Editor's Choice: The Illusion of the Expanding Universe

PS

Regarding how big is universe: universe is too big to be discussed how big it is. We will never know that. If we describe universe with Euclid infinite space, universe is infinite, if we describe with Riemann space, universe is finite. So our experiencing of the universe depends on which geometry we use.

Would be better to observe how universe works in our observable area and out of these taking solutions for how universe functions in generally.

In black holes matter transforms into quantum in AGN quantum space transforms into matter. This according my speculations is basic dynamics that works out for the whole universe.

All discussions about beginning of the universe are out of question. They require creator, god. We know that universe itself is god. As there is no time behind "tick" of clock there is no god behind the universe. For this comprehension one need to wake up the observer in him/her self.

The article and threads just gave me a contact high.

These threads personally permit to evolve because we learn all days in complemenatrity .

Let's forget the individualism please all.

Amrit your works is too high spiritually for some people about the eternity .

I understand your message about ETERNITY IS NOW .But we are in a physical sphere in building and thus you must explain that with the balance between them ,the unknew and the physicality .

If you don't make that ,many people shan't understand your works I think .

In all case it's very relevant about the walls .....you are already far and unfortunally all people don't see like that thus a balance is primordial for your development in all centers of studies.

Steve

Steve clocks »tick« in timeless space that is eternity itself. There is nothing spiritual here. This is the scientific fact. In space "before" and "after" exists only as a numerical order of change. Numerical order of change is the only physical time i.e. "arrov of time" that exists.

Absolutely change do not run in space-time. Space-time meant to be physical reality is the biggest misunderstanding of physics of last century.

Barbour and company we are improving that mistake here.

yours amrit

Amrit ,

How can you speak about eternity without spirituality ,there I don't understand .

It's your choice ,I respect that ,good road .I have said all about that .

Congratulations to all ,to your team .Sincerely

Steve

Steve if quantum space is timeless this means that quantum space is eternal too. Eternal is all what is not in time. Here we see nothing is in time, time is part of the mind. So even mind is not in time, also mind is in eternity.

Conscious observer is aware of that.

Conscious observer in physics is the end of nations, religion and all that unnecessary human identifications hat creates manipulation violence and war.

Conscious observer means inner peace, means knowing yourself and universe as well.

Amrit ,

Don't confuse the spirituality which is universal and the religions and the power of check.

All ,that is different ,in our U8niverse it exists any differences between all .Because all is a fractal of this entity in building .

Steve

I can agree with Mr Barbour's banishment of time, for different reasons which I will get to, but not with his banishment of motion.

Firstly to time. I totally agree that time can only be understood in terms of change(constrained by entropy) which gives us the perception of temporal "direction", and unique configurations(as stored in the memory of conscious observers) which give us the perception of unique "times". These evolving, relative configurations of objects/observables, are the only physically measurable/recordable processes. "Time" in this sense, is at least as unprovable as the "fields" of QFT & GR.

Following this line of thought, can I refer back to part of Lawrence's earlier statement: "Ultimately physics is an empirical science, so we can only go with what we can measure and record. We record time with clocks. So if time does not exist on some deeper level, there would have to be some experiment or observation which could be conducted to ascertain whether that is the case." If we can only go with what we can measure & record, then surely we can obtain *no* evidence of "time" from clocks at all. Clocks only measure spacial displacement, in particular, cyclic processes, ie Earth's axial rotation, caesium atom oscillations. These cyclic processes themselves can only be "measured" or calibrated when referenced to some other external non cyclic process, again, of spacial displacement.

Lawrence: In relation to the existence of fields, could you please clarify your statement: "The graviton departs from the photon in having two directions of polarization, or helicity = 2". By this are you saying that it is the graviton or the photon that only has 2 polarisations? Also, how does the detection of gravitons prove the fields any more than the detection of other field excitations?

Now, to motion. This is where I depart from Mr Barbour, in that I think there is just too much evidence to support the reality of motion and that motion can exist without a "time" dimension. I think this could be "modelled" in a sort of "evolving block Universe", similar to that proposed by George Ellis (See last year's essay). If we take relativity as being correct & assume the photon to be 2 dimensional & "timeless", then consider the relevant symmetries at work which constrain the Universe's net charge and, in particular, it's net energy to be zero, then the "natural" state of the Universe(reality) is 2 dimensional & timeless. The 3rd spacial dimension & the "appearance" of time only emerge when mass (gravity) enters the scene. Within this state, light then "drives/defines" the spacial boundaries & matter moves in relative configurations with inertial frames from which the motion of light can be detacted. It is then the relative velocities of the massive objects that determine the perceived "time" differentials, so that, maximally, it is possible in principle for an observer in a frame accelerated to c or, equivalently, at the critical gravitational boundary of a black hole, to observe another frame relatively at rest to be "whizzing around" at the "future boundary".

To then derive the classical appearance of time in this "evolving block velocity space" purely in spacial terms, I guess we would need the equivalent of Lorentz transformations without the time coordinate? This reminds me of Richard Feynman's wish to "replace all time quantities with spacial quantities". He often did this to simplify his equations & there is some evidence already that most, if not all solutions & predictions of our physical laws may yet be derivable if reinterpreted using spacial dislacement.

This is of course all very sketchy, but I feel it contains the essence of where we should be heading if we are to progress much further in our understanding of reality. A convincing quantum gravity theory would probably give new insights to all of this. There is no doubt though that our lack of understanding of what we call "time" & how to treat it in QM & GR, hence the "problem of time", is a major barrier to progress.

Can any of the above help??

Cheers

Amrit,

Any process which counts is a sort of clock, so long as there are even intervals between the iterations. This in a way is defining time as measured by a clock with a reference to time itself. Physics is a bit that way, such as matter defined as anything which occupies space and has mass. The clock does not prove the existence of time. In fact physics does not prove the existence of anything. All physics does is to predict the value of some observable based on how some detector records a value. These observables are codified according to various entities in relationships with other entities. Some of these entities are not directly measurable, but inferred from the detection of other observables.

Johnstone: When it comes to the polarization states of a gravity wave one can see this with weak gravity waves. The metric for flat spacetime is g^0_{ab} with diagonal elements [1,-1,-1,-1]. A gravity wave is a perturbation on this flat metric so g_{ab} = g^0_{ab} h_{ab}. . If we crank the Einstein field equation on this we find

∂^c∂_ch_{ab} - (1/2)g^0{ab}∂_a∂_b h = (16πG/c^4)T_{ab}

which can be reduced to a wave equation for h'_{ab} = h_{ab} - (1/2)g^0{ab} h of the form

(∆ - ∂^2/∂t^2)h'_{ab} = (16πG/c^4)T_{ab}.

The reduced metric term has two independent solutions h_, h_- for the two directions of polarizations. A gravity wave in free spacetime is where T_{ab} = 0, and if the region of solution includes the source some form of T_{ab} must be included

Physically this can be seen in the effect of a gravity wave on a cloud of particles. If the cloud is initially a sphere the gravity wave will induce a motion where the sphere distends into an ellipsoid with antipodal poles pointing one way and then it oscillates to an ellipsoid with the antipodal pole pointing in a perpendicular direction. The gravity wave is incident along a direction perpendicular to both of these directions, which are the polarization directions.

Cheers, LC

Hi all ,

There that becomes very interesting .I learn like all times .

What is this cloud of spheres ?What is this entanglement ,what is their volumes too .

Many questions in fact but we shall find soon .

Regards

Steve

Lawrence, material change clocks tick including run in space. There is no time behind this change, there is no time behind motion.

Ragarding Barbour statement that motion is an illusion I deeply disagree too. I wrote him letter about that few years ago and he did not comment.

Understanding in physics today is that motion requires time. Motion is fundamental property of the universe.

We still experience universe in mind model of 4 dimensional space where time is 4th dimension. We have to drop that model.

Universe is existing in gravitational field i.e. quantum space where there is no time at all.

Time enters into existence with measuring, with inventing clocks. Until we drop time physics will stagnate.

It is an immence beauty and elegance in model of timeless gravity field i.e. quantum space where material change run.

How that only few we see that ?

One of the things I have pondered, though not worked on seriously, is how relativistic interpretations of time are related to quantum interpretations. Johnstone mentioned the evolving block time. We migth well imagine that there is a quantum aspect to this evolution, such as a quantum superposition of "blocks." Then what we mark at time is how our superposition of blocks is reduced to separate paths, similar to Many Worlds Interpretation. A comparison between the ontology of time a Bell inequalities in space and time might be interesting as well. The Wheeler Delayed Choice might suggest a that time fundamentally does not exist for wave functions, and are only imposed by use on spacetime. So if there is some equivalency here between time and quantum interpretations we might have here that time does not exist. Then we can switch to Bohm's idea, which would correspond to a block time universe with some pilot wave associated with the block.

I am not a partisan to any quantum interpretation, but I find them interesting. Similarly I have no committed idea about the existence of time. What might be of interest is whether interpretations of quanta and time have certain parallels.

Cheers LC

Julian is in my opinion correct in that all measurement, grids, co-ordinates etc. are imposed upon reality rather than them being anything absolute and in themselves foundational. It is always just the observers reference frame that is imposed.I look forward to reading his book.

Julian's viewpoint does cause some problems for comprehending and operating in the universe, which still requires some kind of orientation and measurement. The bridge between objective reality without any measurement or absolute orientation may be a model of that reality onto which an artificial reference framework is imposed, despite it not having any real existence outside of the model. Einstein's space-time is such a model.

If the universe is considered as a hypersphere, as many people have suggested, then two absolute references can be made. That is the 3D surface of the hypersphere that is the material universe and the most interior point of the hypersphere relative to the 3D surface.If there is no time and the universe is still considered a quaternion structure, keeping all of Einstein's work that has been confirmed by observation, then it is not unreasonable to assume that all 4 dimensions are the same.

So that point can be considered be a singularity in space not time.Though not a part of the 3D universe which only exists on the surface of the universal hypersphere. Change of position along the 4th dimension of the material universe, towards the centre of the hypersphere will in my opinion provide a model that will answer the fundamental questions.

This however is just a model. A subjective reality that is created to allow comprehension of an underlying objective reality and explanation of observations made.

Julian has explored the territory and found no sign posts, clocks, grid lines or rulers.(I think he may have missed the great flow of the universe from higher to lower potential energy that causes the creative processes, gravity, the perceived arrow of time. However he is an older and probably much wiser explorer than myself. It may have just been my imagination.) Someone still needs to provide the map.

Lawrence, It is interesting that you raise the idea of Bohmian Mechanics in the context of an evolving block Universe. I am currently in the middle of an early paper by Durr, Goldstein & Zanghi introducing their program for interpreting quantum mechanices with BM at it's foundation. Here is the abstract from that paper:-

"In order to arrive at Bohmian mechanics from standard nonrelativistic quantum mechanics one need do almost nothing! One need only complete the usual quantum description in what is really the most obvious way: by simply including the positions of the particles of a quantum system as part of the state description of that system, allowing these positions to evolve in the most natural way. The entire quantum formalism, including the uncertainty principle and quantum randomness, emerges from an analysis of this evolution. This can be expressed succinctly--though in fact not succinctly enough--by declaring that the essential innovation of Bohmian mechanics is the insight that particles

move!".

This clearly puts emphasis on motion, position & relative configuration by treating only position operators as 'real" & using a guiding wave. I believe this program is far more preferable to "Copenhagen" type interpretations & declaring "conscious observation" & "choice of experiment" as being what determines reality. This explains nothing!

With respect to motion it would be interesting to ask Mr Barbour:-

a) Is there any evidence yet that solutions to the time-independant(no kinetic term?) Schrodinger or Wheeler-DeWitt equations are constrained to coincide with his "preferred" static configurations?

b) Can Darwinian evolution & natural selection operate in a static Universe? That is, (in response to a descriptive tool used in his book) ...why does the kingfisher have wings?

Cheers

Roy J

Lawrence 1 + 1 can not be 1.

1+1 is 2

Space is one physical entity time si another physical entity.

To try to make one of them is wrong.

Actually we can not talk about space as in universe we observe only distances.

Space is a mind model, in the universe fundamental physical reality in which physical change run is gravity field.

I suggest here that physics develops models of physical world on two basic physical facts

1. fundamental arena of the universe is gravity field i.e quantum space. Gravity field itself is timeless. Time is not part of gravity field.

2. time is tick of clocks that exist in gravity field

We measure speed of clocks is slower in stranger gravity field. This is isight of the Relativity Theory.

We have to forget space/time being fundamental arena of the universe. This is wrong idea prevents connection between GR and GM.

I'm not against time, I do not say that there is no time. For me time is tick of clocks. With clocks we measure frequency, velocity and numerical order of physical change that run in timeless gravity field i.e quantum space.

Hi all ,

Dear Roy ,

I am happy to see that

"Can Darwinian evolution & natural selection operate in a static Universe? "

The answer is no ,of course ,it's evident for me.The complexity returns to the simplicity .

What about too ,Lamarck and the desire to adapt ,Cuvier and the local destroyement and adaptations ,Saint Hilaire and the environnemental mutations ,Wagner and the isolation ,De vries and the genetic evolution,Huxley and his Darwinism evolved.....and others continue too ....

How imagine this Universe without this evolution ,it has indeed no sense because all is linked .

The infra and trans specific factors ,parameters are so numerous ,If the evolution is not considered thus a model is not complete or fundamental in my opinion .

Sincerely

Steve

In fact ,the motion ,the time ,the evolution ,the space .....are essentials pieces for the building of our Universe .If we don't insert these foundamenatls ,the evolution don't exist .....thus nothing is objective thus .

The time is a constant of evolution which permits to design our Universe and its complexification towards ultim harmony .Even our quantum universe is in 3D more this constant .

Even in our extrapolations we must apply limits and accept our 3D design and this constant .It's better to focus on reality of our Universe and for that all topics must be studied and must put into practices with pragamatism and rationality .

How can we understand our laws without these realities ,objectivities and proofs.

Sincerely

Steve

We all agree on two facts

1. universe and nature including human being change

2. we measure frequency, velocity and numerical order of physical and biological change with clocks

out of that follows

-time is tick of clock

-arrow of time is numerical order of change

-universe is timeless

-past and future are of the mind

yours amrit

Amrit ,

Do you think it exists a particle which goes speeder than the light thus if I understand well ?

An other point you say "past and future are of the mind "

thus only the present exists ??? I have difficulties to encircle that .

Could you explain me a little all that please ?

Sincerely

Steve