Time and the Multiverse

Marcel-Marie LeBel,

Your comment about gravity is a bit too vague for me to respond to it. Are you referring to the speed of gravity? Prevailing beliefs are that gravity is either instantaneous or propagates at the speed of light. Although I strongly disagree with most of Van Flandern's wacky ideas, I do find his argument on the speed of gravity to be persuasive.

Perhaps you read my comments about the relationship between gravity and the warp of space-time. (Actually, I'm not sure if that is posted on my website, yet.) Elsewhere, I have stated that, in Euclidean space, light has mass and is bent by gravity. Straightening the path of light by definition is the cause of the warp of space-time. The warp is not the cause of gravity.

I certainly do not imply that gravity does not exist.

I don't see your name on the essay constest page. Can you give a link to your essay?

Isn't it about time for someone to start a thread in the Cosmology section?

Sorry for the delay in responding. It's difficult for me to keep track of my topics on this board. I haven't figured out how to use RSS, yet.

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.

"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.

"We cannot subject the sub-universe to tests."

Therefore, not a scientific inquiry. Just gibberish disguised in pseudo-scientific terms.

Also, I knew Albert Einstein. Albert Einstein was a friend of mine.

Philip: You are no Albert Einstein.

It appears you also think he is still alive by your present tense claim involving the great scientist who thought creatively inside the box known as the universe. Nice cliche on your part, though, regarding your faulty understanding of common sense. It supports your nonsense claims that just can't be tested or observed, yet you go on and on about certain actions causing this or that to pop, but then they reverse themselves and run backwards and effects precede causes.

Lots of stuff going on that can't be observed or tested. A superb example of mythological fantasy "pseudo-physics."

Thanks for the ride, though. I actually enjoyed reading your dazzling illusions.

KII

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

"'We cannot subject the sub-universe to tests.'

"Therefore, not a scientific inquiry. Just gibberish disguised in pseudo-scientific terms."

---

At galactic scales and beyond, we can't test the "law" of gravity, either. Instead of entertaining the possibility that gravity does not obey the inverse square "law" at infinite distances, we invent dark matter, which can't be tested, either. At least I'm not pretending that my model is the law.

Neither can we test dark energy, but we infer its existence from one of its effects---the expansion of space. I am merely incorporating that inference into a unifying system, in which dark energy explains the source of all forces.

Inference may not be the most rigorous of scientific methods, but few scientific advances have not been born out of inference.

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

"Also, I knew Albert Einstein. Albert Einstein was a friend of mine.

"Philip: You are no Albert Einstein."

---

No, I am not; but I do have at least two things in common with him---a desire to make sense of the universe from top to bottom, and Asperger syndrome, which enables me to think the problem through. I admire him for overcoming the social disability of Asperger to a greater extent than I. Also, he got started on his theories at a relatively early age, whereas, I my model only began to take shape when I was in my 60's.

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

"It appears you also think he is still alive by your present tense claim involving the great scientist who thought creatively inside the box known as the universe."

---

Sorry about the "'s"! That was an editing error. That sentence started out with a possessive use of "Einstein's". Because I failed to remove the "'s", it ended up looking like a contraction.

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

"Nice cliche on your part, though, regarding your faulty understanding of common sense. It supports your nonsense claims that just can't be tested or observed, yet you go on and on about certain actions causing this or that to pop, but then they reverse themselves and run backwards and effects precede causes."

"Lots of stuff going on that can't be observed or tested. A superb example of mythological fantasy 'pseudo-physics.'

"Thanks for the ride, though. I actually enjoyed reading your dazzling illusions."

---

I do thank you for taking the time to look at my model and comment on it, even if your comments have been neither positive nor specific. I am hoping for someone to challenge me on specific logical problems with my model. My model does hint at some apparent paradoxes, but I am confident that they can be resolved thru discussion. A person can only argue with himself so long without going bonkers.

Perhaps you could comment on the question of how a super-universe can exist, at all, if a super-universe electron is a trillion times larger than our Hubble limit. Could the super-universe be in a state of "big rip"? Is there a kind of wave in the super-universe which is trillions of times faster even that our dark energy?

All inferences/theories must be tested or testable to be of any ultimate scientific value. Verification is needed to strengthen any theory and perhaps even reveal a law.

Discussion cannot replace scientific/objective verification. Even if you develop some "elegant" theory that sings harmoniously in mathematical or prosaic or poetic language, it will still be nothing more than speculation until verified or significantly strengthened via empirical testing.

Strings, Inflation, Dark Energy, Dark Matter: Still just theories relying on more inferences than true observations. More sadly, WMAP "results" are skewed to support such theories, so people continue to search for so many missing links, and NASA et al. can get more funding. Before the next "finding" is revealed, how much do you wanna bet that something "ground-breaking" in one form or another will be promoted in advance?

Why, just recently we have been treated to some "Arsenic and Old Lace."

I only accept the notion that the universe is the system of consistently interacting things. No super, No sub, No multiverses, etc. Anything that can interact with the observable universe is part of it. If it can't interact, it cannot be tested and it's chasing an illusory monkey's tail to suggest such fantasies.

If you want to spend some time on something that may prove more scientifically valuable, and could also explain many things without inflation, dark energy, strings, and so on, take a look at the possibility that the speed of light may be slowing down ever so slightly. If it is indeed slowing down (tests needed), inflation, dark energy, acceleration, and so on will be kaput, so guess where the vested interest lies?

KII

Thanks for the insights, Kronos II. I accepted many popularizations of the latest findings in physics until I read some of your posts.

Now I can see how many scientists have abandoned the scientific method in order to advance highly questionable theories.

Keep up the great work.

Tom

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

"Discussion cannot replace scientific/objective verification. Even if you develop some "elegant" theory that sings harmoniously in mathematical or prosaic or poetic language, it will still be nothing more than speculation until verified or significantly strengthened via empirical testing." KII

---

Some of us are good at creating models; some are good at quantifying models and extracting theories from them; others are good at putting theories to the test. Without all types of individuals, science would get stuck in a rut, waiting for someone like Newton or Einstein who can do all three. Rather than stay in that rut for centuries, isn't it better to do science in the fashion of a relay, with each person contributing his own talents and building on the work those whose talents lie elsewhere?

My model, so far, is the work of one individual who is neither a mathematician nor an experimenter. I have no degree, no funding, no faculty and no laboratory. I am just a lowly retired electronic technician living on so-shallow security. Compare that to, for example, the big bang scenario, which is the combined work of thousands of PhDs with billions of dollars of government support. If my model had that kind of support, there's on telling what valid scientific advances might come of it. Please judge my model on its own merits, not on the author's credentials, or lack thereof.

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

"If you want to spend some time on something that may prove more scientifically valuable, and could also explain many things without inflation, dark energy, strings, and so on, take a look at the possibility that the speed of light may be slowing down ever so slightly. If it is indeed slowing down (tests needed), inflation, dark energy, acceleration, and so on will be kaput, so guess where the vested interest lies?" KII

---

You are seriously misstating this problem. We are looking at an apparent gradual change in the ratio of the Hubble constant to the speed of light. Of those two parameters, only one is constant by definition, and it ain't the Hubble constant. The speed of light can't change except by changing its definition. As long as the speed of light is constant, by definition, our observations imply a gradual change in the Hubble constant. If we were to allow the speed of light to vary and define the Hubble constant as invariant, that would imply a gradual change in the speed of light.

We have numerous ways to quantify physical space and space-time; each is valid and useful. For the most part, these are mathematically equivalent descriptions of the same physical entity. Consider, for example, the difference between comoving coordinates and non-expanding Euclidean coordinates.

Comoving coordinate axes expand by continuously adding links. The increasing distance of a chain link from the origin is considered to be only "apparent" motion, not subject to the rules of relativity. There is no length contraction or time dilation between the coordinate system and comoving objects.

Non-expanding Euclidean coordinate axes are represented by imaginary non-expanding ideal tape measures. The ends of the non-expanding tape measures are moving and accelerating relative to the physical space around them. If they had mass, they would be in tension. The relative motion between the axes and comoving objects is real, and is subject to relativity. In these coordinates, the expansion of space amounts to a gravity hill, the top of which is the origin, no matter where that origin is placed. That gravity is real in non-expanding Euclidean coordinates, but it does not exist in comoving coordinates.

In Euclidean space, gravity bends the path of light. In Minkowski space-time, the path of light is the definition of a straight line. Consequently, light has mass in Euclidean space, but not in Minkowski space-time. One camp claims that gravity causes the warp of space-time; the other camp claims that the warp of space-time is the cause of gravity. Arguments erupt when conclusions which are valid in one brand of space are interpreted in terms of a different brand of space. Many scientists, who are comfortable working with tensors in Minkowski space-time, are religiously convinced that Euclidean space does not exist in the presence of gravity. That is a form of scientific bigotry.

I apologize for the divergence. My point is that your concept of slowing speed of light may have validity, but not in any of the popular brands of space or space-time that I know of.

Perhaps some "constants" aren't so constant after all.

Check out the following for more insights:

http://www.opfocus.org/index.php?topic=story&v=8&s=4

KII

A parameter which is constant by definition cannot be otherwise. This presents problems when two or more interdependent parameters are defined as constants. If the ratio of two such "constants" is found to vary, then the system of definitions is flawed. Great care has been taken to avoid such conflicts in the SI system, as well as in our various types of coordinate systems.

The ratio of meters to seconds is defined by a spectral line of the cesium 133 atom and by the speed of light. All other phenomena are measured by that ratio. The ratio is fixed by definition, so it cannot change without changing the definitions.

Here's a Christmas gift for you, Philip:

Gӧdel's theorem demonstrates why an absolutely final theory of everything (TOE)is impossible.

Can you see why this is so? Many dishonest physicists downplay or ignore the ramifications, but more and more honest ones (even Hawking a few years ago) have admitted the reality.

Give it a shot.

KII