• [deleted]

amrit,

Zeno's paradox is a strange case of false assumptions. I forget how Lynds structured his argument. It was the first paper that made him famous, relatively speaking. The point being that a dimensionless point doesn't exist.

Roy,

I think that part of our problem is that the mind functions as a process of making distinctions, so we tend to give more credence to the quanta than the continuum. I think at it's most fundamental level, reality is a continuum. Otherwise it couldn't exist, as there would be no basis of connection between quanta. Yet we are like those animals which only see motion, so we only really register the information of detail. It's like the question of space. We can only measure what occupies it, so think it is created by these measurements, but even that's contradictory, as if it doesn't exist, it can't be created or even defined. It is both absolute, as the basis of everything, the vacuum that fluctuates and infinite as in lacking any boundaries of definition.

  • [deleted]

Natural clock is quanta of space QS itself

QS tick with frequency 1/Planck time

QS changes electrical charge from positive to negative into Planck time

In Planck time photon pass distance of Planck distance.

In Planck time photon pass one QS

Frequency of QS is basic vibration of the universal space into which we exist

In cosmic space build from QS there is no before and after, there is only change we measure with clocks.

Idea of quantization of time is wrong.

  • [deleted]

Quanta of space QS are basic quanta of energy. They can not be created and not destroyed. They are eternal. They vibrate with basic Frequency 1/Planck time.

QS build fundamental arena of the universe.

In this fundamental arena there is no time as a physical reailty.

This arena is timeless.

We humans we experience this arena as present moment, as NOW.

In the universe there is only this present moment.

In this present moment universe and nature change.

And this change we measure with clocks.

Conscious observer is aware of this timelss universe,

unconscious observer experiences change in linear concept of inner time.

He lives in time, he think time is part of the universe.

This illusion will be resolved in next few years.

Physich will confirm soon that time is tick of clocks in timeless quantum space.

yours amrit

  • [deleted]

amrit,

Quanta are the nodes, but what is the network? Physics is convinced the network is simply an effect of the existence of nodes, whether it's quanta, or multiple universes. I think that's just a little too top down, object oriented to really explain what's going on.

  • [deleted]

I find the concept of the fluctuating vacuum to be more bottom up elemental, with all the forms and shapes, vortices, intersections, solids, fluids, gases, etc. to be the effect. That's why I think space is something more than just the measure between such points of reference.

  • [deleted]

further note; When you get down to it, so many of the problems in our collapsing Tower of Babel world are due to the fact that we are so much more mentally adept at making distinctions, rather than connections. We can dissect everything down to its finest grain, but have no model for how it all comes together in the first place, because models are static and reality operates at the speed of light.

  • [deleted]

I would have said that the "network" is the various interactions between quanta ("nodes") and that what you are really seeking is the continuum which "supports' the network? The vacuum fluctuations are themselves *quantum* in nature (albeit vitual). Quantum Field Theory treats the fields as a continuum (space) at least in a theoretical way. In the classical regime, GR treats space as a continuum. This is the essence of the debate about how to formulate quantum gravity, by quantising GR or by recovering GR from quantum theory...top down or bottom up? I'm for bottom up! I think the basis for this might be something very close to Bohmian Mechanics too.

Loop Quantum Gravity type theories are an attempt to show how "spacetime" can be quantised and still derive the classical appearance of space (continuum) and all other entities, ie "network" and "nodes".

Cheers

  • [deleted]

John and Roy

QS Quanta of space constitute space. If we would have a microscope strong enough we could see them. Space is like made out of entities that have basic frequency. QS Vibrate with basic frequency we call here Planck frequency. So QS are basic nodes, eternal, un-destroyable. Quantum space has a certain density. More matter is in given volume less quantum space is dense. When space is dense it has tendency to shrink. This shrinking force is gravity. In centre of AGN quantum space is very dense and it has tendency to expand. So quantum space can indirectly attract stellar objects or push them apart. Where quantum space is very dense it pushes apart where it is no dense it shrinks as in black holes and neutron stars where matter transforms back to the space.

Where we have transformation matter into quantum space or quantum space into matter density of quantum space is changing strongly. This change of density propagates in quantum space as a gravity wave. So gravitational waves are waves in quantum space that travel with a light speed. Gravity force itself I non-propagating. It works between quanta of space themselves.

Fundamental comic dynamics is in transformation of QS into elementary particles in AGN and elementary particles back into QS in neutron and black stars. This dynamics is eternal, no beginning and no end.

  • [deleted]

Lawrence: Amrit: a clock records time, Everything a ratchet-pawl locks in a toothed wheel someting irreversible has happened. A clock demarks time according to intervals, which are regular enough and require some irreversible loss of energy. Thermodynamics on a large scale appears of great importance.

Amrit: As time (clock) is man made physical reality we can talk only about "arrow of change" (arrow if numerical order of change) that runs in timeless quantum space. Universe is 1300 billions years old only in a sense of numerical order of events. Numerical order is the only past that exits.

  • [deleted]

Roy,

That's why I keep going back to the point about time going both directions. When we look at it from the subjective perspective of the node, it is a series of events, but but if we look at it as these "configurations states" going future to past, it is the direction of the entire field.

amrit,

Is the continuum only a function of interaction on the Planck scale?

Here is a link to the Carver Mead American Spectator interview;

http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/People/CarverMead.htm

"So early on you knew that electrons were real.

The electrons were real, the voltages were real, the phase of the sine-wave was real, the current was real. These were real things. They were just as real as the water going down through the pipes. You listen to the technology, and you know that these things are totally real, and totally intuitive.

But they're also waves, right? Then what are they waving in?

It's interesting, isn't it? That has hung people up ever since the time of Clerk Maxwell, and it's the missing piece of intuition that we need to develop in young people. The electron isn't the disturbance of something else. It is its own thing. The electron is the thing that's wiggling, and the wave is the electron. It is its own medium. You don't need something for it to be in, because if you did it would be buffeted about and all messed up. So the only pure way to have a wave is for it to be its own medium. The electron isn't something that has a fixed physical shape. Waves propagate outwards, and they can be large or small. That's what waves do.

So how big is an electron?

It expands to fit the container it's in. That may be a positive charge that's attracting it--a hydrogen atom--or the walls of a conductor. A piece of wire is a container for electrons. They simply fill out the piece of wire. That's what all waves do. If you try to gather them into a smaller space, the energy level goes up. That's what these Copenhagen guys call the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. But there's nothing uncertain about it. It's just a property of waves. Confine them, and you have more wavelengths in a given space, and that means a higher frequency and higher energy. But a quantum wave also tends to go to the state of lowest energy, so it will expand as long as you let it. You can make an electron that's ten feet across, there's no problem with that. It's its own medium, right? And it gets to be less and less dense as you let it expand. People regularly do experiments with neutrons that are a foot across.

A ten-foot electron! Amazing

It could be a mile. The electrons in my superconducting magnet are that long.

A mile-long electron! That alters our picture of the world--most people's minds think about atoms as tiny solar systems.

Right, that's what I was brought up on-this little grain of something. Now it's true that if you take a proton and you put it together with an electron, you get something that we call a hydrogen atom. But what that is, in fact, is a self-consistent solution of the two waves interacting with each other. They want to be close together because one's positive and the other is negative, and when they get closer that makes the energy lower. But if they get too close they wiggle too much and that makes the energy higher. So there's a place where they are just right, and that's what determines the size of the hydrogen atom. And that optimum is a self-consistent solution of the Schrodinger equation."

So what if light expands as a field, like the electrons he is describing and only collapses into photons when we measure it. It would not only be a function of the light, but a process of interaction with the measuring device. It might explain lots of things, such as action at a distance, as the entangled particles are fronts of the same wave. Possibly cosmic redshift as well, since the wave front has to expand the greater its radius, so redshift becomes a consequence of distance, not recession velocity.

  • [deleted]

John, Real continuum exists only in mathematic; real numbers are continuum on the straight line.

Continuum of physical level as an ongoing process in the universe is function of quantum space, of quanta of space QS.

Electron is a micro-field around atom center generated by QS in given area.

I believe that future physics will develop a mode of the universe where change will run in a timeless medium of Quantum space. Matter is structured energy of quantum space. All elementary particles are combination of QS.

Universe and change have no duration. With clocks we measure only frequency, velocity and numerical order of change that runs in present moment. This present moment is the only one that exists. Eternity is now.

yours amrit

  • [deleted]

amrit,

Is this quantum space an absolute grid of immovable points, or do they flow around and interact with the physical material?

  • [deleted]

John

QS are carrying gravity force; quantum space is a direct information and energy medium.

Quantum space interacts with matter via density, see my previous post.

  • [deleted]

amrit,

So it is relativistic. The problem I have with that model is that it still needs a constant frame to make sense. Consider the idea that gravity bends the path of light and this means it bends the space in which that light travels. How could the term "bend" even make sense, if there wasn't a concept of objective space against which to compare it? If the gravitational field wasn't there, presumably the light would travel in a straight line and it is against this line that we say that the path it takes around a gravity well is bent. Yes, gravity bends the path of light, but if it bent space, would it have to bend all potential concepts and constants of space as well. In which case, how would we know it's bent? A prism bends light, but we don't say it bends space, so a bending of light isn't proof of anything other than the light is bent.

How about the concept of the expansion of space as the basis for an expanding universe and how it relates to a constant speed of light; Say there are two objects a billion light years apart and space expands to twice the size it was. Presumably, according to Big Bang theory, these two objects are now two billion light years apart, but how can that be, if the very fabric of space is expanding? Wouldn't they always be a billion light years apart, otherwise it's just a doubling of the distance of a constant measure of space.

Saying space is bent because measuring it is dependent on objects in motion is the same fallacy people always make in assuming what they don't know is fully understandable in terms of what they do know. Think about one thing though; What determines the speed of light? Why is it the primary constant? It seems to me that physics looks at the situation backwards. If we assume there is some equilibrium state to the vacuum of space, the situation makes much more sense.

Think about it this way; What would be the logical zero for geometry; The center point of the graph, or the blank sheet of paper? Much of math and physics seem to think it's the center point, but as I argued earlier, a dimensionless point is an oxymoron. If you factor anything by zero, it doesn't exist. So you either have something, or you have nothing. Maybe that nothing has potential to be something, vacuum fluctuation, zero point energy, whatever, but than so does any other nothing have potential and they would all balance out. There is no one center point.

So why would space be a function of quanta? Why wouldn't quanta be a function of space?

I think we have agreed time is a consequence of motion, but we diverge on the issue of whether motion is an effect of space, or space is an effect of motion. The Big Bang theory is based on the assumption space is created by the singularity, at which motion begins, but is that a logical model of the universe? Could we not simply have a fluctuating vacuum, which creates energy until it collapses into gravity wells and radiates back out again. That would create the effect of galactic contraction and intergalactic expansion, which we observe, without the overriding question of where the singularity came from in the first place, as well as all the addenda needed to support it, from Inflation to dark energy.

  • [deleted]

John

Curvature of space in GR is a mathematical model for density of quantum space. Less dense is space more space is curved. More space is dense less is curved. In black holes matter is dense and space is low dense in centre of galaxy space is dense to max and there is no matter there. So in centre of galaxy space transforms in matter.

Light bending is result of density of quantum space.

Gravitational red shift is result of density of quantum space.

Clock ticks slower in less dense quantum space.

Planets move slower in less dense quantum space ( Mercury perihelion)

  • [deleted]

amrit,

I'm a little befuddled. Presumably the density of space refers to the quantity of energy contained, so gravitational attraction would make it more curved, the greater the density of energy and mass.

The basic assumption of physics seems to be that space is nothing but an effect of activity. That the fluctuation creates the vacuum. Whether you agree with me, or not, I think the alternative deserves to be considered. If space is nothing, it can't be curved, or quantified and it needs no cause. Those are all properties of energy. Presumably all the positive and negative energy, matter and anti-matter, etc. cancel out to zero. All the curvature of space, both expansion and contraction, seem to balance out to an over-all flat space. It seems everything balances out to....nothing? Yes, the argument can be made that some residue is left. Some energies are always coming, as other is going, etc, but still there isn't some total supply, but rather fluctuations of the equilibrium. Maybe I'm not putting this in sufficiently mathematical terms, but nothing seems to be the equilibrium state at the center of everything. As you said; Now is eternity.

you haven't explained to me why this flexible space can presumably expand from a singularity, yet there seems to be an unrelated constant speed of light.

  • [deleted]

John, photon is a packet of energy that "jumps" from one QS to another. This jumps have constant speed: photon pass Planck distance in Planck time, independently of the observer speed.

So for the observer that moves in an inertial system with a high speed through the space all change in his inertial system are running slower, velocity of clocks including. He also is getting older slower than his fried in inertial system that move with lower speed.

We measure speed of inertial systems relatively from inertial system A to B and vice versa.

If you are in A and I'm in B and you inform me that in your space-ship clocks run slower than in my space-ship this means that you move with higher speed than me.

We are aware now that A and B move in timeless space only and clock tick in timeless space too.

yours amrit

  • [deleted]

amrit,

Do we know the energy of a photon is inherent, or is it an effect. Drops of water all tend to be the same size, due to surface tension and gravity. Could the energy of photons also be due to some transition effect? When you entangle two photons, you have one packet of energy, just as if you combine two drops of water. When you separate out two photons again, their properties are fundamentally entangled. This suggests they are not two irreducible packets of energy, but have been combined and thus the specific energy of a photon is due to factors we may not fully understand, not because it is irreducible. What if we were to combine enormous numbers of photons, such as with sunlight. Wouldn't all this energy be equally entangled and it's only when it comes in contact with something that it grounds out as a specific quanta of energy

Then the question applies to space. Is a Planck unit fundamental, or it is a function of the properties of mass and energy in motion and is due to transition and interaction. If you say space doesn't exist. That it's just a function of measurement, than all a Planck unit is, is the smallest possible measurement. It's as close as we can get to nothing.

  • [deleted]

John, medium into which stellar objects and elementary particles move is direct medium of communication between entangled particles. In a way this medium defines behavior of entangled particles. Medium exits for sure, medium is not consequence of matter. We can call it quantum space of gravity field. Myself I see "quantum space" most accurate term.

Building elements of quantum space QS we can not observe directly. Idea of an unit of energy entity that has a volume of Planck in vibrate with Planck frequency (changes electrical charge from positive to negative in a Planck time) is see acceptable, because it s related to the fundamental constant in Physics Plank distance.

Universe behaves with a great intelligence. Physics is coming closer and closer to the core. We have to be aware that math and physics are tolls for describing universe created by the human mind. So mind is a consistent part of math and physics and without deep understanding of the mind we will never reach into depth of the universe. Linear time belongs to the mind. According to my understanding physics will abandon idea of space-time being physical reality soon. This will be the first big step into profound understanding of the universe where there is deep entanglement between the observer and the universe.

  • [deleted]

amrit,

"In a way this medium defines behavior of entangled particles. Medium exits for sure, medium is not consequence of matter. We can call it quantum space of gravity field. Myself I see "quantum space" most accurate term."

We seem to be in agreement. I do think the concept which does embed the observer in the universe is understanding time as the events going from future to past. In fact, I think the reason I cannot seem to get many people to think it through is because it does embed one's sense of self and identity into one's context far more completely and irrevocably than most people wish to think. We naturally like to pick and chose what we are part of and what is part of us, but framing it this way, makes it a completely holistic relationship. That linear concept of time is what makes us the autonomous beings we imagine ourselves to be. The very concept of history is based on it and civilization is a product of that concept of history. So it's reasonable that most people don't want to go there, but if we really what to understand what we are, we have to.