Classical Spheres, Division Algebras, and the Illusion of Quantum Non-locality:

John Merryman

John C,

It's not as though what Einstein thought of as a singularity, the inside of a black hole, is not accessible using other models. He operated on the concept of measures of mass points as the basis of space, rather than a measure of it, so by that model, space does fold into itself as mass falls inward, yet the effect is of a vortex and what falls into a vortex gets shot out the end. Later they discovered enormous jets of cosmic rays being ejected out of the poles of galaxies. The mass becomes energy and while by its very nature mass contracts, equally energy expands. Einstein thought gravity would contract space to a point and so added the cosmological constant to stabilize the universe. Since it seems energy fills the role of balancing gravity, then light would seem to be the cosmological constant. What contracts into galaxies, is balanced by what expands between them. So what we have is a form of convection cycle of expanding radiation and contracting mass. We can only see light that manages to thread its way past intervening galaxies, so it seems expanded when it comes from very distant sources. Those galaxies are not just inert points of measure, but Einstein's 'space wells,' that contract the measure of space to balance that expansion, resulting in the overall flat space measured in the background radiation. This radiation isn't the residue of the big bang, but the light of galaxies so far away their light has been redshifted completely off the visible spectrum. The reason we appear at the center of the universe, isn't because space is relativistically expanding, but because we are the center of our view of the universe and redshift is a form of optical effect. Much as gravitational lensing is an optical effect.

Spacetime is mathematically valid, but it assumes this mechanism of the four dimensions being 'physically real.' It is no more necessary than giant cosmic gear wheels to make epicycles mathematically effective. We need to incorporate light into that thermodynamic model of convection. This means treating it not just as particles, or waves, but as a fluid in some respects.

Regards,

John M

John Cox

J. Merryman

I have come to consider the cosmological constant from the perspective of the 'One Field' to which Einstein also leant his weight, that the electromagnetic field was itself integral of the whole gravitational field. The actual math that distinguishes an expansion or contraction, universally, I am ignorant of; but, if the cosmological constant is necessary to balance the universe, why not observe it as the balance between the rest mass tending to accelerate to 'c' and the energy constituting that mass tending to decelerate from 'c' to relative rest, in a cohesive discrete volumetric field?

"...a fluid in some respects."

You mean like the particle form and the wavelike form are capable of morphing into the other? just not limiting it to the temperatures of Bose-Einstein condensate. That has the same logical form as the explanation of scalar or vector being

non-privileged in the Relativistic determination or application of 'c', Eckard gave of Einstein's intended limits in definition. And it bears remembering that it is by strictly limiting definition of terms that makes math possible.

I am wholly in agreement that a singularity does not simply apply to a theoretical center of a Black Hole. Can't say how Al might see that.

Happy Holidays, jrc

John Merryman

John C,

"the balance between the rest mass tending to accelerate to 'c' and the energy constituting that mass tending to decelerate from 'c' to relative rest, in a cohesive discrete volumetric field?"

Exactly. What if we viewed a galaxy in terms of an electromagnetic field, similar to earth, with lots of minor, shifting fields within?

"the particle form and the wavelike form are capable of morphing into the other?"

With water, fluid is a non-linear, bound state of a bunch of molecules interacting and a wave is energy traveling through the resulting medium. The difference with light is that all the particles/photons are all traveling in the same direction. All you need is to consider it as a medium and those photons are bonded. Then when the energy is contracting into mass, gravity is a more distributed/not quite linear part of the spectrum of contraction, than magnetism. Such that it seems more of a vacuum effect. The opposite of the pressure created when mass releases energy and creates pressure. This would make it amenable to the geometric modeling of a collapsing volume, much as pressure is an expanding volume.

Regards,

John M

John Cox

J. Merryman

I think we envision the classic picture of the universe in similar manner.

The trick is to formulate that 'envisionable' concept into a model that can be subjected to proofs.

For instance, I agree that somehow there exists a coherent state in a bundle of photonic emissions all propagating in a same general direction, regardless of any coherence of frequencies, and in spite of what is measurably known of inductance reactance forces. This could be a good place to apply the cosmological variant principle of there being a horizon balanced between ingress and egress of potential, inherent to any discrete mass-energy quantity. jrc

John Cox

J. Merryman

on 12-25-13 "...gravity is a more distributed/not quite linear part of the spectrum (sic) of contraction."

my (sic) - jrc

I think the utility of using "spectrum" as a reference frame member in plotting a radial length position of a value in a continuous function along a radial is appropriate to the extent that observed EM spectral analysis displays distinct ranges of characteristic response. But that deserves a special treatment to distinguish the two usages. But, yes, beyond the magnetic horizon the fabric of spacetime might become porous in the sense that the distances where the propensity is biased towards 'c', are proportionally great enough that any continuous function by which cohesion across spacetime can be realized, will by virtue of SR not find real time to maintain instantaneous communication at any point associated with a continuum of energy variation. Hence a void in 4D spacetime might emerge and become progressively more numerous towards the limit condition at the boundary of gravitation, we could postulate that cohesion is a continuous function and coherence is a quantum function. From such a postulate we can hypothesize that discrete mass-energy quantities are wholly contained within a horizon where upon there is equal probability of a void as there is cohesion.

The voids would be integral to the spacetime of the discrete mass but could become infused with a continuous function region of another discrete mass field in proximity'.

This rather provocatively points to the gravitational only responsiveness of the outermost regions of the discrete field, possessing a quantum statistical nature. jrc

John Merryman

John C,

What we are talking about amounts to a galactic scale convection cycle, with 'expanding energy' balancing 'contracting mass.' If people are willing to consider it, they will put it in whatever frame connects it to their paradigm and judge it from there. If enough people think it valid enough to consider further, then the various frames will be compared and if the parts keep coming together and no insoluble holes appear, then the process would sort itself out and the math would emerge as the most efficient description.

As it is, several generations of professional physicists have devoted their lives and careers to what is increasingly looking like a number of dead ends, with issues deep in the conceptual foundations. Given the resulting complexity of the models, there are no qualified objective observers. The situation now is the promoters feel ever more free to espouse whatever fills the gaps and the skeptics only scratch their heads. As Yeats so eloquently put it about another intractable situation, "The best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity."

The one resource we have is patience, as the fantastical goes parabolic. So we can simply put the idea out there and address whatever questions arise. One step at a time.

Regards,

John M

John Merryman

John C,

"we could postulate that cohesion is a continuous function and coherence is a quantum function."

Keep in mind the very smooth background radiation and what must be causing this smoothness.

Using the convection cycle idea, what if this smoothness is the 'dew point?" Up to that 2.7k, it is still continuous radiant energy, but above that and it becomes discrete, ie. the quanta start to 'condense' out of the radiation and begin that process of contraction over again.

Regards,

John M

John Merryman

John C,

" the math would emerge as the most efficient description."

As Robert McEachern observes, there is really very little information in the algorithm. It is really just short-hand for the knowledge and models. So you don't just present some equation to an unreceptive audience and expect them to understand any meanings they are not even willing to accept.

I keep pointing out to Tom that a proof of time being an effect of action, not its cause, is that tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. His response is that's just my intuitive experience. So what more obvious examples can one give, if the audience doesn't care to listen?

It might take as long as waiting for a new generation of physicists to decide they don't want to spend their careers chasing unicorns.

Regards,

John M.

John Cox

J. Merryman,

Time was, when nobody questioned what it was. Must it only emerge from action? Or can we seriously contemplate a light cone and recognize that it's base is not flat, that whether existing physically or not, a light ray would have to follow the curve subtended by the length of any radii constructed inside the cone or in crossing the planar distance would have to retreat in time and then advance again. Physically, is the cone tapered more narrowly than if it's base planar distance is not continuously compensated for. As the saying goes, "the shortest distance between two points in spacetime, is a curved line." jrc

John Merryman

John C,

The light cone is a model. In 3D space, it's really the radius of the sphere of potential input, as determined within the speed of light. The cone is a conceptual artifact of including time. Such that the sphere is reduced to a 2D circle and the time dimension is the extension of the cone, of the increasing, or decreasing diameter of the circle. This is a normal narrative/causal extension, where A leads to B. In reality though, A becomes B, as the dynamic action changes the configuration of what is occurring in the center of the sphere, rather then any singular extension of the particular configurations.

Our mental and logical processes are based on that vector of events though. Narrative, history, causality, thought, etc. are all functions of the fact that as individual entities, we experience action as a sequence of discrete events and so have to remember the sequence and sustain what no longer exists, as a model in our minds. We exist as the point at the center of that conceptual cone of input and output. That is why the idea of non-locality is so counter-intuitive, as causality is seemingly probabilistic, with multitudes of feedback loops in the environment. Reality is not fundamentally linear. It is in reality the sphere of input and output, not a cone. There are various ways we describe non-linearity, thermodynamics being the most conventional. Feedback loops, power laws, etc. Thus only the speed of light limits potential input.

So the idea of spacetime is an efficient model of reality from our point of view, not some foundational fabric of that reality. It treats time as a scalar measure of the duration between the occurrence of events and incorporates that with spatial measures between dynamic points, which are both inherent to action. Yet temperature is an equally valid measure of action. The amount of energy in a given event is as fundamental as the rate at which that energy is expressed. Much as frequency and amplitude are both measures of wave action. Temperature though, is non-linear and not as foundational to our thought processes, so we can be more objective about it. We understand temperature as a measure of action, but it is also a physical expression. Consider the idea of entropy, that within a closed system, the usable energy declines. Which means it reaches an equilibrium state. This is a physical dynamic to reach a common temperature of the particular frame. Our bodies and metabolic processes are very much a function of this tendency of a system to equilibrium. Much as our minds are a function of the sequential effects of the system.

We could use ideal gas laws to construct a mathematical structure called temperaturevolume, that would be similar to the way spacetime relates duration and distance.

Regards,

John M

John Cox

J. Merryman

I would hesitate to relegate light cones to intellectual modeling. We cannot discount the non-reversible nature of time, though much in math assumes that it can be treated as otherwise. Time is local to a relative direction in space and we can not logically subtend a global sphere from a cone of possible events. I think a better question would be , whether a light cone can be described by a continuous function compensating width of the cone over time so that it eventually converges as a closed surface. jrc

John Merryman

John C,

I wouldn't consider light cones a requirement for the non-reversibility of time. Seeing it as an effect of action would require reversing the actions. Basic inertia would mitigate against the earth, for instance, stopping and reversing direction. Not to mention the more complex actions, such as plants reverse engineering chemical processes and releasing light energy to coalesce back in the sun. That any theory cannot account for the asymmetry of time is evidence for its significant limitations.

What gives 'direction' to time is this change and it doesn't have to be linear. Its only when we isolate specific forms and frames does the measurement become more evident than the processes creating them. Since the energy is conserved, but the form changes, then the energy is more fundamental.

Regards,

John M

John Cox

J. Merryman'

I wouldn't require light cones to be a proof of the arrow of time either, a direct consequence I would say, which means it does not subsume the question.

I have long favored a classical thermodynamic model, myself, which includes the 2.76 Kelvin background as a 'dew point'. The Big Rock Candy Mountain Cosmological Puzzle Model. I do not however think that a classical model alone can meet the challenges of Relativity and QM. There is much that is yet to be explained which a thermodynamic model can contribute to, and I think the lines between all three major paradigms are becoming very blurry.

Briefly, as to 2.76 K and it's smooth distribution: while this lends strong support to the Big Bang model as the origin of thermalized (persistent re-emission) radiation, we must keep in mind that we receive it as discrete photonic wave train phenomenon, not an amorphis homogeneous energy ambient state of compression. To postulate that mass seeks a state of energy at 'c' requires we follow that to the question of what mechanism must exist for a wave event of EM to loose continuity and meld into a state of existant celeritus

ambient energy compression. If that can be rationalized then the reverse mechanism could be the source of the microwave background radiation.

We do not have anything by which to explain why light velocity is that measured value, and nothing in particular to point to in establishing a universal scale of metrics, Like the old song, "Does anybody really know what time it is?" and we could add, "Does anybody really know what size we are." All we know is that spacetime finds a balance at 'C'. We don't know why anymore then why the Gravitational Constant is that numerical value, it just works.

It struck me some time ago that we see any velocity, and the extension of time itself from a perspective of relative rest (nil) up to the LV limit. Seeing it that way it is easy to argue time emerging from space. But perhaps we are looking from the wrong end. The question might be, if not for any intersection with space, would time not be instantaneous rather than dormant? Perhaps light velocity is a conditional relationship between time and space where time is constrained in it's extension by space. And the positive extension of time is due to a covariance in operational scale.

An intersection of a greater dimension in the span of distance in space, with a lesser commensurate span of duration in the dimension of time, would induce time to extend. The respective comparative lengths would be indeterminent to us but operationally would establish the covariance of scales. The induced extension of time would induce a leapfrog extension of space prescribed by the original difference, and on and on, til the accrued difference in real timespace reached a ration that is self replicating. AT that condition it would not matter what scale of increment was applied to the continuum, because the covariance of different lengths would be self replicating for any choice increment. The Golden Mean (phi) might relate to light velocity as the 'infinity' limit for whatever function might be found between instantaneous and 'c'. There conceivably could be 10^500 possible differences in size pairings of a span of time and a span of space. Here's a free 'T' Shirt;

'G' it works. jrc

John Merryman

John C,

"we must keep in mind that we receive it as discrete photonic wave train phenomenon, not an amorphis homogeneous energy ambient state of compression."

Remember Olber's paradox, why isn't the sky filled with starlight, if light can travel forever and eventually at every point there would be a star at some distance?

Well that's what the background radiation is, not ambient radiation, but light from ever more distant sources, that has been redshifted completely off the visible spectrum, to black body radiation. The minor variations observed would be the shadows of those nearly invisible sources. The question than become why it doesn't build up over eons, to some greater temperature than 2.7k? That where the idea of the dew point seems useful, if we are looking for a cycle of expanding radiation and collapsing mass. Is there some process in the near absolute vacuum of intergalactic space that would turn radiant energy into intergalactic gases? Maybe it isn't that this energy can't get above 2.7k before 'condensing out,' but that it can't get below 2.7k, before it 'freezes out?' Obviously I don't know what the mechanics are, only that if there is a cycle, then there is some state at which the radiation expanding out from galaxies, across billions, or tens of billions of lightyears, starts the process back in the other direction, becoming some incrementally massive gas that is the initial stage of gravitational collapse. If this background radiation were from a big bang event and that event began 'everywhere,' in expanding space, then wouldn't it be largely ambient?

"We do not have anything by which to explain why light velocity is that measured value, and nothing in particular to point to in establishing a universal scale of metrics,"

If time is simply a measure of action, like temperature, then space has no dynamic or physical properties, so nothing to move, bend or bound it. This means it is inert and infinite. Remember C is the 'speed of light in a vacuum.' What is the vacuum, other than inert space? The only measured variation from C is light being slowed by some physical medium. So what provides the constant distance of unaffected C, other than space as an foundational dimensionality?

"An intersection of a greater dimension in the span of distance in space, with a lesser commensurate span of duration in the dimension of time, would induce time to extend."

If space expanded relativistically, then time would speed up/light would travel faster, in order for the speed of light remain constant to this expanded space. That means this is not relativistically expanding space. Doppler effect doesn't mean space is expanding, only that the distance in stable units is increasing. If it presumably will take longer for light to cross this space, that still assumes a constant space, as measured by the speed of light.

Regards,

John M

John Cox

J. Merryman,

You skillfully avoid the question. How does it get to become differentiated as a physically effective, volumetric, measurable stream, that even physically displays interval variations! If you want mass to obey the relationship Einstein demonstrated, that inertia is characterized by mass NOT resisting it's acceleration, and so the mass tending to accelerate to an energy state at 'c' is a justifiable hypothesis, then doesn't it naturally follow that the rest mass of the particle associated with EM, seeks to achieve a continuous non-differentiated LightSpeed Energy State? Big Bang? jrc

John Merryman

John C,

Yet it was also Einstein who worried gravity would contract space to a point and thus felt compelled to add the Cosmological Constant. Big Crunch.

The fact is that both gravity/galactic contraction and intergalactic expansion co-exist and that they are balanced.

Does that EM particle really slow as it falls into the vortex and is shot out the poles of galaxies, or when it has been dissipated across the cosmos and hasn't sufficient energy to expand further and pops its bonds to contract to a point of interstellar gas...

Energy doesn't create space, only fills it.

Regards,

John M

John Cox

J. Merryman,

"Energy doesn't create space, only fills it."

Agreed. So maybe it comes from a tensor in Spacetime itself. It makes it's own filling. Remember the old electric choke on carbs? Take that thing off and set the plugs and timing, anyway! But once you salvage the bi-metal spring (don't forget to disable the electric circuit to IR coil or it can feedback and fry your rectification module in the alternator) take the spring loose from the housing and roll it out flat. That's spacetime. It's also as much energy as it would take heat to uncoil it. You notice it dents your fingers to hold it flat.

In cgs, thermodynamic units convert directly in mass energy equivalence,

erg/cm^3/sec

jrc

John Merryman

John C,

"That's spacetime. It's also as much energy as it would take heat to uncoil it."

Why wouldn't it be spacetemperature, since, as you say, the first criteria is the heat? The fluctuating vacuum. Time only comes into play when there is enough discretion to measure. The frequencies. First you have to establish some initial amplitude. One wave is amplitude, while it takes two to have frequency.

Regards,

John M

John Cox

J. Merryman,

"Spacetemperature"

Yes,literally. With the caveat that you find temperature units more convenient to work with, where I find it more convenient to transpose those to the generic energy values of erg or joule at outset, same with watt. It still is volume to heat, or electric charge, quantity in a material sense that it interacts with matter.

The point I stress is that there is a spacetime tensor itself. Some months ago you and I P-O'd Tom with our less then enlightened remarks presuming on GR. But in that exchange we quipped about the assumption since the Minkowski era that the modeling of 'blocktime' lightcones, etc. all start with the casual assumption that (apart from all else) the operational scale of time to be the same scale for space. It's workable, and Eddington in 1920 states that it is a logical choice, we have no way of establishing a universal scale for either.

Assuming the given is otherwise and there must be an operational continuous function that makes possible the treatment of time scale and space scale as invariant, there would still be the underlying stress between disparite real values of dimension. That stress is the origin of what becomes materially manifest in a multitude of physical phenomenon both in dynamics and static form, and which we blithely call, 'energy'.

Happy Holidays jrc

John Merryman

John C,

"the assumption since the Minkowski era that the modeling of 'blocktime' lightcones, etc. all start with the casual assumption that (apart from all else) the operational scale of time to be the same scale for space. It's workable, and Eddington in 1920 states that it is a logical choice, we have no way of establishing a universal scale for either."

"With the caveat that you find temperature units more convenient to work with, where I find it more convenient to transpose those to the generic energy values of erg or joule at outset, same with watt. It still is volume to heat, or electric charge, quantity in a material sense that it interacts with matter."

So you have to do the same with time as with temperature; To measure them you need to find a relatable spatial quantity and the energy contained therein. Be it the speed of light in space, or some scalar quantity of force. The point is that what you are measuring is energy in space. With temperature, it is like amplitude, as in quantity of energy. The range scales up from nothing/flatline. With time, it is rate of change, as in frequency. The rate at which one state becomes another. Light is held to be timeless because it is always the same state.

Regards,

John M

John Cox

J. Merryman,

"...to find a relatable spatial quantity and the energy contained therein."

That is the seed, yes.

Having generically engineered one myself, and harvested some good fruits from the math that grew from it, I do encourage efforts by any to pursue individual lines of reason. As you point out, the same criteria that would apply to a rest quantity of energy must also apply to wave form, amplitude proved a critical variable in volumetric projection as determined in proportion to rest mass-energy density in my modeling protocols. Good luck jrc

John Merryman

John C,

Good luck and patience. It doesn't seem like inflationary cosmology is going anywhere soon.

Regards,

John M

Eckard Blumschein

Let me try and bridge the wide gap between Akinbo and Florin.

Akinbo argues: "a line cannot exist without width".

Florin sets his hope on split-complex numbers.

Let me remind of the fact that the concentric with Earth celestial sphere is a practical tool. It must not be interpreted as boundary of something real.

Akinbo ignored that a line is strictly speaking just a one-dimensional mathematical fiction, and Florin belongs to those who believe that reality has a been built from such fictions.

Poincaré did perhaps mistake Aristotle's dogma "Infinitum actu non datur" when he argued "There is no actual infinity".

I would like to disagree. The attribute infinite describes a logical property and the notion "entity of all natural numbers" is reasonable in mathematics while by definition infinity cannot be a natural quantity. Isn't {oo} stupid?

Eckard

Akinbo Ojo

Eckard,

RE: "Akinbo ignored that a line is strictly speaking just a one-dimensional mathematical fiction, and Florin belongs to those who believe that reality has a been built from such fictions".

Not only Akinbo, even the grandfather of the school of fiction, Plato himself has accepted that a line is not a fiction! Neither is a point, a surface or a 3-dimensional body. (see Metaphysics, book I, part 9, paragraph 14). So if the owner of the Platonic school has denied something why are his students, generations into the future not following their master and teacher?

On a lighter note there is no bitterness between Florin and I. Perhaps, what separates us rather than being a 'wide gap' as you say, may actually be a breadthless length and a surface with zero thickness.

Regards,

Akinbo

« Previous Page Next Page »