The connection was through plasma cosmology;

http://www.plasmacosmology.net/

With its focus on electricity.

My observation about time is non Big Bang geometry and I think this concept does a good job of explaining the forces involved.

As I’ve argued, reality just is. Time is a consequence of change, not cause of it.

How does the idea of our cells having internal electric fields square with your thoughts on the passage of time? Those electric fields would exist in space-time as all other fields do. It does not seem that the fields would have any relationship to yesterday, today, or tomorrow; they just are. Any thoughts?

http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/19841/page2/

“Using novel voltage-sensitive nanoparticles, researchers have found electric fields inside cells as strong as those produced in lightning bolts. Previously, it has only been possible to measure electric fields across cell membranes, not within the main bulk of cells. It’s not clear what causes these strong fields or what they might mean. But now that it’s possible to measure them, researchers hope to learn about disease states such as cancer by studying these electric fields.”

What if this energy release effectively reduced the pressure/energy of the wave? That way, as particle, it is reduced to one point/strike, yet if this doesn’t happen, it’s still a wave. Consider that lightning bolts only really occur when they strike the ground. There are frequently lightning exchanges between clouds, but they are more diffuse flashes, then bolts. Whether light is measured as particle or wave depends on the type of test involved. I haven’t read up on the methods used, but possibly the one which measures light as particle is more electrically conductive than the one which measures it as wave. I’m certainly no expert, but you might find plasma cosmology interesting, if you haven’t looked into it already.

That’s a little expensive but if it might help understand something new it might be worth it.

When comparing a computer simulated image of galaxies combining under the influence of gravity to form clusters with an image of actual neurons in the brain tissue of a cat I was amazed by an apparent similarity between the two pictures.

Can I interest you in a mouldy piece of bread that looks exactly like the Shroud of Turin? Bids start at $1,000.

This might even lead us to the legendary phenomenon called “memory”.

I think neurophysiologists have a pretty good handle on the mechanics of memory, but consciousness is something else. It is in this area that I expect a cosmic connection may be uncovered. When comparing a computer simulated image of galaxies combining under the influence of gravity to form clusters with an image of actual neurons in the brain tissue of a cat I was amazed by an apparent similarity between the two pictures. I found myself wondering if the correspondence between the two patterns connoted a deeper connection between the cosmos and mammalian brain. Is it significant that, in using a single set of mathematical instructions to model accurately the formation of galaxy clusters, a modern supercomputer will graphically depict a structural pattern common to both neural and interstellar systems? Why does the neuronal system of the mammalian brain develop its connections in a manner that mimics the pattern of a gravitational coalescence of galaxies? Is evolving consciousness an analogue to gravitational coalescence? Will understanding dark energy reveal insights into our own consciousness. I think it is possible.

1. That an electron or photon (especially the former?) really has some “condition” as it propagates away from emission, and *it* is a real thing and can’t be brushed off as “information” etc.
2. It really can’t be going in a classical trajectory, from interference experiments etc.
3. When there is an impact, counter click, etc., then of course the particle can no longer be found anywhere else, and so “something” can’t be all over the place anymore,

What if the propagation is an energy field and when it connects with some other field, it grounds out and there is an energy discharge, like a spark. The photon being the unit of exchange, similar to a dripping faucet. All the drips are of similar size, due to the surface tension of water, so quantity is determined by how fast it drips.

You might want to explore plasma cosmology;

http://www.plasmacosmology.net/

http://www.holoscience.com

I agree that there are an infinite number of x/y axes possible on the piece of paper. But do you agree or disagree that the paper is 2-dimensional without the need to specify any particular set of axes? Do you agree or disagree that geometrical facts about the paper, like the distances between points on it, have definite answers without the need to draw coordinates? (even though you can calculate this distance using a given coordinate system, by using the pythagorean theorem which says the distance will be the square root of [difference between the two points’ x-coordinates]^2 + [difference between the two points’ y-coordinates]^2 …note that the result you get for the distance will be independent of your choice of coordinate system, you can draw a different set of x/y axes and get the same answer.) If you agree, I don’t see what’s so problematic about saying that spacetime is inherently 4-dimensional without the need to specify any particular set of axes, and that the spacetime interval between events, which is analogous to distance on paper in the sense that it’s independent of what frame you use, is a “geometrical” fact about spacetime that doesn’t depend on having a coordinate system (though like distance it can be calculated in any particular coordinate system…it’s equal to the square root of [difference between time coordinates * the speed of light]^2 – [difference between x coordinates]^2 – [difference between y coordinates]^2 – [difference between z coordinates]^2 ).

That’s an interesting point with regard to space. An idea that has occurred to me is that space is the real absolute. That geometry defines it, but doesn’t create it, so that the geometric zero isn’t the dimensionless point, but empty space. This gets into cosmology though and whether Omega=1, so that all the gravitational contraction and expanding redshift balance out into euclidian space. Not to totally go off on a tangent, but it would seem that if redshift is caused by space expanding from a point, then the speed of light should increase as space expands, otherwise it is measuring a stable dimension of space, not an expanding one.

You agree that while two axes define a specific plane, a plane does not specify a specific set of coordinates. Geometry defines space, while space is the basis for geometry, not a creation of it.

My real issue in this discussion has been whether time is an actual dimension, or is just modeled as one. That is the relationship between different coordinate systems moving about in the same space. This isn’t just physics, it’s politics as well, ie. how these different frames interact.

t seems to me that you are in danger of falling into this sort of mental trap, so it might do you some good to be a little more cautious about jumping to the conclusion that you understand an argument just because the words’ nontechnical meanings resonate with you in a way that seems to make sense intuitively.

My curiosity exceeds my embarrassment. My interest in physics is the same as my interest in history, or politics, or economics. It is an increasingly unstable world and I feel it behooves me to gain as firm a grasp of what is happening as possible. If I was to take the time, I’m sure I can come up with quite a few examples where the professionals became so insulated from the larger world that they eventually lost touch with reality. It is safe to say that quite a few PhD’s are in this boat, since so many theories being put forth contradict each other. At least my living doesn’t depend on this.
In the fundamental duality of life, there are generalists and specialists, with advantages and disadvantages to both. If there were only generalists, we would still be living in caves and hunting rabbits with sticks. The problem for specialists is that they can become disconnected from the larger context and the towers of Babel they like to construct fall down when the divergence gets too great. Life is one step back for every two forward and generalists tend to be more adaptable.

How can “four dimensional spacetime” be a “frame”, when a frame specifically refers to a coordinate system? This is like saying a piece of paper is really a set of x/y axes, it just doesn’t make any sense at all.

Four dimensions are not a coordinate system? It seems to me that you assume the four dimensional map is the territory. Any four dimensional coordinate system can define the same territory, but from different perspectives. Absolute perspective is an oxymoron.

The statement above says nothing about “sequential events occurring simultaneously”, so what do you mean “as described here”? And what do you mean by “other frames”–what was the first frame? Saying “You can’t have sequential events occurring simultaneously” is a lot like saying “you can’t have dots on a piece of paper that have different y-coordinates also having the same y-coordinate”–surely you wouldn’t argue there is some “real” truth about whether dots on a piece of paper have the same or different y-coordinates before we specify some coordinate system on the paper?

That referred to the quote which followed, not the preceding one. Here it is again;

No, I am arguing that they both exist in exactly the same sense (which I guess is what you mean by ‘co-exist’), precisely because I argue it is natural to place all frames on equal footing in terms of what they say “exists” at a given moment. There is some frame where the event of my death happens at the same moment as some other distant event E; there is some other frame where E happens at the same moment as my birth; so if you say that event E “exists” at some moment, how can you say that one or the other of my birth and death co-exists with E but not both, without privileging one frame over another?

It seems to me that you are saying all frames exist as one larger frame, so that if there is one comparable to E=b and another where E=d, then b=d, even in the original frames where they are not equal.

The problem is comparing frames that are in motion. The notion of stable dimensions breaks down, even if the principles by which they interact are stable.

What does it mean for a “frame” (which again, is just a coordinate system) to “approximate my life”? Would different individuals have different “privileged frames”? If so, then this would already be incompatible with presentism, which says there is a single objective truth about simultaneity, so that only events happening in the objective “now” really exist.

You might want to think how this applies to and defines politics, as well as religion. We all consitiute our own frames and then we try to create larger frames of agreement, even when it means agreeing to nonsense, which has the added advantage of placing all parties in a strange frame. It explains a lot of psychology as well.

In physics one can talk about instantaneous momentum at a particular moment, so presumably a presentist would say each object’s instantaneous momentum is part of what exists in the present. But if neither you or I is advocating the presentist view, then we don’t really need to talk about, although as I said it would be helpful if you explained what alternative view you are proposing about time and what “exists”.

I’m arguing that time isn’t fundamental, either as point or line. I’m arguing it is a consequence of motion, similar to temperature, rather then dimensional basis for it, like space. Consider a thermal medium, say a pot of hot water, with lots of water molecules moving about. If we were to construct a time keeping device out of this situation, we would take the motion of one of these points of reference and measure it against the medium it is moving through. The point is the hand and the medium is the face of the clock. Obviously all the other points are hands of their own clocks, but are medium/face for all other clocks. As Newton pointed out, “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” So the motion of any point/hand is balanced by the reaction of the medium/face of the clock. To the hand of the clock, the face goes counterclockwise.
Time is described as a dimension because it has direction from past events to future ones, but these events go from being future potential to past circumstance. In the thermodynamic medium, the relationships of these points constitute an event, even though the perspective is different for every point. While any and all of the points go from past events to future ones, the medium against which any point is being judged is the overall context, which once created, is displaced by the next, so this event goes from present to past. Tomorrow, today will be yesterday.
The collapsing wave of potential is the future turning into past circumstance, which we distill out as linear narrative, Say the quantum event, the bottle of poison, the cat, the box, our eyes. This narrative is simply the stream of specific detail, much like a particular molecule traveling through the larger medium and the series of encounters involved. Yet, as I pointed out in the thermal framing, there are innumerable other points of reference also describing their own narrative and all this activity exists in an equilibrium, so there are waves of all these other narratives crashing around and nothing really collapses to a point, just continues on its merry way, because every narrative amounts to its own particular linear dimension, going its own particular way and there is no one dimension of time.
This isn’t presentism because time isn’t primary. That doesn’t make it imaginary, it puts it on a level with temperature and I don’t go around putting my hand on hot stoves. If you want to describe something ten lightminutes away as being ten minutes in the past, that’s certainly logical, but drawing convoluted comparisions of how different events can appear in different sequences, from different perspectives, somehow proves that time is a fundamental dimension and change is an illusion doesn’t pass the test with me.

The only absolute temperature is the complete absence of it and I suppose the same applies to time. Which doesn’t leave a line or a point, but just empty space. Of course, space fluctuates, so I guess absolute time and temperature don’t exist. Or don’t non-exist. Whichever.

Regards,

John