer from a galaxy or a spaceship measures the distance increasing between mass points does not imply -- for light -- that any time has elapsed. There is no privileged observer frame.

Tom

Peter,

Way back when, seventies, whatever pop book on relativity I happened to read, made the argument similar to yours, that any clock is effectively composed of light/electrons and consequently slows relative to the medium, thus light is always measured at c. Along with various other sensible descriptions of the other effects. It seemed simple and obvious enough for me and it was only later, eighties, that I began to sense what an acid trip physics was really on to. I see the process as playing out as a wave and while we are near the top, as there is more foam and bubbles than forward and upward momentum, these things take years and decades to play out. At least it isn't a formal religion, as those waves take centuries and millennia.

PS, Do you see a problem with the cosmic model presuming space expands, but then assumes an otherwise stable speed of light? It certainly seems to me that if you have a stable frame vs. an expanding frame, the stable one would be considered foundational.