Readers' Choice: Cheating the Causal Game

My equation: MTS

Transfers mass to spatial volume.

In accordance with: 1u (atomic mass unit) = 541,380,958.7 pico meters cubed of space

Offers the full spectrum of matter/space: black hole to space

In between is dark matter, standard model, dark energy, etc. etc.

Works on the very small quantum scale, and the galactic as well.

T = time = % "c"

M = mass (matter)

S = Space (vacuum energy)

spacetime, time, space, mass, energy, matter, dark mtter, dark energy, standard model, electrons, protons, etc. all rolled into one equation

Explains: dark matter, dark energy, double slit, complimentarity, horizon problem, red shift, expanding universe, and much more

MTS : an active equation

I'm having a little problem fitting in the electromagnetic spectrum into the picture. Any ideas?

I realize it travels at "c" and so offers up space (wavelength ?), but how does amplitude and density (frequency ?) fit into the MTS equation ?

Any guidance would be appreciated. Question to the community: Please respond by offering a non-mathematical offer of reality as regards how CIG may interpret the electromagnetic spectrum. I have some ideas but they need clarification.

Thanks Aunt Bee

This is Mayberry isn't it?

THX

doug

John, Georgina,

I have felt drawn to quantum entanglement as some kind of magical force that permeates the universe. Would there be ghosts that truly exist, then vanish when a skeptic is near, they would be made out of quantum entanglements and have fingers that reach into our standard model existence and nudge our particles for their own mysterious purposes. Apparently, quantum entanglement is needed to hold DNA together.

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/419590/quantum-entanglement-holds-dna-together-say-physicists/

I probably had ancestors 100,000 years ago that talked to spirits who helped the tribe find food, fresh water and survive the elements. Perhaps they made a difficult life more bearable and interesting.

Jason,

One of the problems I raise in my "it from bit" entry, that since energy manifests information and information defines energy, as energy is conserved, old information is erased as new is recorded. No telling how our distant ancestors thought or what concepts mattered to them. We even forget alot of what was common knowledge from quite recently, as those of us more than a few decades can attest.

One thought though, since I was a kid, I've found what people refer to as "floaters," those spots, squiggles, lines, etc, that move around in our vision, seem to have distinct conscious manifestations, both of what is going on in my own subconscious and of input from other's attention, both people and other life forms. Some years ago, I happened to be reading a story on ancient cave art and they had various pictures of the drawings, many of which are abstract and possibly rudimentary forms of language. Yet some of them seemed to clearly be impressions of these optical effects that I see. One example that comes to mind is the classic representation of the heart, which is formed if you take a circle(a soul) and run a line(Cupid's arrow) through it and pull in one direction.

Jason, thanks for the link. It was an interesting read, though I think the premise is an enormous steaming pile of nonsense.

The author in one short sentence admits the only thing that makes the premise even plausible: "They say that one line of evidence is that a purely classical analysis of the energy required to hold DNA together does not add up." Of course it doesn't -- and can't -- because biological systems are thermodynamically open. One can't simply calculate the binding energy of cellular atoms and add it to the electronic energy of molecular exchanges and throw in some kinematic and dynamic effects and call it "the sum of energy that holds DNA together." The equations are nonlinear, notoriously hard to solve. The researchers are apparently assuming that DNA is nothing more than static discrete coding information that would degrade over time (by Shannon entropy) without being entangled in some mysterious way. Not necessary -- nonequilibrium thermodynamics sufficiently explains the phenomenon.

What we already know at a classical level, is that it is only necessary and sufficient that the energy input to a biological organism exceeds the throughput such that the entropy generated is less than the input, a requirement that keeps the system from going to equilibrium. This is true of all biological life on Earth, which is powered by the Sun, and which we can calculate to arbitrary accuracy. That is the energy that continuously holds DNA, and all the other elements of biology, together. No discontinuous mystical quantum incantations required.

Tom

Hi Tom,

" This is true of all biological life on Earth, which is powered by the Sun, and which we can calculate to arbitrary accuracy. That is the energy that continuously holds DNA, and all the other elements of biology, together. No discontinuous mystical quantum incantations required."

The fact that electric charge needs virtual photons to do something specific seems like magic to me. It looks as if virtual photons are compelled by magic (not accident) to uphold Maxwell's equations. I thought that virtual photons (virtual particles in general) were carriers of quantum values that were under the command of some powerfully magical being. I thought that Maxwell's equations were the magical command that virtual photons have to obey. Is there evidence to the contrary?

(Reposted to correct thread)

Hi Jason,

"Is there evidence to the contrary?"

Because science is a rationalist enterprise, judgments of reality are based on positive correspondence between abstract theory and physical result, not on the absence of evidence. Would you have it another way?

Tom

Tom,

Science is a precursor to engineering. It's for the best that it works as a rationalist enterprise. I suppose in a 100 years, a thousand years, ten thousand years, science will get around to unlocking the nuts & bolts of where the physics constant come from. By then, there will be hyper-drives, gravity drives, free energy and all that.

Hi Jason,

You write, "Science is a precursor to engineering." Yes, the sense that science is a sufficient though not necessary condition for engineering. Engineering is neither necessary nor sufficient for science.

I agree with you on the impending growth of technology. With the way in which information availability and usage is accelerating -- I consider that few in 1850 envisioned automobiles as manifest in only a half century, and few in 1950 would foresee the information revolution a half-century later. Now in less than a quarter century from that point, we should find ourselves poised for the next great transformational technology.

If we can refrain from blowing ourselves up first -- as the Drake equation informs.

Tom

Hi Thomas,

"If we can refrain from blowing ourselves up first -- as the Drake equation informs."

During the cold war era, the world was fascinated by nuclear war. But I think we've out grown that. From my perspective, I think it's a race against resources. I think there is a chance that humanity could overcome the physics constants. But we have to do it before we run out of resources. A population of 7 billion people means there are a lot of really really smart people. But these levels of population are not sustainable unless we can obtain resources from asteroids and other planets at low cost. I know science scoffs at the UFO reports of triangular space crafts doing impossible things like breaking the sound barrier without creating sonic booms or recombining with other space-crafts in ways that contradict all that we know about building spacecrafts. I for one think these are demonstrations of what alien technology can do. They are probably projections of visual images from outside of space-time. That's why they don't disturb molecules of air. Alien-UFO phenomena may or may not be human imagination. But since we got it, we should use it. Why not ask ourselves about the physics of traveling outside of the space-time continuum? That is the only way to travel across the galaxy.

Our resources will only last for so long, and then, it will be the big crunch of population.

Speaking of blurring cause and effect - I'll address the subject "Human involvement in the retrocausality of gravity, electromagnetism and matter".

The gravitational waves of space could have a frequency even greater than gamma rays (This is because nearly all of gravitation's energy goes into the "organized energy" forming a particle, which then re-emits some of that energy at reduced electromagnetic frequencies, including those of gamma radiation. (see the related "What the Null Energy Condition (And When it May be Violated) Tells us About Gravitational Wave Frequencies in / for Relic Cosmology?" by physicist Andrew Beckwith - http://vixra.org/abs/1106.0034)

When converted into lower frequencies, they'd produce the electromagnetic wavelengths which Einstein's paper ("Do Gravitational Fields Play An Essential Part In The Structure of the Elementary Particles?" - a 1919 submission to the Prussian Academy of Sciences) suggests interact with gravity* to form particles of matter. At this point, the progression is from a) gravity to electromagnetism to matter. Yet an article I wrote "Modern Science Emphasizes Mathematics. What the Universe Looks Like When Logic is Emphasized (Maths Has a Vital, But Secondary, Role in This Article)" - http://vixra.org/abs/1306.0180) progresses from b) gravity to matter to electromagnetism, and also speaks of c) electromagnetism to gravity to matter. G-EM-M or G-M-EM or EM-G-M? Surely there's contradiction and paradox in these statements? No. As the abstract states, this is a result of a feedback loop ... retrocausality, as quantum entanglement is called when applied not to space but to time. This retrocausality is accomplished by means of humans travelling into the past of this subuniverse and applying the electronics they've developed to the period existing 13.8 billion years ago. Addressing a), gravity and electromagnetism combined to form the matter composing these people, whose ancestors developed the electricity and magnetism in computers. Addressing c), this electromagnetism created gravity (by using BITS to copy the principle of magnetism attracting and repelling, before pasting that principle into gravity - the basic physical source of all attraction and repulsion, and thus of the strong force and dark energy); and their interaction formed matter (could the unified gravitational and electromagnetic fields be the mass-producing Higgs field?). Addressing b), the gravity originating humanity's matter was responsible for that matter emitting electromagnetism. Maybe hidden variables called binary digits (binary digits would be the hidden variables which Einstein said carry extra information about the world of quantum mechanics ... and complete it, eliminating probabilities and bringing about exact predictions) could permit time travel into the future by warping positive space-time. And maybe they'd allow time travel into the past by warping a 5D hyperspace # that is translated 180 degrees to space-time, and could be labelled as negative or inverted. (The space-time we live in is described by ordinary [or "real"] numbers which, when multiplied by themselves, result in positive numbers e.g. 2x2=4, and -2x-2 also equals 4. Inverted "positive" space-time becomes negative hyperspace which is described by so-called imaginary numbers that give negative results when multiplied by themselves e.g. i multiplied by itself gives -1.) The past can never be changed from what occurred, and the future can never be altered from what it will be. Both are programmed by the 1's and 0's.

# This 5th-dimensional hyperspace would be tinier than a subatomic particle, like the dimensions invoked by string theory (about 70% of space consists of dark energy, according to the WMAP and Planck space probes - which is interpreted in this article as 70% of a particle also consisting of dark energy since "space-time itself plays a role in the constitution of elementary particles and the nuclear forces" (see paragraph above about Einstein's 1919 submission to the Prussian Academy of Sciences). This dark energy can be associated with hyperspace and its binary digits, so a) 70% of a particle is composed of hyperspace, and b) the extra dimension exists everywhere in space occupied by particles (also everywhere in "empty" space, where binary digits are referred to as Virtual Particles). With a single extra dimension of astronomical size, gravity is expected to cause the solar system to collapse ("The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimetre" by N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, G. Dvali - Physics Letters B - Volume 429, Issues 3-4, 18 June 1998, Pages 263-272, and "Gravity in large extra dimensions" by U.S. Department of Energy - http://www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/2001-10/dbnl-gil053102.php However, collapse never occurs if gravity accounts for repulsion as well as attraction on both subatomic and astronomical scales (accounts for dark energy and familiar concepts of gravity, as well as repelling aspects of the electroweak force such as placing two like magnetic poles together and attracting electroweak/strong force aspects).

* How is passing starlight deflected towards the Sun? The refracted gravitational wave heading for the sun "captures" [2.2] the light from distant stars that appear close to the rim of the sun before the gravity wave's diverted to the centre of our star (string theory predicts that gravity's gravitons interact with light's photons). Acting as a gravitational attractor, the refracted wave carries the light with it as it bends towards the sun's centre. The light is not carried all the way but breaks free since photons have their own energy and momentum. However, the light is carried far enough to be deflected a tiny amount from its original path. According to Newton's 3rd Law of Motion (to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction), the light will be deflected toward the sun by an equal and opposite amount to the gravity wave's deflection to the solar interior. "Opposite" means the light wave travels away from the sun at approx. 186,282 miles per second and the gravity wave travels into the sun at the same velocity. "Equal" means, since experiments have shown the bending of starlight to be 1.75 seconds of arc (in geometry 60 seconds = 1 minute, 60 minutes = 1 degree, and there are 360 degrees in a circle), the refraction of gravitation from the solar rim is also 1.75 arcseconds (as density increases the deeper the gravity wave goes, the greater its refraction becomes).

[2.2] Gravitons and photons interact via Einstein's mass-energy relation. A gravitational wave acts as an attractor and captures light by feeling friction with the mass-energy of the photons. This causes gravitational refraction or bending in which part of the gravity pushes a photon by travelling in the direction of the centre of each photon in the light (once it reaches the centre, the 3rd Law of Motion accounts for the photons' reaction of being attracted to the gravitons). Compared to the other forces we know; gravity is incredibly weak and the weak "equal but opposite" reaction cannot overcome the heaviness of macroscopic objects which consequently don't float off towards the gravity doing the pushing. Photons, when pushed towards the surface of Earth, are so tiny and light that they do recoil from the push - they "reflect".

Excellant article!

The topic of which I have a personal stake in by conducting a 12 year experiment which I have recently concluded. The second application of these findings I used as the basis of my 'It form bit' essay entry.

I find it curious how we insist upon understanding nature from our perspective of second cause which I term as effectual causality, i.e., how observed or measured effects cause effects.

Food for thought:

Why is it that there has never been, or ever will be, an experiment conducted without a selection event first taking place? Yet the study of physics postulates its principles as fundamental based on a methodology which ignores first cause?

I find such a core contradiction most puzzling. What I find even more puzzling is why partitioners of the art do not? Perhaps John Archibald Wheeler put the situation at hand in proper context when he stated, " . . . we will grasp the central idea of it all as so simple, so beautiful, so compelling that we will all say each to the other, 'Oh, how could it have been otherwise! How could we all have been so blind for so long!'"

Manuel

Nature presented me a random example of quantum causal probability recently when I had shoveled almost a ton of no. 9 gravel onto my little old Gimmie p-u and spread it on the off street parking area allotted my eff. apt. so I would have about half to one inch of cover over bare clay for parking and a little pleasant "patio" under the trees at the back of the lot.

9's are smaller than pea gravel and not as uniform in size and tend to be flatish. When soil is wet they tend to float to the top as the mud finally dries. Walking on such skim cover is like a fine pebbled beach. They stay generally in place but are of course unstable. A couple weeks after application and able to sit and have a cigarette with my coffee ( I'm an old guy ) work on my truck and otherwise disturb the surface, I was sitting, sipping and licking my wounds while admiring the nonhomogeneous carpet of stone. There, three feet in front of me were seven tiny pebbles all in a line as if a child had arranged them at play. Smaller first of four left to right in ascending size and all flat and elongated, barely touching, then a tiny one roundish, then the longest oblong and the string ending with a large flat roundish pebble slightly less in diameter than the oblong.

Effectual causality? as Manuel Morales has just termed it. And yes, a second order effect. But of What?!

OOPS. I neglected to note that in the random arrangement of pebbles the long axis of the oblongs were all perpendicular to the line of sequence, and though tiny in size it was visible that the centers of all pebbles were in close alignment. It was not as if the edge of a shoe had dragged them all into end to end alignment.

Cheating the Causal Game.

I personally like causality. But causality is in most cases the wrong word to use because we mean only the ordering of events, some unrelated. This ordering is done by the observer. It has nothing to do with how the universe works by itself. Causality should be understood as a propagating driving force. Kick the ball! Light a match! But these examples too may confuse the issue because in these examples we are the cause via some mechanical force. The real causality is the one internal to events that we do not control and that have made this universe. By this I mean "causal spontaneity". What is the phenomenon behind this causal spontaneity? Because it is spontaneous, causal spontaneity is irreversible. Best example is the gravitational fall. Events related by causal spontaneity have a specific ordering in time because time is the driving force for their ordering.

We think about ordering in time and assume time just as a convenient metering device. But time, or more specifically its rate, is the cause for the ordering rather than just a silent metering partner. In gravitational fall, the object spontaneously moves towards the ground, following a path of decreasing time rate. In other words, it tends to exist more where time runs slower. The internal cause for this spontaneous fall is that existence is more probable where time is running relatively slower. In a sense, something "exists more" in one place if it stays there longer than anywhere else. Given access to slower time, this is where it is going to exist more or go. We may clock the fall of the object, but the time that matters to the object is the rate of passage of time. In superposition, the electron is not in two places at the same time; it just spends more time in two specific places than anywhere else including travel time. We may say that the electron's existence is spread between these two places and the probability of finding it will be greater in these two places. In the case of the falling object, and because of the time rate gradient it is in, its existence is non-uniform and more probable toward the ground and less probable toward the sky. Spontaneous events show us an irreversible ordering based on the passage of time, itself spontaneous and irreversible.

In conclusion, cheating causality may do good for computing but it is not the way to quantum gravity. For me, the differential probability of existence of a particle (quantum) in a time rate gradient (GR) is as good as it will get for quantum gravity.

Marcel,

Marcel-Marie LaBel

A splendid incite! Thank-you for your post on 8/25. Now if you can persuade the relationists to look inside the Glass Onion, the quants to pause dicing it, and the neo-classicists to understand that it is THE ABSORPTION LINES that Doppler shift! we might get on with solving the zero point particle problem.

Marvel,

Gravity is a curvature of more energy vs. less volume. Ideal gas laws as applied to mass. What if it is an effect of the electromagnetic attraction of electrons and protons en mass? As they start to attract positive and negative in bulk, it builds up energy, but it reduces volume. So gravity would not so much be a force in itself, rather the vacuum effect of opposite charges coming together to first create hydrogen atoms and then more complex chemistry. Consider that when you break the atom, it creates pressure, like a bomb. This pressure isn't considered a force in itself, but an effect of releasing the energy in the atom. So the opposite, getting the energy into the atom, would have a naturally opposite effect.

That way, you don't need gravitons and gravity waves, etc. And it models geometrically as a curve.

Regards,

John

Marcel,

You wrote, " ... causality is in most cases the wrong word to use because we mean only the ordering of events, some unrelated. This ordering is done by the observer."

Yes, the ordering is done by the observer; however, an observer cannot order unrelated events. All events -- i.e., the interaction of physical influences within causal range of the observer, are related to the observer. Events that are timelike separated are not related to each other, yet the observables are always related to the observer ("All physics is local," according to Einstein's relativity).

"It has nothing to do with how the universe works by itself."

If physics is observer-dependent (which is true of both relativity and quantum mechanics) it has everything to do with how the universe works by itself. The question is whether the observer creates the universe by the act of observing (becomes entangled with the quantum wavefunction) or passively observes physical interactions. This is the problem that Joy Christian has solved, by explaining quantum correlations in a classical framework; the moon really is there when no one is looking.

"In a sense, something 'exists more' in one place if it stays there longer than anywhere else."

Not according to relativity. Anything with mass exists longer the faster it moves -- the truth of which which is borne out by experimental evidence; highly energetic cosmic ray particles (muons) live longer than their Earthbound cousins. Massless particles are always in "one place" -- the universe -- and not affected by time inetervals.

Tom

Tom Ray,

I think you are missing the point of departure in Marcel's comments, in fact you are paraphrasing his criteria of deduction rather than direct observation.

Please look again, his insight (gad! incite! duhh) is nicely succinct and goes to relativistic time being essentially the prime mover in gravitational fields. The expression has the form of linear algebra rather than curvilinear geometry.

"The expression has the form of linear algebra rather than curvilinear geometry."

No difference between the two, John C., for a relativistic model. We know that space is mostly Euclidean and that curvilinear motion is constant. Some day, I am going to give up correcting the astounding lack of knowledge of people who continue to hold forth on relativity in this forum. Being the OC dyslexic I am, though, it's hard.

Tom