An Accidental Universe

doug,

Yes. I agree. But with caveats; As infinite electron microscopes confirm, there is no such thing as a 'point' (Paul please note that point! (lol). If it is non zero spatially when at rest it in NOT a 'point! If it IS zero, then it does not exist so is only metaphysical. 'Lines' are the same. If they have zero thickmness they CANNOT EXIST. So let's be clear, points and lines are metaphysical, so of very limited use use for any physical theory.

When a non zero point moves it becomes another 3D form, so a tube, torus or helix (i.e. DNA as a 'tube). Now, insofar as a helix may be said from any viewpoint to describe a fluctuation, which is a REAL motion of a real entity, then it is a physical entity (Unfortunately we again lost Paul at the start line).

In fact I'd go further, pointing out the matter of 'spin' which infers that all particles are in motion, and again do not exist if there is no 'spin'!

But now let's stop assuming things and look more carefully at what 'speed' and 'motion' are. They are relative concepts. Something we to oft ignore. Find a particle in space, then tell me if it's 'moving'.

You're immediately in trouble. You have to find some datum. And yo CAN'T say it's moving with respect to it's previous 'rest' state, because that STATE may equally be considered to have been motion, and the acceleration actually deceleration, to a stop!

So: Analysis; There must always be a local background frame as a datum state for any 'speed'. Yes?

(This is VERY fundamental so requires the removal of decades of stupidities - and will prove VERY important).

Peter

John,

Frequency and amplitude are not equivalent; they are measured independently. A higher frequency, e.g., does not imply a higher or lower wave amplitude.

Regarding time and temperature, the same applies: time does not run faster or slower with an increase in temperature. Temperature measures the difference in speed between faster moving and slower moving molecules in a given domain, and averages them -- that says nothing about what an individual molecule is doing, no more than an increased frequency of oscillations (a complete cycle of crest and trough) says anything about the amplitude of the wave.

Getting back to the meter stick and the gradations marked thereon -- a meter stick is useful for measuring lengths less than the stick or any interval marked on it. It is not useful for measuring how many intervals there are in the universe. If time and temperature were equivalent, this would be the case -- because as every mathematician knows, there are as many points in this line: __ , as there are in this one: _____________, and as many in both as in the whole universe. How many? -- infinite.

It is the same with temperature -- there are an infinite states in which particles may be found, in any interval. If you understand Albrecht's hypothesis, you'll see that the free choice of interval determines the initial (cosmological) condition that led to the state.

This means that whatever mantra you invoke to try and identify time with temperature as a smooth function of uniform motion (E.g., "Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the Earth rotates"), the physics is against you. Tomorrows and yesterdays are all of one piece, and their clocks are random variables.

Tom

A mathematical proof is what was presented by (Matthew F. Pusey, Jonathan Barrett and Terry Rudolph) on 02-28-2012 from the Imperial College London's mathematics department. "On the reality of the quantum state", in this article they reached the conclusion that wave functions actually exist.

The conclusion that wave functions exist had already been proven physically and peer-review published over a year before that publication. The mathematical proof was attacked because the logic could be attacked. The physical proof was validated when formulations were produced to explain the motion of binary stars. The physical proof not only said wave functions exist but it was the first successful link between quantum-like structures and the complex motion of stars. It also explained why wave functions exist. The physical proof showed that quantum mechanics has absolutely nothing to do with scale, a number of experiments had already conjectured a no scale limit. Is FQXi the place for ideas that work? When an idea actually works there is a different response to it than ideas that are conjectures. The response is usually to systematic attack to remove access to the literature. Prof. Albrecht has a conjecture which in part can be proven correct.

Take the double slit experiment. Take two sources and build a wall between them such that they are isolated one source from the other. Each impinges on its own slit. Behind the slits, is the screen upon which the source photons (electrons) ultimately end up. When "either/or" (but not both) source is on, the screen will reflect a single line, as the Spatial wavefront had nothing to interefere with. Nonetheless it was a spatial wavefront, not a stream of particles.

With both sources on, there will be two wavefronts, each source sending the spatial form of its orginal particle through its own slit, and we see the interferrence pattern.

CIG - explains the creation of new Space from Matter: MTS

doug,

I reported on a number of similar experiments here; Aberration

The the 'one line' isn't the right description as fringes derive from the slit edges of a single slit, but this even more strongly confirms wave based theory. In fact the HFP describes the positions and amplitudes very well.

Two separate sources are a big problem as their phases would have to be tuned in advance!

The waves are quantized again on interaction with the surface, so giving the illusion of particles.

The claims of firing single photons' are also unproven and remain highly suspect. It's only just now been shown probably possible possible to keep a single one extant within a cavity for picoseconds!

Matter is however created as easily as em waves 'striking' others, i.e. at the refractive plane transition zone. The Unruh effect put it down to 'acceleration' but it hasn't been found as it's not, it's simple relative speed through the QV. AE called it the photo-electric effect, or photo-ionization when very first discovered and not understood (as still seems largely the case now!).

I agree when the focussed energy that is matter reverts back to dark energy (annihilation) it still takes up space!

Peter

Copy of APS post ref Coin Toss findings of Tempt Destiny project of Manuel Morales. (for anyone interested in chance)

You asked, if ".. I'm saying causality is also exclusively probabilistic." then how do you know? What makes probability probable?

OK, two ways. Firstly from first principles considering every reaction to every causal action in the universe has a PAD, so non zero likelihood. That is my (new); 'Law of the Reducing (not excluded) Middle'. Of course selection defines the particular QPAD for each case, and what area of the curve we're working in (a PAD of PADS) but, as I said earlier, even dropping the coin directly over the cup there's a small non-zero chance it will bounce out. (PAD is 'probability amplitude distribution').

Secondly mechanistic and using quantum dynamic logic. There's now a better Lagrangian based method using LCS's, but consider a vector field; a balloon filled with gas with 100bn particles, each with different unique vectors. Send a soliton or short EM signal through it. Then two more identical ones. Each will causally interact and scatter with the gas particles it encounters.

But their state on exiting will depend on the state of the particle or surface 'last scattered', so each will be found different. Navier-Stokes finds the computable limit, which seems never better than within ~25%.

However. don't loose sight of the Lagrangian angle, which clarifies the matter of kinetic objectivity. In practice this means the balloon itself may be assigned a group state of motion, which, from a lab frame, and using Clausius's virial theorem, will then be an average of all the gas particle vectors. The is equivalent to the Montevideo interpretation of QM. Now the important bit. Light passes through the balloon at c wrt the balloon, which is a DISCRETE FIELD kinetically (or 'inertial system' or 'frame'), so conserves 'objectivity', which then also produces the underlying mechanism for CSL, with scintillation!

If the observer moves then the balloon velocity relative to him varies. He may then see apparent c+v (don't panic!) but nothing is actually propagating at c

Anonymous,

It has long been known that quantum theory cannot be internally consistent if it does not apply to the entire universe. In other words, if "the quantum" were not independent of magnitude, there would be no smooth connection between what we call quantum and classical domains; if we could tell the difference, the world would operate by different physics at the two scales. We know, however, that there is no physical point of demarcation between quantum and classical mechanics.

I think that Pusey, et al, are not so much concerned with proving that the wave function is real, as they are in showing that information is real: " ... many will continue to view the quantum state as representing information. One approach is to take this to be information about possible measurement outcomes, and not about the objective state of a system. Another is to construct concrete models of reality wherein one or more of our assumptions fail."

The physical reality of information is Wheeler's conjecture -- a world made entirely of information corresponds perfectly to mathematical theories of communication, and the whole of physics is comprised of bodies in communication.

Do bodies fail to communicate? -- according to relativity, only when causally separated by distances that light cannot have traveled.

If we apply the relativistic limit to the quantum universe, a continuous wave function (field theory) implies a multiverse -- i.e., we cannot speak of the collapse of the wavefunction; we must consider it a physically real phenomenon and test it against field-theoretic relativity. If general relativity fails, so does quantum field theory -- which is no victory for quantum mechanics, because now "the quantum" has no way to communicate with any other quantum, which is how Pusey et al " ... present a no-go theorem: if the quantum state merely represents information about the real physical state of a system, then experimental predictions are obtained which contradict those of quantum theory."

The information, IOW, has to be physical. An objective state.

I appreciate that you can say, "The physical proof showed that quantum mechanics has absolutely nothing to do with scale, a number of experiments had already conjectured a no scale limit. Is FQXi the place for ideas that work? When an idea actually works there is a different response to it than ideas that are conjectures."

That's sociology, though, not science. An idea that works on FQXi works in any other venue.

"The response is usually to systematic attack to remove access to the literature. Prof. Albrecht has a conjecture which in part can be proven correct."

Oh, I think it is correct -- in principle. What doubters want is more than internal consistency -- they want something like Einstein's eclipse experiment. Pusey et al may explain the motion of binary stars -- (research I'm not personally familiar with, but sounds interesting and I'll look into it) -- yet so may other competing theories. A novel prediction is more convincing.

Be assured, though, that belief in collapse of the wavefunction won't die easily.

Tom

Paul,

When I stare at a blank page for a long time, I see time wasted. Is existence a waste of time? I like to think not. But I can accept it may also be. Conclusion? Existence is what you make of it! But try telling that to physicists!!!

Constantinos

Tom,

Again, I did not say they are equivalent. They are different aspects of the same phenomena. If you have a blue square, does that mean blue and square are equivalent, because they are both features of the same entity????

Regarding time,it is a measure of change. Consider a clock on the ground, vs. one in GPS satellite. They both use the same, precise amount of energy to generate one cycle, yet the one on the ground goes slower than the one in orbit. Is that because there is some four dimensional geometry, with all its blocktime, wormholes, etc, causing the ground clock to have a longer time vector, or is it because gravity exerts drag on it, much as a car climbing a hill will not go as far on the same amount of gas as one on flat ground. Would you say the car more affected by the very same gravity as the ground clock travels a different time vector than the one on the flat, or would you just push the gas pedal in and give it more energy?

As for temperature, those particles are bouncing into one another and trading energy around, so that the faster ones slow down and the slow ones speed up. This process is otherwise known as entropy. An effect which Sean Carroll has spent a great deal of effort trying to tie to the arrow of time.

Time is a measure of change and change is variable. On that we seem to agree.

John,

I`m responding to your post that`s on this same thread, entry dated February 14th, which was in response to my post, of the same entry date.

You wrote, "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."

Would it matter if the action was regular or non-regular?

The Earth`s rotational motion is the fundamental physical mechanism that is responsible for maintaining our confusion over the nature of time. It can be described as a cyclical metronome.

Many things arise from the constant regularity of the Earth`s rotational motion. It has a major role in creating our weather, it provides us with night and day, and carries us travelling at a surface speed of 1,600 kilometers per hour at the equator, to name a few.

As I said in my previous post, "What if we have motion in our timeless Universe? What if our clocks only measure durations elapsing?"

Is realy interesting to see how everybody speaks of "proper time", "choice of time keeper", "time-temperature" "co.ordinate time" etc, and nobody cares to knoe what it is "time" "the time nature". I suppose is because nobody believes this can be know. Reason because nobody did solve the time problem in the past, then nobody will solve such a problem, then if somebody say he did, he must be mad or is realy confused. Since Heraclito nobody did it but finally after the last 2630 years accidentaly "the problem of time" was solve, if yhou manage to found some hope, just read my january 16th post and you will began to solve it.

Hector

"If you have a blue square, does that mean blue and square are equivalent, because they are both features of the same entity????"

If you have a blue square intersecting a red square, are the squares features of the same entity? That's the claim you made with the analogy to frequency and amplitude/time and temperature.

Tom

Tom,

Wow! You actually do undertstand what I say.

Yes. Time and temperature are measures of the energy permeating space.

Constantinos

Considering existence in all its possible forms is, in my opinion, a waste of time, because by definition, 'anything goes' (or as you say: "what you make of it"). Presuming the incorrect constitution of the physical existence which we can know and is being investigated can result in fatal flaws in heories. And that physical existence which we can know, can be defined. It is simplke to establish, generically, what physical process underpins our ability to know it, and given that, how it must occur (exist). This is, of course a closed system, and a definition from within it. But that is all we can know. We can believe endless concepts, but that is not science. One has to suppress that innate desire amongst humans to 'discover the meaning of life'.

Paul

John

Time, or more precisely timing, is a measure of the rate at which change occurs, irrespective of what it is, and why it occurred.

Paul

Hector

The physical reality underpinning the concept of time is change. It does not matter what this alteration involves, movement being just one example. Apart from what changed, why, and what was the sequence order, change occurs at a rate. And that is what timing is measuring. Timing devices involve change so that comparison and identification of difference can be effected, and within the realms of practicality they are synchronised to a conceptual constant rate. That is the reference for the system of measurement known as timing, not any given measuring device. Otherwise the system would be useless.

Einstein failed to understand this. He presumed that in order to achieve synchronisation, the 'local time' (ie as told by any given timing device) had to be recalibrated to reveal 'common time'. Unless they were in the "immediate proximity"! This is nonsense. Timing devices are, by definition, synchronised. More importantly, physical existence occurs at a time, each constituent part thereof does not have its 'own time' of existence. He thought this was the explanation, because his other fundamental flaw was to not differentiate physical existence from the photon based representation thereof, which is what we receive. In other words, he shifted a real timing difference from one end of the physical process to the other. There is always a delay between the time of physical existence and the time of receipt of a photon based representation thereof. And leaving aside other factors, this is fundamentally a function of distance. There is no timing within any given physical existence, that can only occur at a singular time.

Paul

This is partly just to say that on this thread Anon and Anonymous are different from Anonymousse. But I must say, people at the top of a field (such as Smolin and others) will sometimes admit the problems more honestly that people further down. To understand the problems with the flow of time, which you say you don't, you just need to read a little, instead of constantly consulting your own intuition. Then you'd know about how a rigourous proof was found that this motion (which you both imply exists constantly, often without realising it) can't possibly exist at all, assuming the standard view of SR is right. So you need either to argue within the standard view, or to argue from outside it, and show why you think it's wrong. If you do neither, then it's pretty much hot air.

John,

Believe it or not, I work hard at trying to understand what you say. :-) So please try and understand what I find:

You write, "Time and temperature are measures of the energy permeating space."

Think about what "energy" and "measure" mean. As a field concept, the energy continuum varies in density of indefinite measure, except as a directly measured input value to force times length -- either manifest kinetic energy or potential energy. "Length" in the continuum of spacetime is not independent of time -- though temperature is.

Neither time nor temperature are of themselves physically real quantities. One cannot assign a value to temperature that is useful for accurately predicting a future generalized quantum state (there's a saying among statisticians -- stand with one foot in the fire and another in a bucket of ice, and on the average, you'll be comfortable). At the extreme, consider black hole temperature (Hawking radiation) as a function of statistical fluctuations near the event horizon; no smoothness there.

As Albrecht demonstrates, there is also no standard of time independent of space that suggests the smooth "permeation" that you believe in.

Bottom line: time and temperature are independent measures, not physically real. If you truly think as you have said, that "mathematics is a tool, not a god" then you have to reject your own thesis about time and temperature, because these tools of mathematical convenience have no godly attributes.

Tom

Tom,

"time and temperature are independent measures, not physically real"

I certainly agree time is simply a measure, "mathematical convenience," if you will, but why then is spacetime "physically real?"

As for temperature, if you were to pour hot water into cold water, it would be quite simple to guess what the temperature will be in the future.

As for space and temperature, can you propose temperature independent of volume? And where did I say time is independent of space?

What are more basic physical situations than the cosmic background radiation and vacuum fluctuation, both of which would seem to be thermodynamic conditions, than spacetime ones?