The Crystallizing Universe

In AWT the simplest model of space-time is the water surface (gradient of matter density in general). The space dimensions are formed by directions parallel with surface plane and the time dimension is formed by direction perpendiculat to it. This explains (between others), why time dimension has always an "arrow", while the spatial not, why travel in time is much more diffilcult/dangerous then the travel in space, etc...

http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/09/aether-and-definition-of-time.html

Inside of multidimensional foam forming real space-time things may get slightly more complex, but they're still remain imaginable.

http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/08/awt-and-cosmological-time-arrow.html

In AWT the time goes forward for objects smaller then the wavelength of CMB and backward for larger objects. It's a result of geometrical perspective of observation through quantum foam penetrating the vacuum.

You can't test light's wave properties and particle properties at the same time anymore than you can pinpoint an elementary particle's position while you're calculating velocity. That's a whole different ballpark, but that's why the experiment of "tricking" the photons didn't work and it's called Complementarity.

The Crystallized Block Universe... Makes sense, honestly. It seems obvious to me, that the true present (the very moment you consciously experience, second-to-second) can not be fully analyzed until it has already happened. That's just logic. If you see a dog running out into the road and a car coming at it, you can't say it was hit by car until it has already been hit, and as soon as it has been hit (or not), it is the past and therefore verifiable.

In terms of particle physics, the reason why the photons arrive at different times is because, quite simply, waves and particles do not travel at the same speed. However the present can't influence the past, not in terms of perceived events, it can only change the way past information is viewed. The passing of real time (which is witnessed through entropy) is undeniable, measurement is relative.

If you're familiar with Susskind and 't Hooft's idea about Black Hole Complementarity (BHC) (which deals with the idea you just described), you know about the holographic qualities of the BH. The basis for it is that there is a layer of "horizon-atoms" (what they're composed of is undetermined as far as I know) that create a layer called the stretch-horizon (as defined by Susskind, specifically, not the general term) that is so hot any matter approaching disintegrates like a drop of ink in a pool. The layer is said to be only about a Planck's length thick. But getting straight down to business, BHC dictates that just as you must choose to measure particle or wave properties with photons, you must choose to either record results from outside the horizon or inside, that those things can never accurately be measured at the same time but that they complement each other as pieces of information. Hence, Black Hole Complementarity.

Right, and the two observers, FIxed Distance Observer (FIDO) and the FREeling Falling Observer (FREFO) record the fate of the string very differently. The FIDO says the string is quantum radiated out on the stretched horizon and "destroyed," while the FREFO says the string is "destroyed" by the interior. There are some gaps here, but the BHC does tell us that locality of events is not a general property of the universe.

The big gap here is we don't know how the string is transformed by the singularity in a way which is complementary to how the string is quantum tunneled off the horizon as Hawking radiation. The singularity is a form of D-brane which is dual to the stretched horizon, or its NS5-brane equivalent. This is an open area, which Susskind and Lindesay admit in their book.

Cheers LC

Reason being, you can't observe that action from outside the horizon. Heisenberg's microscope applied to the situation dictates that at that distance, it would require such high-energy photons that it would disrupt the information falling to the horizon, creating a large black hole that would then require low-energy photons creating a very blurry image.

"It seems obvious to me, that the true present (the very moment you consciously experience, second-to-second) can not be fully analyzed until it has already happened. That's just logic."

And just as important is the fact that there is information "missing" from any "moment" analyzed?

The natural degrade rate for past events are what seperates the past from the present, all memory of events have to have some finite bit/it of info missing, how else would one know what is real and what is fantasy?.. better wording should be reality is 100% accurate in all measure attempts, the closer one gets to measure the "now_moment"..the accuracy increase. Try and measure 1 second "ago" and this is where everything from that moment/then has moved in time to such a degree one cannot locate whats being measured.

Interestingly, once "now" has occured like stated, you cannot measure 100% of anything, some part of what you try to measure will be smeared out in time, away from the present. Decay rates for matter are all time related, certain elements remain in the "now" at a slower rate, whilst others appear and dissapear with no fleeting glances.

Now here is the crunch factor?..if any particle has an extended life away from "now"(there exists a past where as far as we are concerned particles are then present) then, it can no longer have the same decay rates as current elements, all present and past elements are driven by Entropic values emmbedded witthin the decay rate?..the periodic table is the calander of universal change!

With regard to the measure and measure, humans are themselves a type of interference, by the act of measure! Does the photon know when it is being interfered by a human being or by non human devise's?..think about that consequence ;)

Reading discussion here I see people still think in terms change running in the universe in space and in time, in so called space-time.

This thinking belongs is now developed into vision the change run in space only and with time (with clocks) we measure them.

yours amritAttachment #1: Analysis_of_Relation_between_Spacetime.......pdf

Dont forget that if everything happened all at once, that is to say that everthing is always in the "now",how is 1 second to be(future), created, some things we cannot locate in the present/now must be in the near_future, creating the spacetime pathway we will arrive in?

We cannot always locate everything, somethings are no longer needed by the present time, whatever is not here in the now, is busy creating the future!

Suppose one had some sort of mirror right near the event horizon at a fixed distance (ignoring the problems with a hugely tough tether to hold it up and so forth) and you tried to measure the near horizon physics of particle approaching the BH by their reflection. The elongation of transverse modes would mean a huge increase in the uncertainty in the position of the string, which creates this fuzziness. The mirror can only be held up to the limit of the stretched horizon. A string length above the GR horizon, and the only thing you could observe is their shortest transverse modes for gravity near the Planck scale--- everything else would be so uncertain that their positions are unobservable. Now if you decided to stand on that mirror to get a direct view you would find that the temperature of the vacuum region there would be horrendous. This has a curious duality of sorts with the more distant observation. The distant observer has set up a situation where the states of the vacuum near the mirror are observed in a squeezed state which increases the uncertainty in their transverse positions. The observer near the horizon or on this mirror observes a thermal hot bath. In both cases there is something analogous to the von Neumann entropy with a measurement.

The string tension is determined by the string coupling parameter α' as T = 1/2πα' and generalizes the uncertainty principle as

Δx ~ ħ/Δp α'p/ħ.

This is a form of T-duality as well where p is replaced by the radius of compactification or for p ~ 1/R. The uncertainty in length is then large (small) if α' is large (small), and the string tension is very small (large) correspondingly. If α' is very large then the string tension is small and the string can be stretched out enormously. This is similar to QCD at high energy where quarks are in a state of asymptotic freedom. Equivalently the uncertainty in the length of the string is large as well. This is a general sort of uncertainty principle

ΔxΔp ~ ħ α'pΔp /ħ,

and if we write Δp = Fδt so that

Fδx ~ ħc/δx α'pF/ħ .

Now we perform a summation over elements of δx_i and get

Σ_i F_iδx_i ~ ħc/δx^N Σ_i α'pF_i/ħ.

This is the scale of a fluctuation with an imaginary time τ = ħ/E, E = Σ_i F_iδx_i and E = kT. The temperature here is then an effective temperature corresponding to the degree of "chaos" induced by quantum uncertainty. The first term ħc/δx^N ~ 0 for N large and we get an effective entropy

kT ~ Σ_i α'pF_i/ħ.

So for the distant observer there is a Verlinde type of entropy or "entropy force of gravity," while for the close observer there is an enormous thermal bath of bosons (bosnoic strings etc) which manifests the same entropy.

Cheers LC

Dear Paul Valletta

Now, past, future, present belongs to the mind.

Universe is timeless, change run in space only. Clock/time is a device to describe change. Read attentively my article on file attached.

Imagine tree is falling in the forest.

Tree is falling in space only and not in time.

With clock/time we measure duration of tree falling.

Tree is falling in sequences t0, t1, t2,..........tn. Numerical order of this sequences we measure with clocks. Numerical order of tree falling exists without measuring it.

Duration of tree falling exist only when measured.

Duration of an event is result of measurement.

Clock/time is a measuring device for material change i.e. motion in the universe that itself is timeless.

yours amrit

Paul fundamental unity of time (with which me measure change that run in space

only and not in time) is Planck time.

yours amrit

Kate Becker's parody of spacetime should enjoy all those who not yet entirely lost contact to reality. I see no present between what we call past, i.e., the frozen into unchangeable reality, and what we may expect, predict, prepare on an open scale called future.

I do not agree with the essay when it blames symmetry of "microphysical laws" for the lets mildly say "current theoretical physics". While physics deserves a study how Einstein was perhaps influenced by Boltzmann's ideas and his religious background, already Ritz agreed with him to disagree in 1909 and died. I would appreciate anybody who has a compelling reason for the impossibility to maintain some essentials of relativity when abandoning the burden of an a priori given future.

Maybe, Ellis is too much a well educated in the negative sense physicist. I would already abstain from uncommented use of words like worldline and spacetime. I agree with him in that there is no time-symmetry and time-reversibility in the microworld. I also argue that the not yet existing future must not be considered a reasonable mathematical object. Ellis correctly adds that a quantum measurement process is not reversible.

Ellis mentioned various concurring candidates for a remedy: collapse of the wave function, many worlds, multiple histories, many fingered time, interpretation as an approximation, and even braking of an given symmetry. He looks for an interpretation inside quantum interpretation. Presumably he is or at least would be correct in that: Such attempts are doomed to fail altogether. Why did Ellis obviously fail to convey this message to the community of physicists?

It is not quite clear to me whether and if so how Ellis himself authorized the blog "The Crystallizing Universe". I cannot appreciate the the "elegant" idea to explain the transition from possibility to reality as change from quantum potentiality of a complex wave function into a single observed reality. Why did he and Rothman not learn from Wheeler's experiment? Heisenberg was most likely simply wrong when he attributed reality to observation instead the other way round. I envision a much simpler explanation of the duality between wave and particle: ripple-shaped bullets that extend unidirectionally over a coherence length with just a single tail. Is there any reason to imagine a particle like a point or a small ball? Maybe, cloud chambers were rather misleading.

By the way, I feel cheated by the word PET which suggests that positrons definitely exist. Actually, the method is based on dipole-pairs of photons.

Eckard Blumschein

In topic 617 a more plausible explanation of the double slit experiment has been offered. Are there any objections?

Eckard

Dear Constantinos,

I decided to reply here in the hope for provoking serious objections by experts who missed what we discussed in topic 617. Let me briefly describe how I understood your argumentation:

You referred to a pattern measured with a detector by Hitachi showing many subsequently measured single points of detected single photons behind a double slit. The density of these points forms the interference pattern to be expected for electromagnetic waves. The points were so far interpreted as evidence for single point-like particles.

If I understood you correctly, you are arguing that any single photons does not hit only a particular point of the area of the detector but the whole area. The obstacle causes a phase shift resulting in an interference that utters itself in higher or lower probability of responding points. I do not know how the detector works and I guess the measured points indicate multiplied secondary emission.

Can you please confirm or correct this description?

If I correctly understood this random discrete response to photons of continuous extension, then the peculiar measurement by Gompf et al. becomes understandable: Single-photon counting is superimposed by a random behavior of the detector.

When I did not appreciate your wording "stop the weirdness" in connection with a simple mathematical proof, I was not offended. I merely anticipated those who will not take you seriously.

Studying the original scriptures, I realized that Planck's energy quanta go back to the assumption of N oscillators each of which has a given frequency f, cf. Ann. Phys. 4, 553, 1901 "On the Energy Distribution in the Blackbody Spectrum" where Planck derived from entropy S the energy density U=hf/(exp(hf/kT)-1) as his Eqn11.

Perhaps the late Planck was wrong when he wrote in 1943: "... trying to fit the action quantum into the system of classical physics. But it seems to me that this is not possible."

Curious,

Eckard

Hello dear Eckard,

It's very interesting.

The photons, if my memmory is good, can have a number of photons of all frequencies but c restc constant and the total system no .

The pression and the volumes still are essentials and foundamentals .

The total energy and the total number can be seen , constant or not.

It 's very relevant when an atom absorbs and re emits the frequences or not ??? hihihi The kinetic energy seems in the rationality.

The pauli principle, if I remenber, does not hold for photons.

It's there it's still interesting with spheres and sphericals fields and coordonates.

If the rotation is inserted ,it's very relevant too about the momentum.

A BEC can be applied of course , the sphericalization of referentials facilitates many things .

I have seen a beautiful method of Lagrance multipliers where we see the equilibriums and the entropy of the system .

The Planck radiation equation is interesting evidently.

I consider the system of photons like the gravitational system for the number, of course the rotations imply the specificity.

An important thing I beleive is what the gravity do not change its number, and the light can be fractalisable .The gravity is only in the mind for the understanding of the fractalisation.It's interesting in my humble opinion because we can fractalize really the light and thus we shall find the different volumes of the quantum uniqueness.We can see the synchro or the effetcs of the gravity on the system for an evolutive point of vue.

The thermodynamical parameters of course permits to see the different steps.

But for results, it's necessary to have a system of real fractalisationn and too the captors of evolution in gravity systems.

The spherical superimposings are thus in a dance of frequencies, rotations, and informations thus, there the volume is esential .

I have a big unknown which makes me crazzy with a stirling approximation and some substitutions, but I have problems for the distribution of fractalisation because I superimpose the gravity and the quantic finite number .And of course 1 rests like it is and the others no, but the difficulty is for the synchro of rotating volumes of spheres implying mass, a parameter of evolution is necessary , if not all is difficult , like a limit.

But if the correct fractal of a volume of sphere is made, it's possible .

But Of course we don't know the ultim code in the gravity studied.

A possiblity is to insert a system well studied which polarises and has its frequences of evolution , thus we can extrapolate the correct serie, but of course we don't know how will be the fractalization of the light.

It's a real puzzle, but I will arrive ....I hope .This number makes me crazzy.

Very best Regards

Steve

Dear Eckard, you write ...

"... you are arguing that any single photons does not hit only a particular point of the area of the detector but the whole area"

That is correct! The question often asked in connection with the Tonomura 'single emissions' double-slit experiment (1989) is "how could single emitted electrons randomly striking the detection screen form the same typical interference pattern over time?" My answer to this is that the "electron emitted" is not the same as the "electron detected" on the screen. I view the 'electron emitted' as a tiny 'burst of energy' that propagates continuously as a wave and going through both slits at the same time projects onto the screen an interference pattern (invisible by itself). At any one point on the screen the 'accumulated energy' may not have reached a minimum threshold level for it to be manifested. But over time when more emitted electrons radiate the screen in the same pattern, some points on the screen will have reached this threshold and will 'pop', emitting a flash of light. These points will of course be more likely to occur at those places in the interference pattern on the screen that receive the greatest radiation. Over time, these points of light will fill in the typical interference pattern.

This view is compatible with the 'probabilistic interpretation' of QM. Interestingly, Schrodinger himself thought along the same lines when he thought of the wave-function as giving the distribution of electrical charge.

Central to my view is that although globally energy 'propagates continuously' as a wave, locally it 'interacts discretely' when local equilibrium conditions are met and so 'measurement/observation' are possible. Based on this view I am able to derive Planck's Law (or variation of this) without the use of 'energy quanta' and statistics.

Finally, let me say that some of my descriptions of these ideas may suffer from serious "diction and grammatical errors" in Physics that will make some physicists cringe. I apologize in advance for this, as I also confess that I may lack the background to speak physics fluently and without flaw. But the main reasoning and ideas I believe are correct. These are well grounded to 'sensible experience' and make me feel very confident in these. My main motivation is to 'find sensible meaning' where such meaning currently is not found. But I acknowledge that much help is needed by physicists that can make the arguments more convincingly and more elegantly than me. They will also be able to make many more connections to Physics than I can, limited in this area as I am.

Sincerely,

Constantinos

Dear Constantinos,

In Z. Phys. 31, 681 (1925) Kramers and Heisenberg wrote something that I consider wrong: "When an atom is exposed to radiation... it radiates secondary spherical waves ...". Perhaps they were misleadingly inspired by acoustical waves originating from a breathing sphere.

Compton wrote in P.N.A.S. 11, 303 (1925) what I consider more correct: "... a wave with a single quantum of energy can produce an effect in only one direction".

My point is: Electromagnetic waves can be attributed to dipoles, quadrupoles or the like but not to monopoles.

Einstein contributed to the mistake by Kramers and Heisenberg when he wrote in Ann. Phys. 17, 132 (1905): " The energy of a light ray outgoing from a point is not continuously spread over great and greater volumes, but it consists of a finite number of energy quanta localized at space points, each which moves without dividing and can only be absorbed and emitted as a whole."

Albert Einsteins father was an electrical engineer. We EEs used to operate with fictitious point charges and line currents. However, I am certainly not wrong when I clarify that these ideals must not be considered reality. A point is still best described as something that has no parts, and it can therefore not be reconciled with a wave.

Sincerely,

Eckard

Dear Echard,

I have read and re-read your post to me regarding my rhetorical abuse of the term "(quantum) weirdness". I agree. I have to refrain from aggravating potential supporters by inflaming their sensitivities. The very controversial nature of the claims is enough to make them offensive and to recoil away from these.

As a way of explanation, however, let me just say that I find it both necessary and honest to plainly speak my mind, not self-censor ideas, and trust that others will be swayed or dissuaded by the reasoning alone. It's all so very innocent. No harm or disrespect intended. We must be able to honestly and openly converse about even the most sacrosanct of topics in Physics. Otherwise, Physics becomes a Cult of Personalities, and not an open engaging intellectual journey embarked by people with passion for ideas and for Truth and for Reason. Since we are all seeking the same thing, an Understanding of our World that 'makes sense', I really don't see any cause for concern. I think all great physicists of the past would embrace such intellectual attitude and spirit. Einstein I think would laugh and enjoy all criticism and doubt. We honor great physicists by embracing their passion for Physical Reality and for Truth. How can anyone take offense by any idea that helps explain perplexities and clarifies dilemmas. If we knew the shape, form and source of the next good idea, we would know the idea itself. Truth is often revealed in ways that we cannot have predicted. So we need to be open to all ideas and not prejudge them. Above all, we must not kill the messenger because we disapprove of the message.

Best,

Constantinos

Greetings Eckard,

It is bewildering to me why just the mention and re-examination of fundamental views held by our illustrious predecessors should raise such response and resistance. If such unquestioning attitude was to have prevailed in times past we would still be living in an Aristotelian Universe and the Church would still be the Source of Unquestioned Knowledge. It is our human right to question and to seek truth in ever evolving terms, in our terms as seekers.

I agree with you when you say that "ideals must not be considered reality". In mathematics there is no conflict between ideas and reality. Only ideas exist! But in Physics the lines are often blurred. In mathematics quantities are pure whereas in physics quantities carry units. Measurement is I believe the essence of Physics! Observation is a form of measurement, as is also understanding (as we seek equilibrium between Observation and Object).

Thus far the application of Mathematics to Physics (picking up on an earlier topic) is in the form of mathematical models of reality. And as has been well pointed out by others, such models make physical sense in restricted domains only, but the mathematics still yields results in all domains. If we are to avoid the many theoretical pitfalls that mathematical models of Nature can lead to, we need a Mathematical Foundation of Physics where all Basic Law are exact mathematical identities (tautologies) that describe the interaction of measurement. Since we can only know what we can measure and observe (that is, we can only know our measurements) such a Mathematical Foundation of Physics I believe will avoid theoretical results that pit us against our own sensible experience. In one of the short notes I show that Planck's Law is an exact mathematical identity that describes the interaction of energy (measurement).

All the best,

Constantinos