[deleted]
time runs only in the mind,
universe (and eventually multiverse) is utterly timeless
yours amritAttachment #1: BLOCK_UNIVERSE.pdf
time runs only in the mind,
universe (and eventually multiverse) is utterly timeless
yours amritAttachment #1: BLOCK_UNIVERSE.pdf
In Aether Wave Theory (AWT) universe behaves like giant fluctuations of dense gas and its entropy remains rouhgly the same. All objects smaller then the wavelength of cosmic microwave background should be a subject of entropic process, i.e. radiation, whereas all larger object should be driven by negentropic processes, i.e. gravitation.
http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/08/awt-and-cosmological-time-arrow.html
Zephir quanta of space QS that are building elements of quantum timeless space, you call it ether have no entropy. Basic frequency of QS is consciousness itself. Because of that in space is always NOW.
Material universe above Planck scale is ruled by entropy - from gas are created atoms that are than transforming to the atoms with heavy atom mass where energy is "locked" in matter.
But in black holes matter is transformed back intro QS in consciousness itself.
In outer space where density of QS is high QS are transforming continuously in "cosmic rain", in subatomic particles that constitute atoms.
This flow of energy "matter - space (consciousness) - matter is not in time, it is eternal.
And eternity is NOW.
We experience universe that is always NOW into timer frame "past-present-future" that is of the mind.
Negentropic process of life evolution is development of matter towards living systems that have ability to experience consciousness. Humans we are close to that point. The last barrier is illusion that we live in time as a part of space. Space is utterly timeless, time live in us. Time is part of the mind.
Yours Amrit
What we perceive and refer to as "the flow of time" is nothing more and nothing less than the evolution of the physical universe. When seen from this perspective, the concept of "time running backward" makes no logical sense. The universe does what it does. Our job is simply to understand what it does. Our faulty use of words such as "time" gets in the way of our doing so. For additional details please see the discussion to be found here.
very interesting article!
in the universe "before" and "after" exist only as a numerical order of events in space that we measure with clocks. Clocks run in space only, not in time.
The question about the arrow of time is backward. The direction of the arrow comes from the flow of information -- see Wheeler on the information-theoretic nature of the Universe. The past is that portion of the Universe from which information flows. Information does not and cannot come from the future, only and always from the past. From any point, therefore, an observer sees two directions: a past (the direction where information comes from), as well as a future, which is "dark" -- no information at all. Call it entropy, call it evolution, call it whatever you want...it's all information at the very bottom, and this is what determines the perceived arrow of time.
Karl,
information always moves in space only, no one ever has seen information is moving in time.
"Past-present-future" is mind model through which we experience motion of information in timeless space.
with clocks we measure information and energy transfers in space
yours amrit
The entire universe might be an n-dimensional spacetime on the string scale, where n = 10, 11 or 26. On scales larger than this there are submanifolds of four dimensions that are cosmologies. Each of these could have different time directions. The n-dimensional spacetime compactifies up dimensions except four and defines a set of spacetime cosmologies. Further, these spacetime cosmologies might be connected to each other by instantons, or tunneling states.
Tunneling usually involves how a quantum particle may traverse a tunneling region with a potential energy larger than the kinetic energy of the particle. The Schrodinger equation (SE)
iħ∂ψ/∂t = (ħ^2/2m)∂^ψ/∂x^2 V(x)ψ
in one dimension is the classical example in Mertzbacher and other texts. For a stationary phase ψ(x,t) = ψ(x)exp(-iEt/ħ) and we have a basic position dependence with ψ(x) ~ exp(ikx), the SE is easily seen as
Eψ = (ħk)^2/2mψ V(x)ψ,
And the solution for the wave vector k or momentum p = ħk is
p = sqrt{2m}sqrt(E - V(x)).
The tunneling probability may be explicitly computed by knowing the form of V(x) and working out boundary conditions, which is not conceptually difficult but a bit tedious to work through. The form of the momentum p here though is imaginary if V(x) is larger than E, and the tunneling probability is greater than zero. Now the form of the wave function with this imaginary p is of the form ψ ~ exp(-|p|x/ħ), which for the magnitude |p| very large (equivalently large V(x)) is a rapidly dropping to zero exponential. So we don't expect a significant tunneling process.
If the potential is very large at its peak V_{max} ~ 2mc^2 for m the mass of an electron there is a probability that the e-e^ pair created here will annihilate the e^- at one side of the potential with the e^ and the pair generated e^- escapes to the other side. Since this is a quantum process then what ever information is carried by the initial e^- is the same as on the e^- which has tunneled through. This is a sort of resonance phenomenon.
So what does this have to do with cosmologies and the landscape? Hawking, Halliwell and others proposed a version of the "no-boundary cosmology" where a spacetime cosmology with a particular arrow of time and a CPT violation (say left handed) is mirrored by another cosmology with an oppositely directed arrow of time and a CPT violation which is opposite (say right handed). So we might think of these as a cosmology and "anti-cosmology" with opposite quantum numbers or topological indices and ..., all which make things cancel out to zero. So we then have a huge landscape with a large potential barrier. The basic Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric has a tunneling barrier, which is a local aspect of the more general landscape potential barriers. So the symmetrical portion of a cosmology can be then this curious anti-cosmology.
Now consider a region near a black hole singularity. There the tidal forces of gravity are enormous and a wave function is then squeezed. The phase space volume it occupies is "squashed," and this means its uncertainty in certain directions becomes very large while the conjugage momenta uncertainties becomes very small. As such a patch or region near the singularity is sufficiently quantum uncertain that it may become lost in this quantum noise. In effect this patch and the quantum vacuum energy it contains has quantum tunneled out of the universe which contains this black hole, or it "ventures" into this potential hill. For a large potential hill there are virtual quantum pairs of these cosmologies (universe plus anti-universe) or a virtual biverse. Will this little patch or bubble of vacuum energy near the singularity has some probability of annihilating with the anti-universe which then lets the virtual universe escape beyond the potential well. This patch or virtual bubble of spacetime then becomes the "seed" for a nascent cosmology.
Cheers LC
Is it a global joke or a global ironic science ....10 11 27 28.....no ....falses
A biverse here a string there a multiverses here an anti universe a serie here an idea of pierre paul jacques here....allthat is false...pure mayhs without real universal coherences .....be more pragmatic in the physicality, you confound all...humbly and respectfully.Your entire universe is a virtual human universe simply where you are in the center...it's time to be more rational.
Regards
Steve
Lawrence we can discuss about "arrow of time" only in a sense of "numerical order of material change" ..........
The biverse here is a sort of device. Here this device is an instanton or tunneling state, which is used to connect different spacetime cosmologies in a quantum scaffold --- so to speak.
When it comes to the nature of time I am not particularly impressed with the idea of time not existing. This idea comes from the ADM Hamiltonian for "space plus time" approach to general relativity which obeys NH = 0 and the momentum version N^iH_i = 0. The first of these H = K R, K being symbolic for the trace conditions on the extrinsic curvature and R the Ricci curvature of the spatial manifold, is extended to the quantized for in the Wheeler-DeWitt (WD) equation HΨ[g] = 0. This outwardly has the appearance of a Schrodinger equation HΨ[g] = i∂Ψ[g]/∂t, but where the right hand side is zero. Of course this has to be the case, for there is no universal time variable t one can appeal to properly. What is time is imposed by the analyst in how spatial manifolds with the constraint H = 0 are linked to each other. It is not hard to extend the WD equation to include a harmonic oscillator field σ so that one introduces a time variation and you have HΨ[g,σ] = i∂Ψ[g,σ]/∂t in some local (within a saddle point integration) region. The point is that the AdM and WD equations do not mean time does not exist, but rather that these are constraints imposed on a spatial manifold.
Cheers LC
Dear Lawrence,
It sounds like our ideas may be merging again.
Dear Steve and Amrit,
It is obvious to me that Space-time must be a broken (3+1)-brane symmetry, and this idea of time not existing as an independent dimension is just a fad. As a particle physicist myself, I enjoy looking for unified symmetries and broken symmetries. The fact that this broken dimensional symmetry is so evident should allow us to seriously consider the idea of Hyperspace dimensions that exist under the rules of another broken symmetry. Consider how ugly the Standard Model symmetries are: SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1). IMHO, It is hypocritical to seriously consider the "truth" of such a complicated Standard Model symmetry, and simultaineously deny the "truth" of time and space being seperate brane symmetries. Steve says his model is 3-D, but he has hidden time within his "spin" degrees of freedom. Likewise, Amrit has tried to hide time within his "block". Give me a break, guys - these models are *NOT* exclusively 3-D! You have both introduced extra degrees-of-freedom that resemble dimensions. If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck!
Once upon a time, I didn't believe in Hyperspace or the Multiverse. How do you prove that which you can't see? Now these ideas (and scale invariance) seem to naturally fall out of my mathematical models. Is it wrong to use this mathematics to model reality? All I can say is that the mathematics seems consistent...
Have Fun!
Hi Ray,
Like all the time, I am frank.
I think humbly what people wants my ideas or wants the grants .....money monney always these stupidities which cause our global problem, I can understand people have seen the potential of my theory .But it's a little strong no all that ......I say that because I know the human nature and the pleasure for some people to like monney .....I dislike this money ....
The complexity is in 3D the simplicity also , that's all ....
People can use all the strategies that they want, never that will change.
I am parano yes ,it's like that ......EUREKA with humility if people are jaleous or try ....it's not my road.
Regards
Steve
Of course like I am parano, thus my words must be taken with a balance and a sorting,
Dear Ray,
I insist on this 3D , the division rests in 3D , the hidden dimensions are in 3D ....all maths extrapolations must be rational also, we can't play like we want with physics.....the time is a constant of evolution and we can't invent these pseudos sciences where all the universal coherences and global irreversibilities aren't considered in its pure serie and limits, the referential always dear Ray.
My model is in 3D and will rest always in 3D .....let's find the correct fractal of the uniqueness please...the volumes, theirs velocities of rot spinals and orbitals, their densities, their number finite, the lattices between spheres......if we insert falses parameters, that will imply a lot of confusions.
The incompleteness dear Ray do not prove nothing , is it a reason to extrapolate thet ....no for me fortunaly.
Your ideas are interestings, you, Lawrence, Florin, Girn,lisi.....the team what....hahaha interestings but falses because you have all fear to rebegin in the good road , ....vanity+business+maths without limits=extradimensions and lie algebras without real physicality .....these algebras are falses dear friends for the physics...the groups .......always the groups and their superimposings....The globality of these ideas are falses, simply
Regards
Steve
Let's have fun, Ray, I am going to begin really in fact, at this moment you know I am very quiet and very cool.I read , I analyze, I study, I link...AND I WILKL COMMENT SOON .hihihihi REVOLUTION
Regards
Steve
Duck is flaying into space
Clock is running into space measuring duck flight
Unconscious observer experiences duck flight into "past-present-future" that is of the mind
Conscious Observer is laughing into eternal now in which duck is flaying
Ray,
There is this strange idea that time does not exist. Of course we have to wonder whether time exists in the same way as a particle does. Maybe it does not exist in that sort of hard ontological sense. Yet it is something which we measure with a clock, and from an operational perspective that is sufficient. Quantum mechanically events are marked by the outcomes of measurements, or where quantum probabilities are realized. We might be tempted to think that time is a quantum process of some basic nature and that space "hangs" on it as a garment hangs on a rack. So there might be some prospect that thinking about this in some inverted way is a strategy worth considering.
Cheers LC
Lawrence,
Time is not "something" that we measure with clocks.
With clocks we measure numerical order of material change.
Time as "something" in ontological sense is a mind model into which you experience numeric order of material change.
amrit
Amrit,
Ultimately you are burying the concept in time in the notion of change. Change v. [Chanj] To become different, to alter or vary. Then how does something vary? It does so according to this thing called time.
This trend of regarding time as nonexistent is silly. I will not say with certainty time is ontic quite in the same way that a hard particle is. However, quantum events determine eigenvalued outcomes which occur in a sequence ordered temporally. I can't prove that time exists, but science is not about proving things exist, science is only about making measurements and determining whether things measured satisfy certain relationships. Those relationships are what we call theories.
Calling time something we simply perceive mentally as objects moving in space is really just a word game. You have in the end just come up with another definition of time.
Cheers LC