thanks sir/madam for your valuable advice.but i request you to tell me what was wrong in my speculation so that in future i may take care of my mistakes. also do check one of my other speculation in the topic DR. EDT'S THEORY given in the major topic HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS which is about the speed of light. do send your replies again .
M.SAI VARUN REDDY
Have a look to my threat (model) appearing in the topic:
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/391
according to this the slice (of "conceivable space universe") is moving like a pendulum from one pole to the other of a spherical unchasnged "space universe".
Can anyone speculate when the pendulum started and when it will stop?
For an answer the "physical laws" of a super-universe is needed.
In other words, NO answer is possible whithin our universe.
Dear Sirs,
From the nothing, nothing can emerge or arise. So, it's not intelligent thinking that from a past time where supposedly nothing existed, anything like our universe has come to light.
So, the idea of a starting of matter existence is a fake idea, without any basement. There are no reason to think that the intrinsic and perpetual nature of the cosmic fabric is not exactly what is shown.
Simple like that: The nature of the cosmos is what you see: energized matter. There has never been any past time when the "nothing" existed, so the past is really infinite.
THE ILLUSION OF TIME
In an essay in Scientific American (Sci.Am. 302,6; p 59-65; 2010) Craig Callender reports that some theoretical physicists suggest that time does not exist. Their conclusion comes from quantum mechanical considerations. I am presenting some observations of our macroscopic world that lead to the same suggestion.
The three domains of time are future, present and past. The future contains all events that do not yet exist, the present contains the events that exist, and the past the ones that do not exist anymore.
It seems obvious that as I am writing these words I am in the present. However, this moment will be in the past and not exist anymore, when you will read what I am writing now.
When we shake hands we feel our hands touch. The moment, we feel each others hand, the touching is already in the past. Our sensory receptors need time to react, our nerves need time to send a signal to our brains. Our brains need time to process the information, and time is needed to informing the seats of our self-awareness that a touching is happening. Well, our system is slow. However, if we could register an event within a fraction of a picosecond, even then this event would be in the past when we witness its existence. That means everything we do, feel, see, or hear is already in the past and has ceased to exist.
As all events that we can witness are already in the past when we become aware of them, the time that we experience is in the past also. Thus, time is a dimension of the imagined world of the past. It is an illusion.
Time measures the distance that separates a past event from the present. In our imagination, we can go back to the time of ancient Rome, and than we can move forward again to the discovery of the Americas. We can let time run forward or backward, and we can define an arrow of time in our virtual world of the past.
We do not know if there is some equivalent in the present to what we call time. If there is, it cannot have duration.
Events are real only as long as they are anchored in the present. As soon as the connection to the present is lost an event ceases to exist. Time comes into its virtual existence the moment an event becomes detached from the present.
As long as we live, we are connected to the present. However, everything we experience is already in the past.
When we die we stop to exist. We lose our connection to the present. Our body may exist a little longer while connected to the present, however, eventually, it also will cease to exist until in the end there are only atoms and finally sub-atomic particles as traces of our former existence.
Everything that changes moves from the reality of the present into the illusion of the past. The changed state remains in the present and the old state, which does not exist anymore, is in the past.
The future is what we think might happen or what we predict to become reality. Our predictions are based on our experience and knowledge of our world of the past. As the past, the future is not real. We are imagining the future as a mirror image of our world of the past.
To become real a future event must become part of the present first. That is the reason why we cannot "remember" the future. We can only remember events that once had been real. In other words we only can remember what had been in the present.
As the time we experience does not exist in the present, we cannot assume time to be running continuously from the past into the future. It rather seems as if the present generates time as the fourth dimension of our virtual world of the past.
TIME
I am as one would rightly have deduced after reading this post...just a voice in the wilderness.
My theory........
Time is the effect of a movement that spins back on itself while still moving in the same original direction.
The backward spin on a ball thrown forward, has a ball thrown with the same energy as one without a spin, yet the ball takes longer to get to its destination. The spin slows time and in the case of a googly cricket bowl...distorts distance/ time.
There is also a case for the shape of 'time' and the universe. The effect of movement dictates the shape of the Universe and all the laws within it.
Analogy........
The smoke ring a cigarette smoker can blow. The forward movement of the smoke ring is countered by the backward spin of the ring across its width (which is composed of the same forward movement) yet the smoke ring still moves forward because it is all the same force. I propose the ring and its contents are 3 dimensional time and space and the original forward movement one dimensional time, while everything else is a void. The forward motion gives rise to the expanding universe, because as the forward motion continues, the circumference of the ring gets larger. The ring has to accommodate the matter/mass so its width shrinks, until finally all movement stops and the mass/matter disappears.
These opposing movements within the same movement generate a continuum.
I often think that when a bullet is fired, time folds back on its future self to allow the bullet to hit its future target.
I hope this is not too much of a nonsense.
Thank you for your time.Attachment #1: time_mcdonald_28.8.jpg
If we admit the idea that duration in time and motion (mass-energy) in space do not interact with duration and motion being simply concurrent realities, then the idea of an infinite past and future time would be easy.
Stephen Hawking has recently forwarded the idea of "spontaneous creation" owing to the existence of gravity. The idea of "spontaneous creation because of gravity" essentially proposes that gravitational masses always existed because otherwise gravity will not be an occurrence and then spontaneous creation will not occur at all. This by extension poses the idea of an infinite past and future time.
The idea of "creation because of gravity" in Hawking's latest makes me wonder if he or his peers read my paper of a few years ago.
Sometime ago I've also emailed A. Aguirre and M. Tegmark an ecopy of Kinematic Relativity and Continuous Mass-Formation in an Accelerating Universe, although I gathered from Anthony's response that he has not read it and did not intend to read it.
"An infinite past just seems wrong -- literally inconceivable -- like words being put together in a meaningless way. But is it?"
I've been working on an idea of gravitation from the viewpoint of "kinematic relativity" that suggests that gavity and all other forces (kinematic tendencies) would not be possible without an infinitely hierarchical cosmos.
But the work is on hold for lack of funding and hence time - I need to use my time to work for a living. I tried to get an FQXi grant, but although FQXi is really generous, my proposal just couldn't cut it.
I'm posting here because I am hoping somebody else is working on the same ideas that I am working on. I'm trying to discover who does.
It would be great if you people could answer with some relevant comments.
Regarding the idea of entropy discussed above by Anthony...
The assumption is of course that the second law of thermodynamics is valid application for the universe. The idea predicts an entropic death of the universe. But there is an opposed idea to the second law - the idea of gravitation.
It is clear that the underlying idea of the second law is radiation (i.e., attenuation). On the other hand, the underlying idea of gravity is gravitation/condensation/concentration (i.e., densification).
So, which of the two is the correct idea as regards the universe?
Hawking is saying now - "spontaneous creation" because of gravity.
I've been saying for many years now - "cosmic continuous mass formation" because of the gravitational 'tensor' acceleration. I have the genesis formula presented at my website.
The idea of "a universe heading toward an entropic demise" is no longer valid.
Only a universe with the continuous cosmic mass formation process owing to gravity, with the created masses undergoing cosmic fission processes (such as super novae, etc.), can explain the "large structures." The large structures now observed by astronomers could not have formed in the time span forwarded in the big bang theory.
Time exist - time is numerical order of material change trat run in space. We measure them with clocks....see more on file attached.
yours amritAttachment #1: 2_BLOCK_UNIVERSE.pdf
Not only is the past not infinite, the past does not and cannot exist at all. The only condition that can exist is the here and now. Our individual grasp of reality is strictly rationed. We cannot know everything there is to know. Whether or not we can actually know anything for sure is debatable. Each of us obviously is constrained only to know what our senses transmit to us at any particular moment. Well if verifiable reality can only consist of the pragmatic instantaneous sensations perceived by our senses, any supposition, or speculation or theory including scientific theory or deeply ingrained religious belief has to be unrealistic. We can only see what we see at the time that we see it. We can only hear what we hear at the time that we hear it. We can only taste what we taste at the time that we taste it. We can only smell what we smell at the time that we smell it. We can only feel what we feel at the time that we feel it. All of this activity can only take place in the here and now. The only freedom of will each one of us has is the ability to pretend to be someone other than the person we are. An ant can only ever be an ant consigned its whole life to really only ever being an ant reliably always performing ant actions. Although a man can only really know what his senses tell him from moment to moment, he can behave as if he is a special kind of man. As he goes through life, he can acquire reassuring labels, licenses, and diplomas that pay no attention to the limitations of anyone's unfortunate individual reality, but are prized documents dedicated to the invaluable individual procuring of common unreal abstraction that floats in the mists of the there and then.
However, both man and ant eventually end. Both man and ant are somehow absorbed into other life forms for all of life is immortal, it just undergoes constant change.
It is difficult for me to address time as an isolated subject. I must first outline a skeleton of my own cosmological model. The cosmic foam of our universe is the ether foam of a super-universe, and the ether foam of our universe is the cosmic foam of a sub-universe. The median size bubble in our cosmic foam is roughly 10^24 meter across; the median size bubble in our ether foam is roughly 10^-35 m across. Space can be measured in ether-foam bubbles; a cubic meter is roughly 10^105 bubbles, and that number remains constant as our space expands. The expansion of our space stretches the bubble walls of our cosmic foam, causing them to pop. The same thing occurs in the sub-universe, causing its cosmic foam bubble walls to pop.
Space expands by increasing the number of ether-foam bubbles. When a wall separating two bubbles pops, two bubbles become one. That is a reduction in the number of bubbles. For the number of bubbles to increase, bubble walls must un-pop; a new wall must form across the middle of a bubble, dividing it in two. So when a cosmic-foam bubble in the sub-universe pops, one of our ether-foam bubbles must un-pop. In other words, the arrow of time reverses from one universe to the next. The expansion of space aims the arrow of time.
Turning the clock backward, we can imagine our space shrinking. This reduces the scale factor between the cosmic foam and the ether foam. Today, the factor is about 10^59 to 1. Suppose we run the clock back to a time when the scale factor was unity; we reach a time when our cosmic foam existed at the same scale as our ether foam. That could be adopted as a convenient marker for the beginning of time as we know it. Before that, the roles of cosmic foam and ether foam are reversed; the super-universe and sub-universe swap roles.
I am not saying that we CAN turn the clock back that far with any degree of confidence in what might have existed back then. If seems likely that our cosmic foam may have undergone numerous phase shifts since the beginning of time as we know it. Our cosmic foam, today, consists of bubbles surrounded by walls of galaxies. So what was it before galaxies came into existence? Did it have a foamy texture even then? I doubt if we can ever know that. Nevertheless, it does make sense to me to postulate a beginning of time as we know it, and that sets an arbitrary but finite limit to the age of our universe.
Our universe is an insignificant subset of an infinitely greater fractal universe. That greater universe exists outside of time because time runs both forward and backward within it. Time exists within the greater universe, but the greater universe has no beginning or end.
That previous thread is mine. I thought I was still logged in.
past exist only as a numerical order.............Attachment #1: Time_measured_with_Clocks_12.10..pdf
If there was no friction pendulum will never reach an equilibrium and it will continue moving for ever and ever.("continuing into the future" does not seem to be my words)
As far as entropy concerns: it increases as slice ("conceivable universe") is moving from poles to the equator and decreases as slice is moving from the equator to poles. So (b) and may (a) are "feasible" possibilities.
Passage of time is human perception. It is also how we order and make sense of numerous, many dimensional spatial changes that are occurring continuously. The experience comes from within the organism and is in part due to circadian rhythm controlled by the pituitary gland in response to light levels and in part interpretation of the sequence of spatial change experienced by that organism. Ageing is cumulative detrimental changes in the spatial configuration of the material components of the body including damage to the mitochondria the "energy production" units of the cells.
The tick of a clock gives a scale within 3D space that can be used to measure other spatial change. It is a man made construction that works together with human perception to give time a -seemingly- non spatial existence in the world. With a clock we can now see time passing second by second rather than having to rely on the astronomical changes, change in the earth relative to the sun, position of stars or moon in the sky etc. This takes us away from what time is to the universe.
There are changes with in 3D space that we can observe and measure. Distance A to B for example. Taking the 3 dimensions to be the only spatial dimensions that exist A to B is a fixed and unchanging. The position of A and the position of B do not change. The only other change that is occurring according to this viewpoint is change in time. However if distance A to B is measured on the earth's surface, then A to B is changing spatial position because of the earth's rotation about its axis, the orbit of the earth around the sun, procession of the solar system with in the galaxy and so on to bigger scales of change of position with in the material object universe. The cumulative effect of change at many scales, mostly circular motion is a change in -spatial- position. The object has not just moved A to B it has moved A to B' at the new universal position. When the object arrives at B' it is not in the same spatial position as B was, when the object left A. Some say prove it. Well do the celestial bodies of the universe move relative to each other or are they static? If it is assumed that they are moving as our observations show, then the passage of time for an object is a change in its absolute spatial position in the (object) universe. Nothing moves A to B even if we see and measure it doing so. It is only possible for that to be so if the whole universe is static. The 4th dimensional change is a universal spatial change that is generally unobserved and so is unaccounted for, except as passage of time. That is to say relative local spatial change within a particular frame of reference(3D vector) against overall universal change, encompassing changes over many many scales, planetary , solar system , galactic, galaxy cluster, object universal (scalar spatial change).
Then there is the question of where this dimension of spatial change can possibly exist if all of space is defined by the 3 spatial dimensions.There is only one place for it to be. Running from the exterior to the interior of every mass. Movement along this "scalar" spatial dimension is then able to account for gravity. The object does not move into itself with in a single 3D space but from one 3D space to the next in that orientation. The 4th dimension in the electromagnetic equations of maxwell become the same scalar spatial orientation.
It is the ordering of the change that brings in time. However only that which exists in atemporal now actually materially exists. If one considers that which did exist but no longer exists one has invented the past. Which has no physical existence in atemporal now only in the mind or in the calculation or as an image. If one predicts what will exist then one has created a hypothetical future. Which has no existence in atemporal now only in the mind or the calculation. The experienced present is a patchwork of time delayed data unique to each observer position.It is not the same as the existential reality of the material universe at atemporal now.Past, present and future belong to the image universe. Image and object are not the same thing!!!
Along the 4th dimension of the material object universe there is absolute space that has been passed through, is now occupied, and which will be passed through. Of course the spatial position an object occupied and other objects occupied prior to current atemporal now effects its current change. It is not existential past effecting the present but former objective now (the spatial arrangement and relative positions of all components of the material universe) universe having already influenced current objective now. Progression is from one universal configuration to the next, atemporal now to atemporal now. Atemporal now may seem to be in the future as it exists ahead of delayed transmission and interpretation of any data that can be formed into perception of that which exists.Can things exist before we are aware of them? Certainly. Research has shown that the fear response is detectable in humans before conscious awareness of any threatening stimulus. Immediate preparation of the organism for rapid response gives a survival advantage. The material organism can thus react before the conscious observer function of the organism has awareness of another material configuration presenting a threat. The conscious observer is thus always observing the past, a patchwork image of former material reality.
There is not a material copy of that which has already happened and the future is not already written and in material existence. There is no going back to the past, only back to space that has been passed through. There is no traveling to the future, only to space that has not yet been passed through. Aft space and afore space.It would require billions of universes worth of matter and energy for all of those temporal copy universes to exist. They are fantasy realms imo nothing more. I do not assume my reflection in the mirror to be a real independently existing person, even though I see it clearly.It is an image, a trick of the light.
The image of past events that are seen are just that- images created from the delayed transmission of photons. The material object universe is not the same as the image universe. The material object universe can be described by 4 dimensions, 3 vector spatial one scalar spatial. The image universe can be described by 4 dimensions. 3 vector spatial and one time. The image universe THE UNIVERSE is an image!!! The material object universe that we can not observe is the material object. How can it be said to exist if it can not be observed? There has to be an object to create an image. We could not see the image that we see now if there had not been an object universe. We could not see the 8 minute delayed image of the sun if there was not an object sun existing in atemporal Now. Einstein's work has to do with the -appearance of things- to an observer. Newtons work is to do with the existential matter of the universe. Perhaps too much importance has been given to the appearance of things and erroneous interpretations of the meaning of observation have been made.
At any distance at all from the observer there is time delay in information transfer and the image is non contemporaneous with the observer. The greater the distance the greater the discrepancy. We therefore operate within the image our minds create from a patchwork of time distorted information. That is not the material object reality. That is important.
Considering an eternal material universe one must also consider entropy. By chance, under the influence of forces and organic organization particles come to positions that are more stable than a change in that position and so structure and organization occur. However though matter can come together into structures these too can be broken down. Bodies decay, rocks erode, stars explode.On a universal scale entropy and organization are both ongoing processes.A dynamic equilibrium.I consider it more likely that there is continuous recycling of the universe rather than cataclysmic creation and destruction events of the entire universe simultaneously. The big bang scenario has arisen from the assumption of an expanding universe which is in turn based upon interpretation of red shift data, which may be incorrect. As it takes into account only 3 spatial dimensions of change.
Like a river deposits silt and erodes silt, carving out meanders. The sea deposits sand to build beaches, but also erodes beaches and cliffs.The universe builds stars, planets and lifeforms but also disintegrates stars, planets and lifeforms. Energy is stored in structures and energy is released. Matter is stored in structures and is released to build new structures. Energy is never destroyed. It is eternal if one thinks in terms of time.It is merely atemporal comprising only ongoing spatial change as in material reality everything exists only in space, at an ever changing spatial position. The time dimension is the dimension of the fantasy realms, past , present and future created by light images. The scalar spatial dimension is the dimension of absolute change of the material object universe. Do physical processes occur within the image of the universe or within the material object universe? I say within the object universe.
I don't think it is possible to get something from nothing although some very clever mathematics has been done to show just that. I think it involves lots of assumptions about initial conditions and so allowing rule breaking.
It is far more plausible to me to assume that there was no absolute beginning. We see other objects around us have beginnings and endings,because of the occurrence of spatial changes in the arrangement of the matter comprising those objects.. from life forms, to rocks, buildings, volcanoes even planets and stars. So it is natural to assume that the universe must also have a beginning and end. This is not necessarily so.
A classic car left out unattended in the elements will rust and cease to function and eventually little will be left. However if it is protected and continuously maintained and restored it remains pristine. One car may be dismantled to provide parts for another. One beach may be eroded another formed and built up from the same sand.
If the universe through continuous change builds up and destroys structures recycling energy and matter then this process can continue without end. Far more like the simultaneous erosion and deposition processes we observe on the earth. Rather than the imagined one way street of entropy winding down the energy of the universe into a cold dead future. There is as much reason for it to be in a state of continuous eternal change giving a balance of destruction and organization as there is for it to be absolutely static and dead or non existent.
We see other objects come from somewhere or being made from other things and apply that to the universe, saying where did it come from? or what was it made from? Even who made it? This reasoning does not necessarily apply to the material universe. There may be intermittent local vastly destructive events that lead on to a new creation process whereby dust accumulates into new planets and stars etc but this need not encompass the entire material object universe simultaneously.
Hi William Orem,
I read the abstract of your linked -work-. Would have read more if easily accessible and free. The singularity that provides the whole universe from nothing is such a problematic idea for me that a sensible theory that avoids such a structure seems worthwhile and interesting. My main problem with your outline is that you allow local time reversal. What exactly does this mean to you? Is it just spatial processes running in the opposite direction or is it an exact reversed replay of events?
Many processes can run in either direction. Sand can be deposited sand can be eroded. Groups of organisms come together, groups of organisms disperse. Chemicals can combine and chemicals can be broken apart.This all occurs within what we regard as constant direction of the arrow of time. The processes may change direction but the hands of the clock continue to move in the same direction as does the progression of the sun in the sky.
What constitutes time in those local regions where time reversal occurs?Is it what is happening or is it what it is compared to? What determines time there, the local clock, the outside reference frame clock of an outside observer?, the direction of absolute movement?
If time is reversed rather than just overall processes, gravity also runs backwards and becomes anti gravity as do all forces, pushes pull, pulls push. Atomic spins are reversed, magnetic poles that attracted now repel. How is the reversal of all physics accomplished? Is it just wild speculation or is there some compelling reason to make that assumption?. As you can tell I am very skeptical about this possibility. As an "armchair philosopher" I see no reason to assume that it happens. Though I would be very interested to hear your explanation of why it is good and works.
I think that all change in a material object universe is spatial and spatial change can take place in either direction, without effecting time. Time is an artificial measurement of change and allows perception of the the sequence of change, either using celestial changes or a clock of some kind. The sequence of spatial positions can repeat itself without time being repeated or be reversed without time reversal, such as the swing of a pendulum or any oscillation. At each oscillation the object has a new absolute position in the universe although occupying the same local space reference frame. That is it is within the bounds of an certain 3d space under consideration but due to the movements of the celestial bodies over many scales the cumulative effect is a change of position unaccounted for except as time. Only by reversing the movements of all of the celestial bodies and reversing the effects of all physical processes can time run backwards. It is nearly as preposterous as a singularity. Rule breaking.
I have not read the entirety of that work and therefore may have completely misunderstood. Please forgive me if that is the case.I expect that it is constructed to fit with space-time relativity etc. However that space-time model is based upon time delay ( perhaps I should say spatial sequence progression delay) distortion of the image formed from photon data. It tells us what will be observed (image ) not what is ( material reality). The space-time universe thus formed is not the material universe that exists in purely spatial simultaneous now,(not the present).
Your thoughts, explanations of reasoning etc would be much appreciated.
William Orem,
Oops- just noticed that it was Anthony Aguirre, Steven Gratton's work that was being refereed to you for comment William not your own work. I would still be interested to know your own opinions on the question of actual time reversal outside of mathematical acceptability. What local time reversal actually means to you etc?
Hi Anthony aguirre,
So sorry for that mix up. I would like to address the previous post and the questions raised to you, as you put up the link to your work. Also have you moved on from this ( link in 2007) or is it still a reflection of your current thinking/ research ?
Thinking some more about magnetism it doesn't properly reverse with time reversal. An object that was repelled will be attracted towards but will not stick to the now not quite attracting pole.
Time forwards. Imagining a magnet being dropped onto a repulsing pole of a stronger magnet. It would fall and then be repelled by the magnet. It might be displaced laterally away from the repulsing pole or turn so that attracting poles come together.During the repulsing phase the poles of the magnet do not touch in this imagined case.
Time is reversed. The smaller magnet is now repulsed by the formerly attracting pole if it had turned turned, so turning again or moves towards the formerly repulsing pole from its laterally displaced position. However it is not attracted so sticking to that pole. There is still a barrier to the poles coming together. Instead of the expected complete magnetic attraction it is overcome by anti-gravity and rises into the air. Isn't this a problem because this physics of magnetism doesn't seem to run properly backwards.Is this film running backwards type of time reversal the wrong way to be thinking about it?
There is also the problem of compounds and mixtures and structures that are more energetically stable in their current fixed form than as the ingredients or parts that they were made from. When time is reversed the value of energy would also seem to be reversed so now it is more energetically favorable for formerly stable objects to be undone back to ingredients and parts. Cold objects warm up spontaneously etc.
When time reversal is mentioned by physicists are they referring only to reversal of certain physical processes or all processes, physics, chemistry and biology. If it is reversal of only certain processes then it isn't time reversal its just a reverse reaction or process in forwards time. I understand that time reversal is mathematically allowable but am I failing to comprehend something that makes time reversal plausible and scientifically allowable? Are all physics rules and processes fully reversible? No it would seem.
