Time and the Multiverse

It's really unthinkable to insert a relatively extrapolated vue about a concept so fundamental that is time.

Carnot easily did stipulate that it is imperative to identify the consistency of irreversibility of time.

The increase of entropy is purely linked to this said "evolutionary time",that can't be inserted without the rationality that is required.It's logic.

Fourier and Dirac or London will liaise well to affirm that the uniqueness of this universe evolving exponentially is a main parameter.

The permits to see the maximum of this energy in increasing, and the correlated mass in optimization.Time will be indeed always irreversible.

And it is only through our cernable vizualizations that we can perceive the past and extrapolate the future.

It exists simply a difference between the picture and the reality.We can thus see this past but we can't go in this past...logic and rational.

Between Boyle .Gibbs....Planck..Joule...Clausius..Maxwell....Debye.......

The thermodynamics proof all that.The pure irreversibility of time.

It's very important all that for the correct experiments and correlated equations and laws.

Regards

Steve

Dear Ray,

Thank you for your response. I value your comments.

Your example, drawn from economics, is well received. (see Stocks and Planck's Law for another such connection). It illustrates several important points. First, how Hegel's Dialectics guides the evolution of our thinking and understanding. Second, how as human beings we need to draw from our various experiences to create and formulate our ideas.

As to the first point. In a true Hegelian manner, you seek to resolve the contradiction between 'continuous vs. discrete' through a view (drawn from experience) that shows how both can be possible at the same time. I see now why you keep bringing up Cantor's set. This also combines the 'continuous' with the 'discrete' in one complete entity. But whereas your first example is drawn from common sensible experience, Cantor's set is a formal mathematical abstraction.

Here is how I reconcile 'continuous vs. discrete'.

If a vast ocean is 'energy', bucketfuls of water drawn from it are 'energy quanta'. And just as we don't describe the nature of the ocean as being made up of 'bucketfuls of water', we shouldn't describe the nature of energy as being made up of 'quanta'. Thus, 'energy can propagate continuously' but nonetheless can 'interact discretely' (when 'equilibrium conditions' are attained).

Also, we have 'accumulation of energy before manifestation of energy'. Thus we can describe energy 'accumulating continuously', but when energy is manifested (through interaction and when equilibrium is reached) it does in discrete units.

I know you have reservations about my use of 'eta'. But this quantity comes up so naturally and in so many different settings that is appears to be 'primary'. It is really nothing more than the time-integral of energy :-)

As to the second point, and I believe more important for Physics.

As human beings, we need to connect abstract ideas to concrete human experience. We see this all the time, as even abstract Physics take on 'human qualities' like 'charm' and 'color' and 'quarks'. Mathematics can evolve out of any view we have of Reality, since Math does not claim Truth but only Logical Certainty. So physical claims based on mathematical formalisms are not in themselves 'true'. But if Math cannot reveal Truth, what can? A view that 'makes sense' and is confluent with our experience, not at odds with it. We do not need more abstract theory that makes no physical sense, but a 'naïve view' that gives meaning to theory.

I would like to go over with you some of my papers, point by point, to see if there are any problems. The references in many of them to previous papers do not make for 'cyclical arguments'. All the results are mathematically valid and proven in a single paper (A 'Planck-like' Characterization of Exponential Functions). Since I find it hard to write equations with the FQXi text editor, I am attaching a pdf file of an overview of the paper on entropy. What specific parts of this argument are flawed?

The Lawrenceville School is indeed in New Jersey, just 5 miles from Princeton. It was founded in 1810 as a preparatory school for Princeton. Today it is one of the top prep schools in the country.

always having fun ...

Constantinos

Dear Ray,

Here is the referenced pdf in my previous post!Attachment #1: Entropy_Overview.pdf

flow of time is flow of numerical order of material change that run in space.

Time is not part of space. Space is 4D.

There is no multiverse and if it would be time would not run "back".

Time does not run "ahead" or "back", time just runs in space.

yours amritAttachment #1: 1_BLOCK_UNIVERSE.pdf

there is no physical evidence for multiverses nor strings, and there are no sound mathematical nor physical theories predicting such entities.

so why do we use that for which there is no motive nor evidence to help us contemplate time?

$$$$$$?

2010-09-05 FQXI --- Time Multiverse

Our universe is a Planck (h) value universe. There could be other universes with different values for h. They would not interact with our universe while being essentially in the same place. I believe the neutrinos to be particles with slightly off values for h and that would make them hard to interact with our Planck universe. Neutrinos would come in up (x>h) version or down version (x

(repost of previous)

Our universe is a Planck (h) value universe. There could be other universes with different values for h. They would not interact with our universe wile being essentially in the same place. I believe the neutrinos to be particles with slightly off values for h and that would make them hard to interact with our Planck universe. Neutrinos would come in up (x>h) version or down version (x

(re re-post ... problem with a special character =smaller than..???)

Our universe is a Planck (h) value universe. There could be other universes with different values for h. They would not interact with our universe wile being essentially in the same place. I believe the neutrinos to be particles with slightly off values for h and that would make them hard to interact with our Planck universe. Neutrinos would come in up version or down version . Neutrinos still interact in very rare cases as exemplified by detection. This means that these rare cases somehow represent tiny spikes or incursion of the next universe into our own... Have neutrinos .. will travel...

Just thinking ..

Marcel,

I am pleased, at last, to find someone who shares my concept of universes running in opposite time directions. In developing my own Fractal Foam Model of Universes, I have independently concluded that alternate universes in a scale-wise sequence MUST run in opposite time directions. This follows from my concept of how expansion of space in one universe drives the expanion of space in the next larger scale universe.

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. Expansion of our space stretches the bubble walls of our cosmic foam until, one by one, bubble walls (made of galaxies) pop--an event lasting perhaps a billion years. The same happens in the sub-universe, causing our ether-foam bubble walls to un-pop.

A cubic meter is roughly 10^105 Planck volumes, which translates to 10^105 median-size ether-foam bubbles. Until I come up against an unresolvable paradox, I assume that this number is constant. When a bubble wall pops, two bubbles become one, so the number of bubbles is decreased by one. For our space to expand, the number of bubbles must increase. Therefor, the arrow of time must reverse, and our ether-foam bubbles must un-pop.

When a cosmic-foam bubble wall pops, pressure waves radiate thru the cosmic foam. These pressure waves are dark energy of the next universe. Due to time reversal, our dark energy waves converge to a point where a new wall of sub-universe galaxies appears, dividing one bubble into two, and creating a Planck volume of new space in our universe. This must occur approximately 10^88 times per second per cubic meter to account for the Hubble constant.

So our dark energy propagates backwards from effect toward its sub-universe cause. This provides a possible mechanism by which the future may affect the present.

Entropy in the greater fractal universe is constant, as each minor universe exports its entropy to the next larger-scale universe, and time inversion converts it into an input of exergy.

As I am brand new to this site, I am still trying to figure out how to submit my own article and start a new forum topic under Cosmology. The appropriate buttons don't seem to be available to me, yet.

Philip,

I accessed your link. I noticed some comment about gravity. Gravity is so fundamental that its working is based on the simple logical requirements drawn by something that exists.

We look at experiments and at how things interact with each other. There is a more fundamental question hidden in our a prioris. These things exists and they do so so under what conditions? Read my essay within the last essay contest.

Gravity is just things existing more where they stay longer i.e. time runs slower!

As for starting a thread .... well... read the constitution of FQXI. There are members who can start a thread..

Thanks,

Marcel,

Philip,

Same here; problem keeping track of own posts in blogs, forum, articles etc.

- My essay was about physics and metaphysics in the last contest

- What is your angle? What is your interest? Is it the warp drive?

If so, define what the warp drive should do.

Thanks,

Marcel

MARCEL-MARIE LEBEL,

I'm a little better at tracking my posts on this board, now. I did a Bing search for ["philip janes" october site:http://www.fqxi.org/community/]. Then I sent a shortcut of that search to the desktop.

I found you essay via a search engine, but haven't made the time to read all of it, yet. I have a bit of learning disability when it comes to reading anything longer than a page.

I haven't commented on warp drive for years, and then only in answer to a question about Startrek. My comment above, re. warped space-time, is intended to debunk the prevailing view that Minkowski space-time is true and Euclidean space is as dead as the flat Earth. That's like saying that log-log paper makes lin-lin paper obsolete. Both have their uses.

I get the impression that you either didn't get very far reading my website, or you are confusing me with someone else. My website is my angle and my interest. What caught my attention, here, is Laura Mersini-Houghton's comments about the arrow of time running in opposite directions in alternate universes. When developing my own model, I independently concluded that the arrow of time MUST reverse from one universe to the next in the scale-wise sequence of sub-universes and super-universes which make up the greater fractal universe.

I later watched a video lecture by Ms. Mersini-Houghton. http://www.pirsa.org/C08022

I see, now, that she is talking about a much greater set of universes. My own fractal universe may be a subset of what she is envisioning. Her ideas are more vapid than mine. She postulates the existence of universes without offering any hint about how they operate or how they might relate to our own universe.

Hi Philip,

Interested to know what the arrow of time running in the opposite direction means for you.

Wouldn't it requires the reversal of all physical phenomena such that potential energy is gained rather than lost, so objects rise rather than fall and objects do not loose heat but gain heat and pushes become pulls and pulls pushes, poles that attract in forwards time repel in reversed time.? How is this complete reversal of all known physics possible and plausible? Spins and rotations are reversed etc etc...

If it is just reversal of some phenomena such that that which has been accumulated is dissipated and vice versa and that which has been combined is separated and vice versa then this is just more spatial change that does not indicate time reversal just reversal of chemical or physical process, which can occur in either direction according to prevailing conditions.

I do not believe in existential time realms. Only in matter changing position in space. It only exists in timeless simultaneous now although it can be observed as images with temporal spread, including our time distorted image of a present moment. So future structure having an effect on past cause is out of the question to me.

It seems to me that the physical structure that exists in timeless simultaneous now is all that can affect the next timeless simultaneous now in the continuous sequence of spatial change. The sequence as a linear progression is imagined. In such a sequence of entire material universe structures, only the last in the sequence exists. The matter and energy of the former being fully consumed by the current.

The passage of time could be considered as the sequence of spatial positions and arrangements that are continuously changing. Even if a sequence appears to be reversed it does not mean the arrow of time has been reversed. If I draw a sequence of numbers on a line and some of the numbers are a reversal of the order of previous numbers it does not mean that I have reversed my direction of writing down the numbers.

A pendulum swinging for example oscillates back and forth retracing its path, time is not reversing on each return swing. At each swing the pendulum occupies a new absolute spatial position, as the earth has moved a little around its axis, around the sun, within the solar system within the galaxy and with in the universe. The passage of time is an absolute spatial change not accounted for in the local space frame of reference.

To go back in time all of that celestial motion would have to be reversed. How do you stop all of the celestial motion, it would require a lot of energy surely and then how do you input the energy to set it in reverse motion. Will merely setting it in reverse orientation of spin reverse physical laws. Would the earth revolving in the opposite direction cause time to run backwards and gravity to become anti gravity. I really don't think so.Surely there are examples of bodies with reverse spin that still exhibit normal gravity.

Thats what I think and lots of questions. I am particularly interested to know how you justify time reversal as a physical phenomenon rather than just a mathematical artifact.

Georgina,

Your Nov 5 post is not appearing when I click "read all article comments". I only have the first part (ending at "Spins and ...", which appears under "Recent Comments". I'll reply to that much.

In my model:

Dark energy pressure waves are caused by the popping of a sub-universe cosmic-foam bubble wall. From a sub-universe point of view, this causes two cosmic-foam bubbles to merge in to one, reducing the total number of bubbles by one (if you can subtract one from infinity). Before popping, the tension forces surrounding a bubble are in equilibrium. When the membrane separating two bubbles disappears, the associated inward tension associated with that bubble wall also disappears. The new bubble is then pulled outward in the plane of the popped bubble wall, so it wants to grow fatter; as it grows fatter, the ends of the bubble are pulled inward. Consequently, you get positive pressure waves radiating like ripples on a pond in the plane, and a pair of negative pressure waves in opposite directions perpendicular to the plane.

From our point of view, the bubble wall un-pops. Pressure waves converge to a point, where a new bubble wall appears and divides one ether-foam bubble in two. This increases the total (infinite) number of ether-foam bubbles that make up our space, thus driving the expansion of our space.

Bubbles don't un-pop in forward time. To do so would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Each universe in the scale-wise sequence exports its entropy to the next larger-scale universe, and time reversal converts that to an input of exergy. Perhaps the total entropy in the greater fractal universe remains constant.

From our point of view, the sub-universe and super-universe are getting younger as we get older. Their past exists in our future and vice versa. I shall not pretend to know what implications that has for our own existence. I suspect it may mean that either our future is preordained or else all of our possible futures have already happened from a sub-universe perspective. My model does not answer the ancient discussion of predestination v. freewill; it merely presents a new approach to the argument.

If you were in the sub-universe or super-universe, you would see objects falling, not rising. The laws operate pretty much the same, except in reverse from our perspective. I say "pretty much the same", because I don't know how old the sub-universe is. Its galaxies might be just now forming, or it may be close to heat death. Who can say that the laws of physics never change?

Not only is the arrow of time reversed, but it is likely that the scale of time is vastly different. I have not worked out the scale, but conceivably a second of our time might correspond to a trillion years of sub-universe time.

Super-universe time is equally mysterious. Unless there are super-universe waves vastly faster than our speed of gravity, then it appears that the super-universe may be in a state of "big rip". If its equivalent of a Hubble sphere is equal to our Hubble sphere, then neither light nor gravity can outrace the expansion of space within an electron.

Georgina, I found the rest of your Nov 5 post. Due to a software bug, the chronological order of posts is all jumbled. Give me a few moments to respond to the rest of your post.

Georgina,

In my model:

The physical processes of the sub-universe, which are running in reverse from our perspective, exist at a scale far smaller than anything in our universe. I am talking about galaxies whose diameter, from our perspective, is a small fraction of a Planck length. Those galaxies are made of atoms about 10^31 times smaller still. The spin of a sub-universe electron is so far removed from our reality as to challenge the limits of our intuition. Those processes only affect us via the waves generated by popping sub-universe cosmic-foam bubbles.

I hope this makes you rethink what you thought you knew with certainty.

Okay; not a software bug. I'm still learning how to deal with this forum's format.

Why are multiverses even discussed and considered capable of all sorts of things when they remain scientifically incapable of being observed in any empirical way? How did such a strange metaphysics begin to hold sway over what is supposed to be objective science?

Please think clearly about the following:

The universe, rightly understood, is the totality of consistently interacting material things. What is meant by totality? This is lost by many.

If "universes" interact with each other in a scientifically demonstrable way, would they not be part of one all-encompassing universe? And if they do not so interact, how could they be scientifically knowable or even discussed in pseudo-scientific garb?

Multiverses, time running backwards, dark flow, infinite universes, etc. are not creative possibilities proposed by advanced scientific minds. These fantasies are the misleading creative thinking manifestations of minds devoid of rationality, especially when they make all sorts of claims that ultimately abolish the difference between something and nothing.

Oh well. $50 Grand down the drain (unless you can get fantasy time to run backward and you can avoid giving a grant to pursue nothing foolishly declared to be something), but if the good people of FQXI want to continue to share their wealth in pursuit of such fantasies which require that which cannot be tested in any meaningful way, I'll be happy to present my infinite cosmic bubble gum theory involving the Dark god Inflatus who blew a bubble from one universe into our universe. The bubble gum flavor was Dark Blow, and knowing this, everything else falls neatly into place,...at least mathematically if not empirically. The price for this theory is only $10 grand.

Yours for the restoration of objective science.

KII

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

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

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

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