Ted,

Thanks for your comments. We seem not to be in the same boat on a number of issues, viz. eternally existing universe vs. my finitely existing universe; preference for space-time vs. my space; timeless existence vs. my finite duration of existence. But no matter.

I rushed superficially through your paper, 'The space-time-motion diagram: a relational model'. I can see that you are like me interested in knowing what "continuum" means. It is a frequently used but in my opinion a poorly defined term. Your ideas make use of Lorentz transformation and you like other 'relational' physicists consider space a 'non-entity', unlike some of us who like Newton consider space an 'entity'. But before concluding about whether space or space-time is a non-entity ponder what entity vibrates as gravitational waves travelling at c, i.e. if GR is correct, and also check what entity is compressed or extended in the Alcubierre drive, a model based on space-time like yours.

I will request more clarification on your thread how you resolve Zeno's paradox with your model.

Regards,

Akinbo

Thanks for your comments Christophe. I am not aware that the log scale you mention has been created but I am aware that there are various reasons to believe that the gap between mathematics and physics will widen as we approach the Planck limit. You can check the review by Sabine Hossenfelder, http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2013-2 that I referenced in my essay to see the motivations in this regard.

Cheers,

Akinbo

Thank you very much Miss Sujatha Jagannathan. I see you have an essay here. I will checK soon.

Regards,

Akinbo

I liked the simplicity of the essay. I completely agree with your postulate to imagine points coming into and going out of existence exactly when needed. I call this the emergence of space from the actions of objects in time as opposed to the a priori existence of space as an infinity of points coming and going as a place for action and objects.

You further argue that dividing an object with neural action does not involve energy, but obviously any thought of dividing does take energy; the energy needed to sustain that neural packet of a moment of thought. In fact, it would in principle take an infinite energy for the infinite thoughts of dividing infinitely...thank goodness most minds are not prone to this neurosis.

There are two universes; math and physics, and math divides an object of our mind into an infinity of smaller objects with a neural action of our mind. Physics divides an object external to our mind into some physical limit of smaller objects with actions using other objects and of course using energy as well. Math represents objects as we imagine them to be and physics represents objects as they actually are outside of our mind. But our mind does use energy for all thought.

The irony is that it is by the neural action of our mind that we imagine both the infinity of smaller objects in an imaginary reality as well as the finite atoms of real objects. In other words, math equally well describes both the infinite as well as the finite. In particular, can infinitesimal points exist in the lonely nothing of empty space? Or is it only objects, time, and action that exist? It is not only our science that makes an object out of empty space, something out of nothing, space seems to emerge from our neural reality as well.

1.5, entertaining

1.0, well written

2.1, understandable

2.0, relevance to theme

6.6 total

    Hi Joe,

    I am of the view that the question, "Where did the universe come from?" is not stupid and is worth contemplating.

    By the way, the theory surrounding this predates Stephen Hawking. Among the earlier thinkers was the Belgian priest and mathematician Lemaitre and the Russian George Gamow. It was however Hubble's finding of the redshift-distance relation that let the horse out of the stable. Then, I think about 1973 or so, Edward Tryon introduced the possibility that rather than the universe having a beginning starting from a point of infinite density containing ALL the matter in the universe, it could have started from absolutely nothing. No matter-energy and no radius.

    I think there are a number of evidence that point in this direction, rather than the singularities of infinite density that Hawking and Penrose formulated. It is still work-in-progress and gaps to feel. Among the gaps in my opinion is the obsession to have ALL the mass in the universe to be present from the beginning. On the contrary, I have written elsewhere that it makes more sense that BOTH mass and radius have been increasing from zero in tandem. If positivity of energy is attributed to mass and negativity of energy is attributed to radius, then overall the Total energy sum from inception up till now remains ZERO, which is 'nothing'.

    But for unbelievers like you, you must find a better explanation for why the universe has not collapsed under the influence of the infinite number of masses acting over an infinite amount of time; Olber's paradox; the relative abundance of the elements, etc among the successes of the Big bang, as a work in progress.

    Coming nearer home, you must tell us who has been preventing the wedding between the Moon and the Earth, the Earth and the Sun despite the unrelenting strong love and attraction between them over billions of years. If you know who else could have been putting the marriage ceremony at bay other than Mr Expanding Space, please tell us.

    IMHO let's not use individual frailties that are not self-inflicted to muddle up our discussion. In Africa, there is a proverb that if you point a finger at people the remaining four are pointing at you.

    Regards,

    Akinbo

    Thank you Steve for your comments. I think you make some sense that mathematical division requires energy of some sort ("But our mind does use energy for all thought").

    On your statement, "I call this the emergence of space from the actions of objects in time as opposed to the a priori existence of space as an infinity of points coming and going as a place for action and objects", which partly supports my hypothesis, I cannot help wondering whether if in your theory, objects should stop acting for a moment, whether space would then disappear? I think not.

    We will continue our dialectic where we usually "meet" on this website.

    Thanks and best regards,

    Akinbo

    Some people did the exercice: www.scaleoftheuniverse.com/

    Based on today knowledge, the universe ranges from: 10^-35 to 10^27

    Quantum phenomena appear for quite large objects.

    http://www.cjoint.com/15fe/EBrsomy3XT2.htm

    If our mathematics applies to the large universe. Would it mean that the mathematics of very small objects applies in our scale?

    Exactly my opinion Christophe. Here is what Roger Penrose has to say in his book, The Emperor's New Mind, p.113... "The system of real numbers has the property for example, that between any two of them, no matter how close, there lies a third. It is not at all clear that physical distances or times can realistically be said to have this property. If we continue to divide up the physical distance between two points, we should eventually reach scales so small that the very concept of distance, in the ordinary sense, could cease to have meaning. It is anticipated that at the 'quantum gravity' scale (...10-35m), this would indeed be the case.

    Hence, my asking assuming, without conceding that the system of real numbers applies to distance, how can a distance be divided if there is always a third element between two elements and going by geometrical considerations these elements are uncuttable into parts?

    Regards,

    Akinbo

    I've replied to your comments of my essay in my essay comment section. I comment on your essay in the interest of dialectic discourse.

    Your essay raises many conceptual issues that should be addressed by current physics. A new physics model of the universe is needed. The new model should take decisions about the issues you raise.

    I ask a different question of my physics. I think the interest of physics is the prediction of observations and the usefulness of such knowledge to the survival of us (our gene, our progeny, etc.). If a set of definitions fail to result in the advancement of physics, they have little use in physics. However, humanity has experienced may times some set appearing to have no use at a given time only to have a use found later. So math study and documentation keeps them alive. I reject the Zeno and other such paradoxes as not useful. But keeping such speculation in mind may help the development of a new model. If you think Zeno should be considered, you suggest how.

    The models in physics includes models of observations we predict quite well. Outside of these zones are hypothesis that need to be developed. Outside of this are speculations. Then there is metaphysics that usually has many poorly defined and inconsistent defined concepts. Then religion covers the areas not even within physical speculation. Dragons are beyond speculation, the lack of good definition become the problem. The beginning (Christian theology) or the eternal universe (Hindu theology) is religion. Abstraction about this in current knowledge is meaningless because we lack sufficient definition.

    Multiplication is the successive addition of a number. The inverse of this operation is not division - the inverse of multiplication is successive subtraction. Division as currently defined has only a calculation convenience in which great care to avoid many physical pitfalls must be taken. Often this requisite care is not taken that results in non-physical results.

    Your 2+3=5 query: The issue you raise has to do with the definition of the components of the equation. Let's take the numbers to be counting of things and the normal, decimal numbering system. If you have other definitions, they should be explained. After this in physics, the things need to be carefully defined to fit the physics of the paper that is usually done in the paper. If the definitions are to fit observation and are self-consistent, then physics takes the result as certain. Later observation may indicate falsity of some part of the argument that would conclude rejection of the hypothesis. For example, Take 2 boards of similar cross section, one 2 feet long another 3 feet long. Is 2 feet of board plus (combine) 3 feet of board the same (equal) a board 5 feet long. Note the thing we are counting is a single board of the stated length. If the physical goal is to span a distance of 4 feet, the equality is false. If the physical goal is to measure or separate other things such as in a construction, the equality is true as either structure can fulfill the need. Both concepts are used in the carpentry craft. Be very careful with your definitions and the consistent use of your definitions.

    My model of the universe suggested in my essay is that the universe components are continually being injected into our universe through sources (center of spiral galaxies) and ejected from our universe through sinks (center of elliptical galaxies). This model has been tested (1) by explaining several mysteries of both the Big Bang and cyclical models and (2) showing correspondence to the Big Bang model and to Quantum Mechanics

    to the successful parts of current models. BTW my universe can be bounded and flat as I mention in my essay. The Newtonian view of gravity suggests the universe must be unbounded (infinite). The General Relativity view suggests the universe in bounded by being spherical. Unfortunately, the data indicates the universe is flat (or if it is spherical, the radius must be much greater than the Hubble regression allows).

    I interpret Parmenides as suggesting the universe is more akin to Hindu tradition of an eternal universe with each incarnation being like a long line of ants - all the same and repeating. I reject division as a legitimate physics operation. Therefore, Zeno assumption does not reflect reality.

    I address your ``cutting'' and ``separator'' in the comment in my essay. Non-zero breadth is my 2 dimensional hod. The hod separates the plenum (GR space) density divergence. The hods in the universe have already ``cut'' the universe in their introduction at the Source. So all that remains is to move them around to achieve the ``cut'' that is required.

    A note about your mention of the energy mass equation: The equation and its use does not specify if the mass is being converted to energy or if the mass is a container (like a jug) of a give amount if inertial energy. The problem as I see it is the definition of ``mass'' is very poor.

    Akinbo,

    There is something that I wanted to mention to you regarding the .pdf file that I posted for you in my forum. For the function f(x) = ax^2, the value for (deltay/deltax) = 0 for x = -(deltax/2). Isn't it curious that there is a zero root at the midpoint of a segment that cannot be divided? How do you interpret this?

    Best Regards and Good Luck,

    Gary Simpson

      Thanks Gary.

      Among the different alibis given in response by other contestants in order to bypass the issues I have raised is that zero should be removed from considerations of physical reality. The logic being that what is zero does not exist.

      My exchange made me to check up on C. S. Peirce's view on the subject and I found this in the Stanford Encyclopedia: "...Peirce says that if a line is cut into two portions, the point at which the cut takes place actually becomes two points..."..

      Whether this would mean that 'the point at which the cut takes place' has two parts? And if so, contradict the original geometric definition is an outstanding issue.

      So, in answer to your question, I think I will leave the interpretation to you. It is sufficient I think that I have pointed out a difficulty in my opinion and suggested a hypothesis which may be wrong.

      Regards,

      Akinbo

      ``Redefinition of things that are already defined is one way to resolve paradoxes and absurdities. But then such redefinitions must stand up to scrutiny and should be verifiable or falsified.''

      That is they must be useful. Zeno and Penrose suggest a definition of division that is not useful in general.

      ``I like your definition of Multiplication and Division. It can resolve paradoxes of motion like Zeno's, if "Real numbers do not apply to distance" as you say.''

      Division and therefore the real numbers such as 1/3, pi, etc. is a transformation that is not physical. Hence, my definition of the inverse of multiplication. There may be some argument about whether irrational, transcendental, etc. numbers are real because all distances along a line are either greater than or less than the irrational number. That is there is no distance along a line that equals the irrational number. This also suggests the problem with Penrose where again we have the ``divide'' definition issue. I suggest this as a way to avoid the things like Zeno's paradox, which are not consistent with observation (physical). After all we can go through a door.

      My own contention is that the plenum is discrete and also continuous in some sense. Thus displaying a duality. Continuous because there is no distance between its lengths, but discrete because those lengths can perish or be created from Nothing. The fundamental unit of my plenum is the extended (not zero-dimensional) point.

      Can this concept be reduced to a hypothesis and measurement? Mine, at least, has been applied to cosmology and the double-slit observations.

      Dear Dr. Ojo! For a practising physician, syntropy is a very vital concept, because life is all 'we have'. In my opinion, Dr.Ulisse di Corpo very well speaks about: The Law of Syntropy' in his latestst e-book, based on Schrödinger, Szent-Györgyi and Fantappie. Retro-causality is a key concept of this medical approach which looks at conditioning and conditions. Best wishes and cordially: stephen (www.lifeenergyscience.it)

      Andrew,

      Since I trust in the only compelling definitions of an ideal mathematical point as having no extension and of an ideal mathematical continuum as never losing its property to have three, two, or just one dimension/extension no matter how often it is cut into 3D, 2D, or 1D, respectively parts, I consider your "infinitesimal points" entertaining.

      An infinitesimal length dx is still a length, an infinitesimal area dA is still two-dimensional, etc. Okinbo's splittable point was certainly not C. S. Peirce's best idea. I am claiming a better understanding in 2342.

      Eckard Blumschein

      Hi Akinbo,

      Thank you for your comment on my blog.

      I think I see where you are coming from with your essay and where you are trying to get to.

      I have a clear idea about the subject.

      I believe that the Universe is made of what I call Universal Bits (Existence/non-existence). They are the smallest of everything and cannot be subdivided. They are just bits of potential information, they are not material and they do not have a shape as such, but their apparent size, in any directions, is one Planck Length and they flick between existence and non-existence every Planck Time.

      In order for a coherent world to develop, these Universal Bits must group into Coherent Basic Units (made of synchronised Universal Bits). Particles are simply a temporal pattern created by these Coherent Basic Units. But that's only my point of view ...

      All in all, I thought that your essay was spot on track. I just rated it accordingly.

      All the best,

      Patrick

      Dear Akinbo,

      I am glad to be at contest again with you, as in 2013.

      Simple but deep.'Yes' and 'No' in (v) is crucial for me.

      More about: „How should we think of infinity?" You can see at RuÄ'er BoÅ¡ković [1, paragraph 391]. "Now, although I do not hold with infinite divisibility, yet I do admit infinite componibility". More you can see in paragraphs 391 to 396. Therefore I say: the mass, radius and any other fenomenon is finite but the number of their combination is infinite.

      [1] Boscovich J. R.: (a) "Theoria philosophia naturalis redacta ad unicam legem virium in naturaexistentium", first (Wien, 1758) and second (Venetiis, 1763) edition in Latin language; (b) "A Theory of Natural Philosophy", in English, The M.I.T. Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England, first edition 1922, second edition 1966

      Best Regards,

      Branko Zivlak

        Dear Akinbo,

        I enjoyed your essay and I think it was nicely written. As far as extension in physics, things become a little more complicated if it involves also a temporal dimension, as in relativity theory. Zeno's paradoxes are resolved in special relativity because there is no motion in space but in spacetime. However, we all do not have to agree with the ramifications of this approach but it represents a solution.

        Actually, Zeno's paradox of dichotomy is about motion being impossible. It cannot even commence since there will be always a point closer to the start than any other point ad infinitum. If we have to preserve the autonomy of this world, or to be more exact, its quasi-autonomy, then this paradox can be resolved only in the context of a tensless theory of time and existence. Another solution is the one given by Descartes that I also speak in my 2011 essay involving a continuous recreation of the world (at discrete time and space, i.e. a virtual reality). Obviously, the subject is more involved than that.

        All the best.

        Efthimios

          Thanks Efthimios,

          I will reply more in your blog as I just read your 2011 Essay.

          Regarding motion in special relativity, I am not sure the mechanism you describe fits. Check the mechanism for the Alcubierre drive in Wikipedia, to see how spacetime in front of the moving object is compressed and spacetime behind the object expands.

          I will also be asking on your blog whether the 4-dimensional block universe you propose as reflecting the correct situation exists and if it exists, whether it can perish or it is an eternally existing universe?

          Regards,

          Akinbo