An Accidental Universe

OK Edwin re read it. I agree that there is not a hard, exact cut off between life and death.I can calculate the likelihood of my fish surviving in a particular environment.They is a grey area though where death is not quick. Lack of oxygen is a stressor even if it does not kill quickly and the fish might succumb because of that stress. Other factors also come in to play such as, in that example, the state of health of the fish- As I said elsewhere recently, the mathematics is completely joined up as is the material world. We can not just take one factor in isolation when considering complex organisms or organisations of matter.I don't think there being more than one relation at a time having an effect makes the mathematical relationship unreal. (Perhaps we will just have to differ on this as we do on other matters).

Edwin,

Would you agree a uniform speed of light in a vacuum means that area has a stable metric? If two points move apart, that it takes longer for light to cross the gap, that is an increased amount of a stable measure.

Georgina,

I think a large part of the problem is assuming light travels as a point particle. It is absorbed at discrete points , but if it expands out and travels as an ever more diffuse bubble of energy, redshifting would be natural effect.

Math tries to create a stable model of a dynamic reality and that is all well and good, as long as understand it is a conceptual tool and not think the resulting "blocktime" is physically real. That's every bit as delusional as thinking giant cosmic gearwheels control the planets and stars.

Edwin I have been following the current situation, but to me it's a bit like Gorbachev trying perestroka and glasnost, thinking just a little reform will suffice. I know you do have aspects of Big Bang cosmology built into your view, but have you considered that when it all does finally crumble in a cloud of dust,if that will survive, or will that prove to be unsupportable? Keep in mind that if the James Webb telescope ever makes it up, finding evidence of galactic structures less than a billion lightyears further out will really cause problems.

Pardon the grammar. Phone typing.

John,

I've watched much (make that some) of the back and forth on relativity this last year on FQXi and in other domains and I've decided not to participate in it. For my 2 cents Daryl Janzen's FQXi essay was the best place to try to understand some of these issues, plus his dissertation. Just last night I was in a meeting with some physicists who seemed surprised that one could consider an alternative to 'block time'. So I'll pass on your question. I've spent a good part of the last week trying to derive a reasonable correspondence between Einstein's photon energy E=hf and Maxwell's energy density as a function of the electromagnetic fields. Despite the simplistic way these things are bantered about in discussions, I don't find them to be simple. That's one reason I've been fascinated by Kauffmann's work I mentioned above. He has some ideas that don't seem to make it into textbooks, yet his logic appears correct to me (as does his math).

While some of the current cosmological models are wrong in my opinion, most of them are extremely simple, although one would not realize this just by looking at the math framework in which they are couched. Also, having, just for fun, sat in on Susskind's current Cosmology course at Stanford, I can tell you that the anomalies that interest me are not even mentioned. I don't really care that the data you mention may threaten the current models, I have not yet seen any data that makes me worry about my model. I think you put more faith in the data or the models than I do. Cosmological data is subject to several assumptions, which may be wrong. But if the big bang goes away, I would certainly need some source of extremely high energy to make my model work. I've told you before I cannot conceive of endless time and space, while if I assume a big-bang-like state of the universe, the processes in my model seem to lead to what we see today, especially including many of the anomalies that are showing up. As I said, we'll see.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

Given they say the LHC is producing energies close to the BB, wouldn't the cosmic jets out the poles of galaxies be close?

As I see it, time is effect of action, so the issue is rather whether action has a start and finish, so it seems easier, for me, to think of it as eternal, because that solves the creation issue. As for space, similarly, having it bound introduces more questions than having it infinite. Infinity also solves the entropy issue, since energy radiated out is replaced by energy radiating in. There is no non-space space for the universe to expand into and fade.(Temperature and volume are as interrelated as time and distance.) Also, given what is assumed with inflationary cosmology, there better not be any other universes in the way, or even residue of prior ones, as monsterous holes would have been ripped in ours. If need be, since physics doesn't like space as background, think of it as an unbounded frame.

It's not that I put faith in the data, but since I view time as similar to temperature, sort of like the frequency and amplitude of energy, then the geometry of spacetime is only a model of action, not the basis for it and an expanding universe is essentially similar to blocktime, wormholes, etc. Since no one can professionally question BBT, only evidence will dent it.

I see the expansion of energy balanced by the contraction of gravity as a large cosmic convection cycle. As I keep pointing out, galaxies are not just inert points. They are gravity wells. Einstein proposed the cosmological constant because he thought gravity would cause the universe to collapse to a point. What Hubble discovered was Einstein's cosmological constant, the expansion between gallaxies, to match the contraction of them.

I don't see the point I keep making about time as a question, so much as an observation, but if you want to pose it to them as a question, ask; "Does the earth really travel the fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, or does tomorrow become yesterday because the earth rotates? In other words, is time foundational to action, or an effect of it?" Probably they will just look at you funny and continue whatever they were discussing.

Regards,

John

Georgina,

"The mathematical relations of surface area to volume determines what forms of gill work are best and so the life forms able to survive and reproduce in the material universe. Insufficient gill surface area the fish will not be able to generate enough energy from its food. It will be at a disadvantage compared to those with a better ratio, and will be less likely to survive. "

It seems there is an inherent instability in these relationships, such that they are always cycling around a mean and this is cycling around other means, etc. All the instabilties balance out, yet even the larger balances are cycling in their own scales....

I think you could even graph out physical theories and how they rise and fall.

Edwin,

Keep in mind that relativity treats time and space as measures of duration and distance. Clock and ruler. Nothing more and nothing less. So the math derived is quite accurate. It's the assumptions of what these measure are, that is the issue. A ruler is one static device, but a clock is a measure of a system in action, so treating time as fundamentally static is flawed.

With space, whether it is distance, area, or volume, you are measuring space, but with time, you are measuring action.

Edwin

Now Constantinos is going to love this, because whilst I have been pointing out that maths is not inherently valid, I would not agree with your statement that maths is 'not real', assuming I understood it correctly.

The validity/reality of maths, as with any representational device, is dependent upon its correlation with what is being depicted (ie physical existence). But we can only depict it. In other words, we cannot externalise ourselves from our existence and check if any given depiction is correct. We are actually comparing one depiction with another when testing validity. So, assuming it is correctly derived, then that representation must be deemed to be 'it', as there is nothing else. Obviously, the maths per se (ie the numbers) is not physical existence, but I rather presumed the people you refer to have not made that simple a mistake!

The test of validity remains intrinsic, but this is acceptable as proof within the closed system of our existence. And in our case the reference revolves around experienceability/ detectability. The problem here being that several areas of physics are investigating aspects of physical existence which are not directly experienceable, hence the use of the maths depiction in the first place. The danger being that whilst internally valid, according to the rules of maths, the model constructed does not depict physical existence, and therefore should not be deemed to be it. Because the start presumptions did not correspond with the form that physical existence must have.

Paul

John,

Now I remember another reason I've refrained from entering into some of the perennial discussions. They're very time consuming. And they don't appear to go anywhere. I commented yesterday and today because Steven Kauffmann brought some new ideas to the table which I find very interesting. They concern issues about quantum field theory that I think are of real significance, and I wanted to bring others attention to his papers. What I don't want to do is dispute ideas of time and space and action, about which a trillion words can be said and still nothing resolved, as some of these threads prove. And those who think math is 'real' will go on thinking that. I can't conceive of eternal time and infinite space. You say you can. It will never get beyond that. I find many of your bio-socio-political ideas are simpatico with mine, and you sometimes come out with a real jewel of an expression. So I peruse your comments when I have time. But we're not going to come to any significant agreement on our theories of the universe and I don't enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing as some appear to. So I'm going to beg off here and try to get back to work on something I can make progress on. Thanks for interacting, and don't take this personally. I'm just short of time.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

John,

yes I agree the relations don't appear exactly fixed but there is some variation. What I think is important is that things do not exist in isolation but in relation to everything else in the local internal and external environment, which gives the forces that act to give the structure or arrangement. Whether a pattern exists because of the mathematics or the mathematics exists because of the pattern is not important, it seems to me, they go hand in hand. I don't really see now how a pattern can be real without also being a natural,applied, mathematical expression of the relations pertaining to that arrangement. It can be described with words or it can be described with some kind of mathematical language or abstract representation. That description is separate from the thing described though -theoretical not part of the material reality.

Edwin,

No problem. I Try to limit how much I bang my head on the wall as well, but don't have the option of pursuing it professionally.

I can't say I can conceive infinity either, as we are all bound by horizon lines. Definition is limitation and limitation is definition. As I've argued, perception is inherently subjective. So it's not so much seeing infinitely, as explaining how there are absolute bounds to space and action.

Georgina,

I don't want to appear to be taking one side of the coin of energy vs. patterns, as I do see them as two sides of the relationship. Energy manifests patterns and patterns define energy. It just seems to me that physics does tend to get wrapped up in the patterns and loses sight of the energy. Mass and structure are patterns manifesting, so they very much are physically real, but then when ideas like blocktime and multiworlds are considered, it ignores the reality of the energy. It can't manifest successive or multiplying states. Not only due to conservation of energy, but also because change is an essential characteristic of energy. As well as that the essential fact of choosing one direction over another is a primary feature of patterns in the first place. Energy manifesting multiple states just cancels out, like white noise.

Hiii Georgina,

Do you know of any other quantum anomalies and/or cosmological conundrums that CIG Theory may explain and that I could work on (no math pleasez)?

www.CIGTheory.com

Something I could think about while at work. Or while falling asleep at night.

THX

doug

Edwin,

Keep in mind this goes to the heart of my observation that by trying to eliminate infinities from the universe, they have ended up with an infinity of universes.

Rob,

We're not that far apart.

I agree that intelligent life *programs* run on every substrate. Because of this demonstrable fact, though, one has to make the reasonable assumption that the potential for consciousness inheres in every particle, because programs are not conscious.

I'll look up your book and read it if I can.

You wrote, "In my FQXI essay, I agree that all such interpretations (MWI et al) are equally valid. But I also stressed the point, that none of them *explain* anything. They are not part of *THE THEORY*, they were created external to the theory, per se, and slapped onto it, after the fact, like a post-it note."

This is certainly not true of the many worlds hypothesis, as it is based on a non-collapsing wave function. That *is* the theory. The mechanics of the theory support a continuous wave function by probability theory which admits the equally likely hypothesis.

It isn't surprising to me that you and Edwin are in accord philosophically -- because Edwin and I are also close, in our support of continuous function physics, i.e., field theory. Where we part company is in the number of dimensions required to sustain continuous functions -- I find that there are not enough degrees of freedom in 4-dimensional spacetime. This accords with string theory, the multiverse and of course, Joy Christian's framewrok.

You write:

"Regarding:

'In standard quantum theory supported by Bell's theorem...'

I think we both agree that Bell's *purported* theorem is not valid, although we have quite different reasons for our mutual conclusion. Invalid theorems support nothing."

It isn't the mathematics of Bell's theorem that I have a problem with. One gets into a semantic trap to speak of invalid theorems, since a theorem is true by definition. There are plenty of theorems (the Pythagoras theorem, e.g.) that are proven in contexts that have nothing to do with physics.

"Regarding:

'equaly likely' hypothesis at the center of probability theory ...'

"To me, probability theory is a branch of mathematics. Physical observations and theories can explain nothing about mathematics. Mathematics however, can be used to describe low-information-content phenomenon, like physics; In that sense (and no other) it can explain something."

I don't know any mathematician who will admit to mathematics having any information content *at all* -- any more than the English alphabet of itself conveys useful information. To the extent that mathematical structures describe physical information, they are no different from the sentence "See Spot run" that describes kinetic energy.

"Now if you want to consider the proposition that 'The new and critical thing that Albrecht introduces' explains why the mathematics of probability theory has been found to be a useful tool for developing physical theories, that might be of some interest."

He doesn't explain it -- he only says that his models suggest that ambiguous time leads to multiple cosmological initial conditions. I am the one who says that probability theory supports that hypothesis in the context of the many worlds hypothesis.

"But The Equally Likelihood hypothesis, has more to do with physicists, than physics. It is primarily concerned not with 'what is?', but with what do we 'intelligent life forms' known about what is."

I don't have a problem with that. Objective knowledge is itself concerned with what we know, not with "what is."

"In other words, it has less to do with what happened at the dawn of creation (or anything else outside ourselves), than with what is presently going on within our minds."

Is there a difference? Choose a point where creation began -- in the 4-dimensional Riemannian geometry of continuous spacetime, you will find that that point lies everywhere. Outside your mind, and within it.

Tom

Tom

"Objective knowledge is itself concerned with what we know, not with "what is."

Obviously we can never know what 'really' is, because there is always the possibility of an alternative. But objective knowledge is what is, as far as we can know, and what is potentially available for us to know is definitive and exists in a specific form.. And that has nothing whatsoever to do with consciousness/mind. Somewhat obviously. Because the brain/sensory system processes a physical input received. Something physically existed previously and independently. All the processing does is enable sentient organisms to be aware of that receipt. A brick also receives that physical input, but cannot process it. And incidentally, what is physically received is not the existential sequence anyway, but a physically existent representation of it caused by a physical interaction with it at the time of its occurrence. One type of such a physical phenomenon being light.

Paul

Mathematicians understand conjecture as a necessary but unwanted part of the field for it is proof that they seek. Physicist seem to want conjecture rather than proof via experiment because it is an untestable conjecture or question the generates funding.

Physicists do not yet know how many independent physical constants there are.

Version 1.

G and c not depend from each other and not vary.This is silent agreement of modern physics.

Version 2.

G and c depend from each other and vary.

Version 3.

G and c not depend from each other but depend from third value of expanded medium of the Universe,from time.They vary synchronously.

Acceleration of the expansion of Universe is direct proof variation of constants.

Version 1 and version 3 chance 50/50 but supported only 1

Yuri.

I select door #2:

Version 2. G and c depend from each other and vary.

and we are talking G = gravitational constant and c = speed of light constant , (I hope)

G & "c" are not constants (nor is the cosmological constant constant)

Gravitational fields vary (the degree to which they vary determines the particle they become): F = G m1 m2 / r2

r2 F = G m1 m2

r2 F / m1 m2 = G

At "c" mass disappears and becomes its spatial equivalent.

Nearing "c", m1 m2 get smaller and smaller.

This appears to make G very big.

Where, "c" varies, m varies as well. This affects G (I don't know to much about G)

Door #2

Try to understand (www.CIGTheory.com) & maybe some of my other posts make sense too

space and time (variations of %"c") become the matter. MTS

was this the "G" & "c" you were talking about???

Here's what you could have had behind door #3......

THX

doug

There is a fine experimental line between physics and philosophy. You are on either one side or the other but never both. When was the last prediction a physicist made and was confirmed? Everybody has a theory of an after the fact observation.