An Accidental Universe

Tom,

It presents an entirely logical and well reasoned argument, but it does raise a significant issue; How do the emergent, higher orders arise from this apparently chaotic, quantum state? How do the probabilities collapse into actualities? Presumably it isn't observer generated.

Paul,

The fundamental question for me is whether we can truly know "what is" the Universe. I compare this question to truly knowing another human being. In this way of considering the question, the answer for me is clear. NO! What is your answer?

Constantinos

They are not probabilities! Actual Space, the new Space that was created during the quantum expansion, collapses to a point particle. This collapse is analogous to the Spacetime [Space in the form of Volume / Time in the form of a slowing down] curvature collapse whereby black holes are formed. The "probability" is reality in the form of a newly created extended space. This is the same space (wave) that goes through both slits in the duble slit experiment.

And, the process follows a desire to reach Time Equilibrium. Everything is tring to reach time equilibrium.

Why can't anyone understand this?

Where am I going wrong with my explanation?

Peter - how does your theory explain the double slit (no math please) ?

Tom,

Since virtually everything else breaks down into that elemental quantum foam, why is it a mystery classical probability does as well?

The mystery is how the classical reality emerges in the first place. Currently the sum of leading physics theories is that it's some observer generated anthropic perception of a quantum multiworlds. That is a pretty broad range of possibility from which this particular reality on this particular planet has coalesced. Given the nearly infinite range of quantum probability in a spoonful of sugar, it is safe to say we are not much closer to really understanding reality than Plato trying to figure out the shadows in that cave.

I still don't see why the thermodynamic properties of that quantum realm are not considered as or more foundational as the vector of change called time.

Constantinos

Absolutely, no we cannot know the "universe". I am assuming this is another word for existence, or what 'really' exists. The reason for this being that we are part of existence, and therefore cannot transcend it in order to know what it is. And that is the whole point. The corollary being, we can know something, but that is a closed system. And so the question becomes, what physical process underpins knowing/that closed system (as opposed to believing), and then how can that which we can know physically exist. [Note: somewhat obviously, but I feel the need to say it, knowing includes properly constructed hypothesis, ie to overcome instances whereby the process is impeded by some identifiable issue, and therefore in the absence of 'directly' knowing, we can hypothesise what was potentially knowable].

I would suggest that anybody on this forum, when given a blank sheet of paper and faced with the question: 'what, generically, is happening?', could come up with a reasonable to comprehensive response within an hour. It is simple. The real issue is that this then highlights the underlying flaws in certain theories.

Paul

Peter

"A wave is a graphical representation of a fluctuation of a physical quantity or quality"

So, how has your "whole thesis rejected point particles"? One has to have point particles to have a wave, and reference one over time to know that it is a wave.

Your next point in your response is incorrect. A 'detector' is any entity which comes into contact with light. Whether or not that entity can subsequently process some physical effect in the photons (aka light) received is irrelevant. Light is a physically existent phenomenon, which needs explanation, as such, ie what is it, how does it move, etc, and not what the brain does with it.

Paul

If it moves, it becomes spatial, and is no longer a point particle. It is a wave, and the faster it moves, the more it waves, and the more it can experience diffraction, interferrence (constructive and destructive). Somewhere I posted that Quantum reduces to Classical only when the "now particle" (black hole) stops. Only then is it no longer waving.

Time dilation manifests itself as the Space Creation. As a spatial object, the particle can go through both holes rather readily. The wave is not a Probability. It is reality.

It collapses (reality) according to the desire to reach Time Equilibrium (alternately, rate of travel). "c" is the limit at which the entire particle has turned completely spatial. Anything less, and we have spatial forms of less than Dark Energy. At zero "c" we have a black hole (point parrticle).

As it moves, it sheds mass. Einstein is incorrect when he states that mass gets infinitely heavy as it approaches "c". On thhe contrary, it has lost all its mass. This mass has become the Space that accounts for the expanding uiniverse.

Energy has been conserved.

Does anyone agree with my theory? www.CIGTheory.com

John,

First, we have to be on the same page .

You and others assume what you expect "reality" has to be, according to your logical intuition, thus letting your personal beliefs color your opinion. Albrecht and Phillips don't make that mistake -- whereas you ask, "How do the emergent, higher orders arise from this apparently chaotic, quantum state? How do the probabilities collapse into actualities?" -- they ask, what happens if all randomness is fundamentally quantum?

Then there is no collapse. The "equally likely" hypothesis of mathematical probability applies across every scale. This is the same essential finding of the Joy Christian model -- though while Christian's research is concerned with reproducing quantum correlations in the S^7 topological limit, Albrecht generalizes without limit, finding that n-dimension extension of quantum probability implies a continuous function. If one understands how analysis and probability fundamentally work, this should be a VERY exciting research direction, because it points to how they can work TOGETHER -- i.e., continuous probability without boundary is a continuous function of unbounded time.

The framework also has the potential to explain the relativistic limit of our own "pocket" of the multiverse -- why time is a simple parameter of reversible trajectory, while other pockets are not constrained by this parameter. Which might be a very strong clue to the apparent self organized nature of our world, for which self-limitation is essential.

Tom

Paul,

In an earlier post, to my "I agree there are no fundamental physical laws that can describe the Universe" you say, "Incorrect".

In your last post to me, you write "no we cannot know the universe".

How can we know "fundamental physical laws that can describe the Universe" yet not know what is the Universe?

Please explain.

Constantinos

Sorry, lost my log in.

Tom

Tom,

Obviously I fall in the second camp. Something is missing.

I would agree that cat is necessarily self limiting, but that doesn't seem to be what they are saying.

The math may well be pointing to pocket universes, but there do seem to emergent levels of constraints not fully explained by a strictly bottom up theory.

To put it in biological terms, it seems to get to the viral level, but not be able to explain higher orders. Is that due to insufficient levels of complexity, or is something being overlooked on a fundamental level.

Obviously I've expressed various thoughts on the subject, not to have to repeat them, but from a strictly tactical viewpoint, sometimes stepping backward a few steps can give perspective that is not visible from close inspection.

Time is the same throughout physics formulation with the exception of thermodynamics. If you can accept the fact that space vibrates, you have a real clock with an arrow of time. The FOXi community is the best place for new ideas but is it the best place for ideas that work? What a proof means is someone is wrong. What a physical proof means is many people are obviously wrong. Do you think FOXi is the place for proof?

" ... sometimes stepping backward a few steps can give perspective that is not visible from close inspection."

If you really did think that, John, you would see that the many worlds hypothesis is as far back as one can step. More important, though, it has the advantage of being tractable to technical treatment as a physical framework. Your view simply doesn't have that foundation.

Tom

Anonymous,

There's no such thing as a physical proof. Physical validation of a scientific theory is simply the correspondence between mathematical theory (which is only component of science supported by formal proofs) and physical phenomena as observed.

Accepting that "space vibrates" (quantum fluctuations) is actually what Albrecht's research begins with. We know that Nature's thermodynamic "real clock with an arrow of time" is not singular, or else spacetime fluctuations would be meaningless -- i.e., if the "clock" only ticked one time, the world would have a singular smooth history and quantum mechanics would not exist. In the Albrecht framework, clocks tick continuously at local rates that vary in an infinite, perfect randomness (cf. coin toss probability).

The idea certainly works, because it allows an exact standard of disorder against which to measure the origin of every manifestation of order in our world.

Why would FQXi not be an appropriate place to air ideas that work?

Tom

Regarding: "Accepting that "space vibrates" (quantum fluctuations) is actually what Albrecht's research begins with." :

Back and forth, back and forth, forth and back, Matter to Space, Space to Matter, virtual particles out of thin Space, Black Holes from Spacetime, Expanding Universe from Stellar matter, new Bohr orbitals, back and forth; this is all in CIG's equation!: MTS

Please understand the theory.

Tom,

"We know that Nature's thermodynamic "real clock with an arrow of time" is not singular, or else spacetime fluctuations would be meaningless -- i.e., if the "clock" only ticked one time, the world would have a singular smooth history and quantum mechanics would not exist. In the Albrecht framework, clocks tick continuously at local rates that vary in an infinite, perfect randomness (cf. coin toss probability)."

Doesn't that make time a measure of that activity, like temperature?

John,

"Doesn't that make time a measure of that activity, like temperature?"

This gets the same 'so what' from me, as it always has. Your understanding of the difference between a measurement and a physical phenomenon hasn't advanced in all these years -- your claim about time and temperature is equivalent to saying that a meter stick is identical to the marks on the stick. The statement isn't untrue; neither, however, does it have any physical meaning.

Tom

Tom,

And as usual, you mi-interpret everything I say. Saying time and temperature are equivelant would be like saying frequency and amplitude are equivelant.

Constantinos

Sorry that was just a slip with the negative or the word Universe. My point is that we can have fundamental physical laws to explain physical existence (ie existence as knowable-directly or potentially-to us). We obviously cannot have physical laws to explain existence (or whatever label is used to denote what is 'really' there), because as part of it, we cannot externalise ourselves from it, and hence acquire a reference ahgainst which to judge what it is. The point then being, so what physical process enables awareness of existence (ie knowledge), and hence how can that physical existence occur. In other words, what is physics investigating. Because if it does not first identify that, in logical terms, then it is (and has) very likely that it will slip into metaphysical presumptions about how physical existence is constituted.

So, going back to my last point, why not take a blank sheet of paper, and address the question, what, generically, is happening. Forget all your physics, basic questions, just what physcally enables us to know, what are the key characteristics of this process, how can what we can know physically exist. This might sound trivial, but I can assure you that once those questions are answered, it will become obvious what is wrong with certain major physical theories. I will put up a one page answer in a couple of days for you to compare notes.

Paul