Is the Past Infinite?

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.

Does anybody remember the lessons learned from Olber's Paradox? The universe cannot be infinite, and Olber's Paradox explains why. Check it out.

Perhaps the reality of the Paradox is yet another reason behind some scientists inventing parallel universes (actually, somewhat of an oxymoron; the universe is the system of All interacting things; therefore it is and can only be one), since a finite universe points to the idea of a creator whatever that may be...Heaven forbid.

Mike Archer

Mike,

Is it Friday the 13th already? Olbers' paradox is the Jason of unreal paradoxes. It has been resolved in so many ways! Yet people keep raising it from the dead. The

Wikipedia article includes six separate explanations of why the night sky is black, and none of them assume it is finite. Check it out.

As for multiple universes, to loosely quote Bill Clinton, "It depends on what the definition of IS is."

There are degrees of reality. If your imagination IS then anything you can imagine is part of the universe. We can narrow that down a bit by defining a physical universe. Narrowing a bit more, we have OUR physical universe, which might be described as everything on our plane of existence, i.e. our space-time continuum. Then we have our visible universe, which is everything within a Hubble limit of us.

The main reason scientists have hypothesized alternate, parallel or tangent universes has to do with the results of double slit experiments. In my own model, our universe is part of a greater fractal universe. Our universe exists between the scale of the Planck length and that of the cosmic foam. Our cosmic foam (having a median bubble size roughly 10^24 meter across) is the ether foam of a super-universe; our ether foam (having a median bubble size roughly 10^-35 meter across) is the cosmic foam of a sub-universe. Interaction between scalewise universes can only be inferred; it can never be directly observed.

The arrow of time reverses from one scale-wise universe to the next, so the greater fractal universe exists outside of time, and thus has no beginning or end. If you are religiously inclined, you might wish to call the greater fractal universe God.

Tangent universes are not an integral part of my model, but they might help to make sense of fact (according to my model) that the sub-universe past coincides with our future and vice versa. Either our future is predestined, or all of our possible futures will happen for us, and therefore they have already happened from the perspective of inhabitants of the sub-universe.

Hi, Philip:

I don't see how the Wikipedia article you mention resolves the paradox in a way that permits the universe to be infinite, but it does mention at the get-go that:

"In order to explain Olbers' paradox, it is necessary to account for the relatively low brightness of the night sky in relation to the circle of our sun. The universe is only finitely old, and stars have existed only for part of that time."

"The universe is only finitely old,"...

Did you miss this?

Actually, it looks like only one of the possible alternate explanations does not require a finite universe, but even such notables as Paul Davies has clearly set forth the resolution of Olber's Paradox for the observable universe that must be finite, even though he is also "seeking" other "universes" as well.

If there is but one universe as all sane people understand as the system of all interacting things (Since it is all, one cannot add anything to to it. Since you like math, what is the problem with "all plus one?" You'll need some logic as well.), the resolution of Olber's Paradox demonstrates that the universe is indeed finite.

And so to get around this, people start proposing such things as "degrees of reality." Now, who decides how many degrees are involved at any given time? By the bye, who determined there are only degrees? How did he or she know this? Why,...I'll bet it's just another theory without proof. Friday the 13th indeed.

As for double slit experiments, and let's add some aspects of quantum mechanics as well, I have recently joined, so to speak, the camp of Roger Penrose who recognizes the unwarranted philosophy grafted onto the imprecision of such mathematics and experiments that "appear" to demonstrate certain things that, in any event, never seem to impact the classical world in any appreciable way. Why is that? Just imagination? We can't figure it out yet, but we know it's there, kinda like the claim that one cannot define pornography, but he knows it when he sees it. Of course, we can't even see many things claimed to be there by some physicists, and these people laugh at other people who claim belief in an invisible divine being.

Isn't that interesting? If one cannot prove the existence of a divine being, but still believes in one because of observations of the ways the world works, and perhaps some sophisticated philosophical reasoning etc., that person is said to be supremely ignorant, no matter how rational he may be.

However, if one cannot prove the existence of a mathematical universe or hypothetical particle and on and on, but still believes in such things because they fit into highly speculative formulae, why that person is said to be brilliant. And in greater support of the fellow's brilliance, we must marvel at the claim that such things can never be observed. Where are your clothes, Emperor?

Ah, yes. The residents of many glass houses don't even recognize their own faith which is less rational than the faith in a divine being may be. To be sure, a finite universe points to a divine being, so for the atheist/marginal agnostic, this must be opposed by any means no matter how irrational they may be. In a roundabout way, such wasted would-be science is so silly that it makes the philosopher's God appear much more reasonable. An unintended consequence of being so radically opposed to a Divine Being (not to be confused with a fractal universe), another Tower of Babel is being constructed by various physicists who speak in "mathematical" tongues that fewer and fewer can understand because at bottom it is more gibberish.

___________________________________________________________________________

Now, what good is inferring any supposed reality like other universes that cannot be observed or tested? Can you appreciate the honesty of someone like Lee Smolin who laments the fact that more and more mathematical-type theories are being proposed and asked to be accepted even though they can never be scientifically tested? Indeed, no longer science, but mere fantasy and ideology wrapped in some mathematical garb.

The arrow of time? Talk about a non-existent problem. Go back to ancient philosophers for the best understanding of time as the measure of motion. Hone in on this concept: The measure of motion. Stay focused on this and do not attempt to graft anything else onto it. This takes away all problems and fantasies regarding going backwards or sidewise. And if you possess a most sophisticated and rational understanding of relativity, you will realize that it is a most absolutist theory of reality despite the misnomer that allows people to falsely rationalize. But here's the key: the event is real no matter who or what perceives it and when. The event is real and absolute.

Enough for now, and take heart if the above is a bit too much common sense for you to handle. Why,... in an alternate universe, you are quite a rational fellow,...only you'll never be able to interact with him, so you may be doomed to be locked in your foam forever. Ha, Ha!

Good luck!

Mike Archer

Would there even be a paradox if Mr. Olbers and those before him had the ability to see in microwaves? The paradox states roughly: "Why is the night sky dark? The answer is that it isn't. No matter where you look, you see a very uniform distribution of microwaves. I realize the current accepted explanation for the CMB is from the SLS from the Big Bang, but what prevents it from being evidence of a eternal past with an infinite number of nearly uniform sources redshifted into the microwave spectrum via accelerated expansion?

Greetings, UFO Pilot:

Nice flight above California recently.

Now, instead of talking about irreleveant microwaves, try to think about the resolution of Olber's Paradox by the realization that the universe cannot be infinite in time since thermal dynamic equilibrium would have already been reached and we'd either be on fire or in ice. Olber's Paradox remains a problem if the universe is accepted as infinite in time and space.

Pleased to enlighten you to basic reality.

Mike Archer

"Cosmic foam bubbles? Can they be measured, observed, investigated empirically in any way? What is the foam and where does it come from?"

-------------------------------

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey has mapped over half a million galaxies in 3D. Of course, there are more gaps than mapped regions. Our view is blocked by the disk of our own galaxy, and we can't see what lies beyond other galaxies. The task of mapping all the visible galaxies may take decades.

I haven't actually seen the map in stereo vision, but those who have describe it as a giant bubble bath with walls of galaxies surrounding the voids. A void is the interior of a bubble. They believe dark matter completes the fabric of the bubble walls. This is what I am calling the cosmic foam.

We are just beginning to get statistical measurements, and it appears that the median bubble size in the cosmic foam is roughly 10^24 meters across. That being the case, a median-size bubble occupies roughly one millionth of the volume of the visible universe. (I am saying that, by definition, half the volume of a region is contained in bubbles larger than the median size.)

-------------------------------

"This looks like another one of those "math creating reality" claims instead of math reflecting testable reality."

-------------------------------

I am no mathematician. Numbers are a weakness of my model---not a strength. I use very rough approximations to provide a starting point from which others may someday refine the model. There is no insubstantial mathematical space in my model. Everything consists of waves in a hard, massive medium; and that medium consists of particles which are made of waves in a finer medium, and so on ad infinitum. There are no finite empty spaces to be bridged by insubstantial mathematical forces.

-------------------------------

"How do you know the sub-universe is running backwards if all of your tests run forward, which they must?"

-------------------------------

We cannot subject the sub-universe to tests; if we could it would be part of our universe. We can only infer that it must run backwards because of the way the model explains the expansion of space. If a cubic meter is 10^105 median-size bubbles, and that number is constant, then the expansion of space means the number of bubbles in a region of space must be increasing. When a foam fizzes, bubbles are popping, which decreases the number of bubbles. A bubble wall pops, and two bubbles merge into one. For the number of bubbles to increase, they must be un-popping. New bubble walls must be appearing, dividing one bubble into two. The second law of thermodynamics prevents bubbles from un-popping in forward time. (Note: I am assuming the number of bubbles per cubic meter is constant. More generally, it makes sense that the number of bubbles increases as space expands. In keeping with Occam's razor, I choose constant as the simplest explanation until such time as it leads to a contradiction.)

What makes the bubbles pop is the expansion of space in the sub-universe. The cosmic-foam bubbles of the sub-universe are stretched to their breaking point by expansion of sub-universe space. So that is a forward time cause of popping bubbles, from a sub-universe perspective. From our perspective, those same bubbles are un-popping. The cause of the popping is expansion of sub-universe space, which occurred before the popping from a sub-universe perspective. From our perspective, the cause is after the bubble un-pops. So the effect precedes the cause from our perspective.

Also, a popping bubble generates pressure waves which radiate outward. From our perspective, those pressure waves converge to a point where they seem to cause a new bubble wall to appear. The pressure waves are dark energy, and they are converted to new space.

-------------------------------

"Don't forget common sense just because it's not fashionable in the non-scientific quasi-physics world."

-------------------------------

I'm sure Einstein's heard many similar admonitions from his contemporaries. "Common sense" is a euphemism for thinking well inside the box. Paint by the numbers; don't cross the lines. If we never think outside the box, we'll be condemned to add new patches to the same old flawed concepts for ever.

Oops! That post, above belongs on a different discussion. Too bad I can't delete it.

Hi,

Once Nature has never made anything unique in gender(There no just ONE galaxy, ONE sun, ONE planet or sand grain, but large number of them)and can just mass-produce anything; and once we humans have been wrong every time we thought we had found "the entire"; very great chances are that we are also wrong thinking our local(backyard) universe is - this time - the entire stuff.

Great chances are too that we can never discover too much beyond our backyard-universe, due to our littleness.

Personally, I'm convinced that the Cosmos is structured with infinite 'classes of dimensions'(like our) infinitely and fractaly nested.

In other words, totally infinite, as much in time as in space; despite the horror the term "infinite" cause in large amount of scientists.

Cheers,

Wilton

Yes the past would haveto be infinite or else we wouldn't have an infinite future which we must since 1. we cannot prove its finite and 2. we are not philosophically predestined for anything other than to exist in the moment

Sorry, but your speculation is of the "not even wrong" type. A physical theory, to be taken seriously, need some equations, which have to be sufficient to explain the things we observe around us, and in a quite mathematical, quantitative way.

By the way, don't use popular introductions into string theory or other theories as an example what you have to do in fundamental physics. There are professional papers behind such popular introductions, full of mathematics, and if you want to develop a serious theory, you have to present similar professional papers. That's hard, but such is life.

By the way, using UPPERCASE in such postings is considered to be bad style ("crying").

What is Infinity?

Does Infinity have an Absolute Reference Frame?

Does an Infinity Absolute Reference Frame have physical parameters?

I think the Vacuum T=0K gives answer to this questions.

=.

Israel Sadovnik Socratus

Dear All,

who am I?

I am here and now, I is forever.

Love,

Sridattadev.

The Universe is all that exists and by definition it includes everything. It even include the laws of Nature. Assuming that the Universe has an origin is like assuming that it comes from nothing. The only solution is to assume that the Universe has always existed.

I suggest that the black holes are the Universal Banks of the Information in the cycling Universe. The english version of my article is quiet old, about 4 years; afterwards I've bettre expressed the same concepts but only in Italian language. If intereste contact me at the e-mail gr.olograficoflegreo@libero.it, thank you.Attachment #1: italias_black_holes.doc

Hi Louis,

Welcome to FQXi.org. Are you thinking of enterring the essay contest?

James

Louis Brassard,

I hope you consider enterring the essay contest.

James