Readers' Choice: Cheating the Causal Game

Jason,

Which goes to another point I keep raising; If space is what you measure with a ruler and the intergalactic ruler is lightyears, how is it that this expansion is presumably to be measured in increasing numbers of them? It would seem this is an expansion IN space, not OF space, as measured in lightyears. If there is this stable metric of space, how is it that every point is the center and not just one point?

What does get overlooked is that galaxies are not just inert points of measure, presumably they are gravitational wells, presumably curving/pulling space in.

And of course, radiating light back out across that void of intergalactic space.

"For instance, if you input 1, 2 and 3 into the box and get out 3, 5 and 7, you could calculate that the box multiplies by 2 and adds one."

This assumed result highlights one of the problems with experimental mathematics. The black box might just as well interpret {1,2,3} as the set {6} and output {3,5,7} as the set {15}, implying 2{X} 3.

Classical arithmetic rational functions do not necessarily apply to the behavior of linear superposition.

Tom

John,

I think nature uses a trick to measure space and time, a trick never thought of by the scientific community. The trick goes like this. Wave functions are existent, but are unmeasurable. The vacuum of space is filled with wave functions of all EM frequencies/wavelengths energies and directions. These wave-functions are intrinsically the cause of the speed of light, permittivity and permeability of free space. These wave functions are entangled into a "weave of space-time" which give it a gravitational constant as well. The evolution of time is emergent from all of the wave-functions. Inertia is just the effect of one's particles using a particular set of these wave-functions. Einstein equivalence forces are the effect of transitioning from one set of wave-functions to another set (with a different momentum).

The wavelengths of the whole range of frequencies in space-time establish a standard of length/distance for nature. These wave-functions oscillate and therefore establish a progression of time. Since all standard model particles are just creations of wave-functions with energy, like kinks in a string, then time is automatically built into the particles via its group of oscillating wave-functions.

A sufficiently advanced civilization would be able to build a hyper-drive space-ship that can detach its particles from the space-time continuum ()sever the connection to the wave functions of the space-time continuum). It then becomes an object in hyperspace, subject to the laws of physics of hyper-space (faster c). The space-ship would just vanish. Hyperspace has its own clock and laws of relativity.

A detection of gravitational discontinuities might be a way to detect the use of hyper-drive technology. If a 100 ton space-ship suddenly vanishes from the space-time continuum, then so too will its gravity vanish as well. It would have to. Otherwise, we would be able to watch this gravitational halo traveling across the universe at multiples of the speed of light.

Jason,

If you sever the connections, you "un-kink" the string and the particles are just their constituent energy? It seems to me the result would be to just radiate away, like ripples on a pond.

As for the point I keep trying to make, that the theory of an expanding universe contradicts its own premise by relying on a constant speed of light, no one refutes it, but no one accepts it. As I recall, Lawrence has been about the only one to even try, by arguing C is only measured locally, which is obvious, as we have no interstellar or galactic measuring devices, but the point is we use lightyears(aprox 6 trillion miles) as the cosmic ruler. Space is what you measure with a ruler. Anyone care to argue that? So if intergalactic space expands, wouldn't that mean the unit used to define it should expand as well? Otherwise it isn't expanding space, but an increasing amount of stable space, ie. an expansion IN space, not OF space. This isn't theory or experiment, just clarifying the concepts being used.

2+2 does not =5. This is a very naked emperor.

"A key idea to achieve such a situation involves the fact that quantum mechanics allows objects to exist in superposition, so that they can be in two or more contradictory states simultaneously;"

QM does not *allow* objects to exist in a superposition, or otherwise. Objects exist however they exist, irregardless of the existence of the Theory of Quantum Mechanics. QM merely *describes* objects as existing in a superposition. However, the fact that such descriptions are both possible and accurate, does not imply that the objects actual exist as a superposition. Superposition is merely a sufficient description, but it has never been demonstrated to be a necessary one, or that objects actually exist in a superposition.

Rob McEachern

John,

I agree with Lawrence that the speed of light is measured locally. In fact, I believe that the speed of light, permitivity and permeability exist as characteristics of existent wave-functions. This way, a quantum physicist might calculate a wave-function for a quantum system, but some invisible phenomenon of nature, at the quantum level, actually behaves like the calculated wave-function. That same invisible phenomenon might be small, but it interacts with others like itself in the quantum vacuum. Over the distance of a light year, I think there are invisible wave-functions that pop into existence (and then vanish); such wave-function phenomena should be highly reactive and responsive to the changing conditions of the world (like opening and closing of slits). They would be conductors of energy (like EM waves), but there existence is ghostly. They are there to facilitate the laws of physics.

As horrific as this idea sounds to atheists, it's almost as if some creator of the universe, God, decided to make the laws of physics operate in a certain way, and then used a spirit like thing (the wave-function) to enforce the existence of the laws of physics. Beyond that, there is no natural reason why the physics constants (h, c) would be what they are. I'm not so sure that G isn't an emergent quantity based on the "aetherial material" used to create space-time.

Now that I've put forward a magical (God did it) explanation, I assume someone will shoot back with a logical/natural reason why singularities just come out of nothingness.

What is the aetherially ghostly invisible substance that space-time geometry and wave-functions are made of? To me, it looks like some kind of magic or miracle that the scientific community ignores.

Jason,

I agree with Lawrence as well, but it has nothing to do with disproving my point.

Singularities drew out of a mathematical description of gravity, so think about gravity for a moment. It pulls you down to earth, but if you were to go to the very center of the earth, you might be crushed to a point by all the actual pressure, but wouldn't the actual effect of gravity be centrifugal, rather than centripetal, since the mass would all be above you? Now take that to the center of the galaxy and what do you have; A very tight vortex that is shooting jets of electrons out the poles. It seems to me that this singularity isn't some collapse into another dimension, but a torsion/tornado like process that is ejecting whatever falls in, back out across the universe in some larger cycle of collapsing mass and expanding energy.

Not to mention dwarf stars that suck in mass into a very rapid spin, until they reach a certain limit and explode.

I think gravity is not so much a property of mass, but an effect of energy collapsing into mass and then into ever denser concentrations of it. When mass turns to energy, it releases pressure, so wouldn't energy collapsing into mass create a vacuum? They can't find dark matter, but there is excesses of cosmic rays in the perimeters of galaxies and those stars on the perimeters tend to be light in metals.

Hi Georgina,

I don't think space-time is the output of data processing (e.g. 1's and 0's). I think space-time and the quantum vacuum are made out of something that is clearly beyond human experience. If I said it was aetheric and spirit-like, that would simply mean that I can't touch it or confine it, yet it has properties (c, h, G...) and does things like produce standard model particles and gravity. Do you know why physics is a "solve the boundary conditions" kind of process? Because I honestly think there is a ghostly -like phenomenon that pops into existence that satisfies the physical boundary conditions. This ghostly like phenomenon allows particles and space-time geometry to exist. Such a phenomenon is dynamic to changing boundary conditions. The wave-function and particle wave duality give us a good idea that this must be how physics is manifesting. So it wouldn't be stacked E8 hyperspheres. And it's not nothingness. Nor is it the manifestation of logic as quantum mechanics kind of scoffs at logic.

John,

I have to think about it.

The universe is a big place. There is a good likelihood that we're not the only intelligent lifeforms out there. What are the chances of there being an intelligent species that figured out how the laws of physics are implemented? Why the physics constants are what they are? Could such an advanced civilization exceed the speed of light?

If science cannot explain how the laws of physics are implemented, then, whether you like it or not, whether you are atheists or not, you are subject to the laws of the Creator, the laws of God.

Georgina, Jason,

Why not at least consider how some of the agreed on points might fit together?

Einstein argued the contraction of mass points under the influence of gravity is a collapse of space. To balance this effect, so the universe doesn't contract to a point, he added the cosmological constant. While this was rejected when other galaxies were discovered to be redshifted, it has ben resurrected by redshift not matching basic Big Bang theory. So we say the galaxies are moving apart because the space inbetween them is expanding. Yet it seems to be forgotten that galaxies are actually contracting space and according to both theory and measurement by COBE and WMAP that these are closely balanced, resulting in overall flat space.

Yet because it is now a given that the universe began at a primordial point and expanded out since, there is no consideration of how these matching effects of expansion and contraction might most effectively fit in a larger cycle.

With all the attention given to symmetries, you would think this most obvious and evident relationship would get some consideration, but not if it conflicts with any ideas careers are built on.

"Yet because it is now a given that the universe began at a primordial point and expanded out since, there is no consideration of how these matching effects of expansion and contraction might most effectively fit in a larger cycle."

John, Georgina,

Gravity and anti-gravity most definitely deserve some attention. If we could manipulate gravity, we would resolve the energy problems of the world. But that's not what science does. Science is an institution for promoting cynicism and anti-God/anti-hope rhetoric. The idea that scientists would try to figure out how the laws of gravity are implemented is utterly beyond their cynical point of view.

It would serve the needs of the world if the money allocated for scientific research was spent on buying lollipops for the children of the world. According to science, things like honor, integrity, love, virtue, goodness and sacredness do not exist and are not worthy of our efforts.

Jason,

Now you are getting a little cynical about science. Why? Because it also has its pluses and minuses. Just like many things, it gets trapped in it own feedback loops. The current contest is a good example of how it is falling into the same deconstructionist loop, as it goes from information about reality, to information is reality, that swallowed philosophy. Then those who may try to break out of the cycle get accused of not being purists, failure of nerve, not "getting it," etc. for questioning the direction the crowd has gone.

It is in many ways, a gravitational contraction and the only thing that can escape gravity is energy and light.

Simple question: what is the natural process that sets the physics constants like c, h, G, etc...

If you don't know, then maybe God picked them?

John,

I'm cynical about science because it's hard for me to emotionally grasp the fact that science is an imcomplete description of reality. In a debate about evidence and what can be measured, science crushes religion, spirituality and values. I was raised as a spiritualist and a Theosophist. It is those values that give me hope and a reason to behave acceptably. But as science and atheism destroy the synaptic pathways of my beliefs, there is nothing to stop me from being rude to my neighbors and my loved ones. If there is no God, no purpose to life, no meaning, no value, then "brotherly love" and basic human decency deteriorate. I can't go 24 hours without hearing some disparaging remark about the religious life or having a relationship with God or believing in UFO's. I was very rude to an elderly lady, this morning, because my beliefs and values are being destroyed by scientism. Have you ever noticed that famous psychics and mediums like John Edwards and Silvia Brown try very hard to make people feel better about death (afterlife)? Whether they are in contact with something real or are merely creating the illusion of hope, they are giving happiness and joy to people. In contrast, there are intellectual snobs, trolls and rotten people who disparage the whole subject because it doesn't give scientific evidence or "information content".

And while scientism is spreading its "spiritual disease", physicists are ignoring, ignoring, ignoring the existence of unseen and unmeasureable phenomenon such as wave-functions.

Jason,

I have to say, I decided a very long time ago, that I would be the person I want me to be and it had nothing to do with any organized religious ideas. It doesn't mean I'm any kind of saint. It just means that, for better or worse, I'm honest with myself. I realize that most people become indoctrinated into cultural systems long before they are in a position to question them, while I was able to juggle various worlds enough to find some space of my own. The fact is there is no list of absolute good and bad. It really is a matter of being able to sense what you should do and working toward it, even if it doesn't always seem to make sense. A God would have to be an absolute, but absolute is basis, not apex. It is the essence from which we rise, not some ideal from which we fell. When you really learn to connect and combine that essence within yourself and within others, it will be an adventure, rather than a destination. There will always be sorrow, but it is a consequence of loss and in order to gain anything, you have to be willing to accept that you may lose it. Pain is the price you must pay for being able to feel in the first place.