The natural process of all radiocative decay + products is based upon the availability of “parents” and “daughters”, so some half_lifes are needed for investigation.

In this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Alfa_beta_gamma_radiation.svg

the process shows that Alpha particles get stopped fully by a sheet of paper, Beta is stopped by aliminium sheeting, and finally Gamma is quenched by a solid lead block of at least 3 metre thickness.

So biological proccess (paper or human skin) can influence the decay outcome of Alpha?

A lot of elements are needed to collect into the product of Aluminium ( out of the standard elemental table process ), for there to be a significant influence of Beta.

Finally, there must be a very large timescale to have passed in order for there to produce a chunk of lead 3 metres ^ !

The Universe have a natural history when it comes to element creation, a period of time needs to pass for the generation of certain products, and these products may half_life it away in an instant, or hang around for vast generations?

So when Gamma Rays are detected we can conclude that there is very little lead elements between the source and ourselves, which implies a very “early” period “short_life”?… of the Universe.

Alpha particles or Helium Neucleus, implies a long period “long_life” priod is needed.

Along the decay chain, which do you think has the most influence, early products (parents) or late time (duaghters) products?

Its a “what comes first”, influences most type question?

Would the Universe be Alpha rich, if life were not around “now”? Life would not be around for long in a Gamma rich environment?

True, the future is indeterminate, yet constrained by previous definitions in the past. But one must ask then, “why this definitional consistency?” What keeps the universe consistent (ordered?), the future with the past?

It also is interesting to note that events in the past seem to have been “defined” and ordered without me experiencing them as a “now”, although that still does not necessarily make them objective. Perhaps they were actually defined in my “now”, as long as they’re consistent with previous definitions. I think Hawking may believe something like that (top-down universe, the origin of the universe is not truly defined until it ends?)

The future will be more larger then the past. If the future did not have available space to accomodate sufficient probabilities, then expansion could not occur, and contraction would prevail.

Does this mean that time would flow backwards? If it did, to experience “now” would mean continual “undefinition”, instead of definition. That might not be the same experience.

Finally, in the future, there will be as many, if not more? Universes than there is “now”, it’s just how one defines them to be in existence, determinate or variable?..our galactic “now” is not imposed upon every other galactic observers “now”, we will become isolated!

Ah but see, you’re still assuming your now is the same as mine

The subjectivity of “now” raises even more questions. If “now” is different for someone else, it also means that their past and future are different, which is hard to reconcile with an objective universe, although it may be consistent with an Everett-type scenario.

BTW, I would never have the hubris to say I that comprehend existence. I suspect the rabbithole could go much deeper than we realize. Perhaps even as deep as we want it to go

I do believe the change, from a future speculative point of view, is dependant upon thermal(volume/area) quantities?

1)The future will be more larger then the past. If the future did not have available space to accomodate sufficient probabilities, then expansion could not occur, and contraction would prevail.

2)The past was hotter than the future. We may not detect the difference at this moment in time “now” ?..but over a long enough period of change, say from the hot big bang to yesterday, it appears to be so. If you were present in every single moment from the BB to yesterday, took thermal readings, you would have observed the past “now” was hotter than the present_time “now” ?

3)The future will have less visible light than the past, the future will be visible dark! In the future, some observers would have to maintain that they are the only “galaxy” in the universe. This is to say that, as expansion increase’s, every galaxy would not recieve any light from their nearest/next, galaxy. Thus every galaxy that has observers would have to conclude “their” home galaxy was unique.

The future changes are determined by “local” thermal signatures, the closer one gets to absolute zero, the closer one gets to the big-_-crunch. All future galaxies will be seperated by enough distance (one can see these as isolated islands?), so as not to interfere with the oncoming crunch_bang.

One can really class all future changes occur within “single” galactic localities, and all galaxies, that are sufficiently lightcone isolated, are sources of thier own big_bangs?

Finally, in the future, there will be as many, if not more? Universes than there is “now”, it’s just how one defines them to be in existence, determinate or variable?..our galactic “now” is not imposed upon every other galactic observers “now”, we will become isolated!

So, if you define which observer you are talking about, you are implicitly specifying the “now” he experiences.

Ok, this may be a more meaningful definition. But change in itself may not be enough. It seems to require that future change be indeterminate, otherwise the future would also be as fixed as the past, and there would nothing remarkable to distinguish it from the events in the past (is a platonic ordering of events enough to confer reality upon them?) This implies that someone or something must make a “choice” at the junction called “now”. Something undefined must become defined, this continual, relentless definition being called “now”. But then there are other questions (such as why is it so relentless and unstoppable?)

Unfortunately, this still does not assign anything universal to “now”. The definition is still subjective, maybe even more so. So it does not help with grasping everyone else’s existence, or what they may experience as “now”.

How does one comprehend existence:Jeffw, I don’t believe in a “now”.

Well if like me you can acknowledge that the concept of “Now” is the only evidence of “change”, then I am sure you can grasp your, and everyone else’s existence.

Now is the “ONLY” period that does not remain the same, in that, the Past cannot and does not change, the Future, cannot and does not change, it has not actually happened, thus the “Now” is the only period that experience can determine change.

Show me “Now” that does not change, and I’ll show you an absolute universal nothing!

Relativity, and ultimately Consciousness, is based on the fundemental concept of a changing “Now”. There is no such reality in QM, you end up forever in a “THEN” future and past equal footing?

From the concept of a “now”, you can determine that the past will not interfere with the future directly, without passing through a moment of change.

Hmmm, not sure I can agree with that. It sure seems to exist to me, and apparently to many others as well (assuming an objective universe). In fact, it may be the only thing that actually does exist, since the past exists only in memory and the future only in imagination There is something very special about “now”. To deny “now”, is to deny the existence of your own consciousness, and to deny the existence of your own consciousness is to deny the existence of reality (since reality and consciousness cannot be separated). So, not believing in “now” makes you effectively a nihlist But who knows? Maybe you’re right…

However, if someone were ever to discover a physical basis for “now”, it would seem to be a way to bridge the subjective and object realities, which could be very important.