Incompatible Arrows, IV: F. Scott Fitzgerald

By Sean Carroll | April 3, 2008 10:46 pm

Fewer people are probably familiar with F. Scott Fitzgerald’s short story “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” than they are with the reversed-time novels by Martin Amis, Kurt Vonnegut, or Lewis Carroll. But don’t worry, you will be!

In this case, the protagonist is born as an old man who grows younger with time, eventually dying as a baby. His father, not to mention the hospital staff, are somewhat nonplussed at his birth.

Mr. Button’s eyes followed her pointing finger, and this is what he saw. Wrapped in a voluminous white blanket, and partly crammed into one of the cribs, there sat an old man apparently about seventy years of age. His sparse hair was almost white, and from his chin dripped a long smoke-coloured beard, which waved absurdly back and forth, fanned by the breeze coming in at the window. He looked up at Mr. Button with dim, faded eyes in which lurked a puzzled question.

“Am I mad?” thundered Mr. Button, his terror resolving into rage. “Is this some ghastly hospital joke?”

“It doesn’t seem like a joke to us,” replied the nurse severely. “And I don’t know whether you’re mad or not—but that is most certainly your child.”

The cool perspiration redoubled on Mr. Button’s forehead. He closed his eyes, and then, opening them, looked again. There was no mistake—he was gazing at a man of threescore and ten—a baby of threescore and ten, a baby whose feet hung over the sides of the crib in which it was reposing.

No word of what Mrs. Button had to say about the whole affair.

Fitzgerald’s story takes a different approach to running the arrow of time backwards: Benjamin Button has experiences and memories that are completely conventional (although, for expository purposes, he is born with a full vocabulary), while his physical body ages backward.

brad-pitt-fat-suit-09.jpg The reason why I know everyone will be hearing about the story is that “Benjamin Button” is being made into a feature film, directed by David Fincher (Fight Club, Se7en) and starring Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett. Major photography has been completed, and it’s currently in post-production, scheduled to be released late in 2008. Major Oscar buzz.

Leaked photos seem to indicate that the film will portray Benjamin as being born baby-sized (albeit old and wrinkly), rather than as a full grown human being. Different actors will be used to portray Button’s reverse aging at different stages of his life, while CGI effects insert Brat Pitt’s face onto each body.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Time, Words
  • Nami

    Sean, I don’t know whether anyone else has mentioned it or not. In a short story by Jorge Luis Borges, The Other, the protagonist is an old man who has a conversation with a young man sitting beside him. At the end, the old man realizes that he is talking to the person whom he was fifty years earlier. I thought you might be interesting to you.

  • Jorg

    Another story that may not have been mentioned is “The Time of Passage” by J.G. Ballard, in, I believe, a collection Chronopolis. Again, like Fitzgerald, it is basically a story of a life in the world where everyone is moving backwards and explores the emotional responses of the characters to such momentously sad occasions as marriage, loss of memories in childhood, and birth.

  • http://web.mit.edu/sahughes/www/ Scott H.

    Philip K. Dick’s Counter-Clock World was similarly structured, in that things run backwards, but people’s memory seems normally chronological. There’s a very disturbing passage at the beginning of a cemetary patrol finding that someone in a grave has come back to life. This is normal — all graves have loudspeakers installed so that the newly undead can call for help. While the police officer calls for someone to come dig up the grave, he unsmokes a cigarette: Smokers buy used butts, and puff them back into full cigarettes. Later, I think they are unrolled, moistened, and gradually tranformed back into tobacco plants.

    Plot devices of this kind are a staple of Dick’s work. I think Now Wait For Last Year, for example, had similar ideas, but I don’t remember quite how they work in that case.

  • Dylab

    I think an episode of Star Trek had a race with a reverse aging process which caused some confusion.

  • John R Ramsden

    Has anyone mentioned David Brin’s SF novel “The Practice Effect” ?

    [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Practice_Effect ]

    If not, they have now!

  • Kim

    Didn’t the old “Mork and Mindy” TV show (from the mid ’70’s, staring Robin Williams) also have a reverse aging plot line? Mindy gave birth to a baby who turned out to be an old man (Jonathan Winters)who lived his life in reverse.

    I think this was about the time the show started really going downhill.

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Sean, you really are into this!…and fascinating it is.

    I was looking a a picture of a beautiful, newly born baby in Newsweeks recent article on surrogate motherhood and once again marveled about this matter of being born…and of course dying. I’m pushing 70 and living with MS, diabetes and Prostate cancer, so needless to say, I comptemplating the latter more than the former!

    The fact that birth and death are morphologically so different points to a definite arrow of time. If time, like space, is marginally closed…and it well may be, what we observe about our own lives may offer clues to the true nature of existence.

    One of the questions we ask- and never receive a complete answer to, from the time we are 7 until we are 70 is: “Where did I come from?” Anybody who thinks the answer is summed up in sexual relations is deluded…the question is much more profound than that. It is likely our personal origins have roots in the development of the universe itself.

    The DNA in our bodies, while it has been profoundly re-arranged over the past 3.2 billion years, is still the same substance and essence of life it always has been. In that sense, the biological material in our bodies has not known death in 3.2 billion years, almost 25% of the time since the big bang. No wonder death, as obvious as it is, is incomprehensible to us!

    Like consciousness itself, the development of life has been gradual…we probably could not pinpoint the exact time in the development of life where the inorganic could have been said to become organic and the inorganic become life…though we could use some arbitrary yardstick- as abilty to reproduce.

    The point is that the inorganic world, while not conscious in the sense we are, is nevertheless organized and complex…a complexity which obviously begat complexity of yet a higher order and eventually led to us. If the inorganic was not organized and complex we would not be around describing same with “the laws of physics”.

    We observe not only processes which lead to chaos-increase entropy- in the universe, but processes which do work…are constructive- decrease entropy. These forces exist together, just as tectonic and gradational forces exist together on the surface of the Earth. From our present frame of reference, we observe a second law…overall entropy seems to be increasing, with only small islands of well protected complexity in the unverse, but this observation, for very good reasons which I will but touch on later in this note, may be misleading.

    Early man refused to accept the permanence of death. This intuitive belief in continued existence after death led to Platonism…and eventually Einstein.

    If we remember this bit of history of science, we can see that human intuition, while unscientific and clouded by mysticism, cultural bias and error, nevertheless has an element of underlying “saavy” which in a general way has guided the origin and development of modern science. Mankind (at least the ones who placed food and items of living in graves!) had and has a skeptical nature, a taste for “proof” and “truth”.

    The fact that observation is linked to actual existence has profound implications about our own “situation”, directly relates to possible space/time periodicity in universal development and implies engineering stability in the universal structure…stability which could well explain what we observe.

    We tend to forget, but growing up as a child…getting used to life in this particular space/time continuom is a frustrating, complex and quite difficult task, which is so difficult it requires mentoring. Animals which do not care for their young must reproduce in huge numbers and consign most of their young to the food chain.

    If consciousness shifts at “death”, getting used to that new situation would take getting used to, too. However such an adjustment would be easier than childhood, because in such a “hemisphere” gravity would plainly be seen as a fictitious force…it would hold us to the Earth, yet dropped objects would return to our hands and accidents would undo themselves- as in Allice in Wonderland.

    If there is no awareness of another 4D particulate “Hemisphere”…reawakening as a child into a universe which is almost but not quite identical because of servo-mechanism input in the prior cycle, would be essentially replicating our eternal existence with the rest of the universe…with only tiny phylogenic change.

    I believe that non-existence after death is the easiest idea…basically, “and so what”. It means nothing, there is nothing we could do about it anyway, and is an easy and obvious answer. Yet non-existence is not compatable with what we now know about the link between observation and existence or the nature of the univeral structure.

    I think the final thing we must consider is the nature of the GR concept. There is nothing outside a GR universe…it is everywhere…nothing can really go anywhere to escape it. Such a structure stongly implies rigid conservation laws, matter and energy, entropy- and information/complexity. The technological veracity of GR coupled with the incredibly complex universal structure we observe lead to what I feel is an easy conclusion about the permanence of existence.

  • MedallionOfFerret

    One assumption that seems to be common to all these stories is that activities in the other three dimensions are exactly reversed when time goes backwards. Is there any physical reason for this effect? Is there not enough randomness in nature that reversing time might lead, for example, to a unique year 2000, in which Dubya was not selected as president? Which makes a lot of what has happened throughout the world in the last eight years also not happening? If so, would this not be an argument for the irreversibility of time’s arrow?

    Hoi polloi physics.

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Everything we observe about our macroscopic reality indicates that time has a single, single-process irreversible direction.

    Any form of spherical or curved geometry incorporates mathematically irrational pi. The first thing I reminded my geometry students of with regard to formuae which incorporate pi, is that the the answer to any attempted measurement is always off (low- in the same direction) depending on the number of decimal places we use in our figure for pi. When a universe structurally based on spherical geometry returns, it probably does not return to exactly the same place.

    However, the “return” is so close and almost perfect, that it confers an engineering stability on the system which makes possible the storage, conservation and increasing phylogenic development of complexity. This still leaves the universe with a 2nd law, but at least that law doesn’t rage like “A fox in the proverbial henhouse”. The universe compensates for its tendency toward disorder by increasing in informational complexity…it is gradually becoming more complex at the sacrifice of a modest increase in thermal entropy. Hence, it continues to exist. This type of process explains why we exist and are able to discuss these matters!

    In fact, the fact that the universal geometry incorporates pi probably makes motion, change and time possible. That motion and change in 4D is observed to occur, is proof positive that the universe does indeed have a dynamic component…it is NOT completely static. Einstein reminds us that time, mass, and the three spatial dimensions observed from particulate frames all vary with this process we call “observation” and the coordinates from which we observe.

    This preferred direction of time and relativistic change is completely consistent with what we observe in our macroscopic and sub-microscopic reality, however CPT symmetry in the sub-microscopic must also have significant implications insofar as the structure of the universe is concerned. The fact that an arrow of time is obvious primarily in the macroscopic realm, while most of the universe by mass is sub-microscopic implies that the “arrow of time” is a frame of reference phenomenon only and is not structurally applicable cosmologically.

    It is logical to expect certain violations of CPT symmetry IE Chirality in the universe. If the universe is observed from multiple (foundationally 2) 4D particulate matter/antimatter cross sections, it would be impossible for the physics to be identical as observed under “over the horizon” condiitons. The phases and states of matter would be different, thermal entropy would progessively gather (decrease) and informational entropy would increase in one hemisphere and the reverse in the other, with periodic changes in particulate polarity in each “hemisphere”.

    Remember a GR universe is never completely singular. It is always everywhere. When one 4D “hemisphere” collapses, as in an hour-glass, the other 4D “Hemisphere” takes the place of that part of the universe approaching singularity- and conserves its informational complexity. The “big bang” in one Hemisphere would only be a particulate polarity reversal and gradual almost impreceptable shift in entropy direction in the other. I narrate taking the frame of observing coordinates.

    The actual proper-time pulse of the general universal mass probably takes place from material to anti-material (at the baryonic quark level everywhere), at a rate of 2.8 trillion cycles per Earth second. Because of the spin of the photon, and the fact that we electromagnetically (photonically) cross-read the universe in extreme gravitational time dilation, we detect only one particulate and vast 4D cross-section of the universe at a time…the other is “over the horizon” and detectable only by mass, power spectrum and particle accelerator measurements.

    The purpose of this conceptualizing is to visualize a universe which matches the conceptual parameters of our well verified models and results in conditions within the universe which make possible the existence, conservation and extension of information and complexity- without resorting to infinities and vast numbers of undetectable parallel universes.

    As mentioned, if we simply extend the well verified models we have at our disposal, we may be able to experimentally verify the cosmological reality we can project from these models…a universe based on finite mass, unbounded and marginally closed spatial extent and an extremely limited and a small, but general and well defined dynamic component.

  • John Merryman

    Sam,

    Everything we observe about our macroscopic reality indicates that time has a single, single-process irreversible direction.

    …a universe based on finite mass, unbounded and marginally closed spatial extent and an extremely limited and a small, but general and well defined dynamic component.

    So if this dynamic component is manifesting a series of configurations, these events go from future potential to past circumstance? So that macroscopic dimension of time is actually coming towards our point of reference, much as those islands came toward you, traveling from the future into the past?

    Or is that direction the other way around and it is we who travel from the past into the future? In a relative world, isn’t it both? We travel down the road, as the road passes under us.

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Hi John,

    If the universe experiences a coordinated and general quantum proper time matter/antimatter pulse at the quark level, each cycle would be (as observed at that level of scale), a perfect duplicate of the former.

    Just as we have CPT symmetry in the sub-microscopic with only a few chiral phenomena, at its heart the universe in this scenario would be a very rigid place- but at our macroscopic scale we could still observe a definite and very convincing arrow of time, which is real to us…we live or die by the time process we observe.

    Any other hemisphere, like the opposite side of a merry go round, if we could observe it from our present coordinates, would seem to be experiencing time reversal, but actually what happens there in geometric inversion (enantiomorphy) is just a continuation of the same process we are experiencing. When we throw a ball up in the air, we expect it to come down…free fall in one direction and free fall in another direction.

    By the way, I have had questions about the pivotal role of pi in the universe. Pi is after all a mathematical artifact. A wheel is a wheel. A circle is a circle. The key is that pi only becomes important when we measure, and we live in a universe which only exists as it is observed and measured. In GR, we observe from the center of the geometry, yet exist on the circumference (4D event particulate event horizon surfaces). Our observing, measuring and relating relationship with the universe, and our existence as material beings makes pi very important.

    The process by which coordinate shift of perhaps the diameter of an atomic particle at each pulse (in the macroscopic) affects the universe and effects phylogenic change is of course, unknown. So is the extent to which our “choices” in life affect the overall increase in universal informational complexity.

    One thing is for sure. The universe may be awesome, but it is very mechanical, even if we have a personal relationship with it! We experience cause and effect constantly, and inhabit an engineering envelope which if we push, we pay the price. If we drive around at 100 MPH we cannot expect the universe to deliver us from folly. The universe is quite feral and demanding in many respects.

    I had a near death experience once from dehydration and was asked if I had some mystical experience. I told the person that as a pre-med student, everything seemed to shut down pretty much as I expected…I lost control of my bowel and bladder, my eyesight browned out and I heard a buzzing in my ears…etc.

    If we have another set of particulate coordinates waiting for us, I feel certain that our existence there will be just as mechanical and particulate as the one we now enjoy…although I would suspect we would have to get used to the feeling of being held in a vise…choice as we now know it could be limited or non-existent.

  • John Merryman

    Sam,

    I certainly agree that time is a macroscopic effect, similar to temperature, but I think that the other side of this effect is as I’ve been describing, that reality is fundamentally dualistic between the energy and the information, whether it’s expanding energy and collapsing mass, the two hemispheres of our brains, or even the conservative civil consolidation, vs. liberal social expansion of politics, there are two sides of every coin, even though we only see(or see through, in the case of the brain) one at a time.

    I have to agree that those near death experiences are like having the plug pulled on the television, although I’ve apparently continued to function for a short time afterward. I guess this is because the memory isn’t properly stored. Which is to say that all those other times I don’t really remember are a form of death. Information falls away into the past….

    I think there is a little wiggle room with a mechanistic determinism, because measurement is digital, but reality is analog, so there is always some immeasurable wobble in the rotation. That we should try to pin pi down is simply evidence of the tendency to seek answers in the detail and ignore the overall. Our very sense of individuality is a function of focus, yet our connection to the whole is in the totality.

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Hi John,

    “that reality is fundamentally dualistic between the energy and the information,”

    You refer elsewhere re death, to “pulling the plug” and I don’t think that analogy is inappropriate at all. Like appliances which have batteries to retain stored information during intermittant power failures, the body has mechanisms to prevent immediate loss of vital information-storing mechanisms, in the event of temprorary problems… IE the brain, in case “power” can be restored.

    It is important to note the necessary relationship between energy and information. I’m very leery of the mystical…with all the counterintuitiveness of SRT/GR/QM and the Schwarzschild geometry, to add ghosts to the picture seems a bit too far fetched! We, and everything else living are conscious to the extent that our biological particulate complexity interacts with electromagnetic energy.

    I think considering the relativistic state of modern physics, it would be hard to regard anything about the universe to be deterministic, yet at their conceptual heart, all the models are just that, and this deterministic reality is a fundamental stabilizing principle in the universe.

    Duality keeps coming up…some would say, rearing it ugly head. I don’t see duality as philosophically or scientifically offensive, and I too, like you have noted similarities between the physical and social sciences…though that is definitely not hard science, yet…just interesting to note and ruminate on.

    I said that the universe can be boiled down to energy plus a set of contraining principles, within which energy has formed densities and evolved compexity.

    On the one hand, we have the feral universe, which while it makes our existence possible, is cold, inhospitable and quite unforgiving…I use that word “unforgiving” in an engineering sense, which reminds us that the semantics of the natural sciences intertwines with that of the social sciences!

    On the other hand, we have the collective consciousness, in which the eternal photonic matrix…the electromagnetic spectrum interacts with with all past, present and future existing particulate complexity. The unique combination of particulate, energy density complexity with the electromagnetic spectrum bequeaths our individual identity, because of our personal coordinates, yet the relativistic nature of light makes us, as individuals a part of all consciousness which preceded, exists with us in the present, and will follow us in the future.

    The collective consciousness is anything but feral, because it is a reflection of the way life has developed and coped with challenges over eternity, yet how it
    actually affects us is conjectural. I’m not going to take the time to look up the correct spelling of serindipitous, but at higher levels of consciousness especially, there is the possiblity that beings are positively and constructively influenced by the electromagnetic energy by which we interact with our own particulate identity.

    “That we should try to pin pi down is simply evidence of the tendency to seek answers in the detail and ignore the overall. Our very sense of individuality is a function of focus, yet our connection to the whole is in the totality.”

    I’m not really nit picking here, just pointing out how the roots of our existence may be found in simple mathematical relationships inherent in the geometry of the universe….our very existence is made possible by a rather simple set of underlying and ordering principles- plus a very specific amount of energy.

    I failed to note in my previous remarks that, if the universe could be reduced to a geometric point of infinitely small size, pi would probably be of little significance as well. However at a certain level of scale, any energy density eventually becomes singular (the Planck Realm) and event horizons form. These event horizons give the universe measurable parameters…the universe is not infinitely reducable…the “failure of reductionism”. Since the Planck Realm exists below 10 to the minus 33rd CM, the universe itself, by its very nature, when measured and observed by consciousness, is affected by the mathematical irrationality of pi. To say it another way, the universe has great resolution- to 33 places…but pi is irrational to thousands of places, perhaps infinitely, so the nature and structure of the observed universe is affected by the mathematical irrationality of pi.

    Very interesting comments, John

  • Elliot

    It’s obviously “time” for the classic time reversal limerick (not an ET original to be sure)

    There once was a lady named Bright
    Who traveled much faster than light
    She left the next day
    In a relative way
    And returned on the previous night

    e.

  • Paul Valletta

    Sam: ” had a near death experience once from dehydration and was asked if I had some mystical experience. I told the person that as a pre-med student, everything seemed to shut down pretty much as I expected” may I state that any NDE is actually the very first experience of LIFE, not actually death?

    The human brain functions by energy and absorbs energy, the very first “image” recorded by the brain happens to be of the journey down the mother’s birth ing channel?..ie..you are being transported within the confined liquid womb, to that of an open space gas environment.

    The “NORMAL” statement of NDE is of a :Dark surrounding tunnel volume, with a small speck of light at the end of it, the approaching light gets more intense until it bursts forth and encapsulates every thing. This is really just the very first EVENT recorded by the brain, sorry for those spiritually minded people, but it is STILL an awsome event.

    The importance of the very first recorded brain event, is often replayed at times of extreme stress or danger, or event imminent death events, like a sort of precognitive “saftey valve”, nature provides a lasting memory process that makes transitional moments less boring?

  • John Merryman

    Sam,

    The concept of feral is a matter of perspective, that of broad perspective for that which is singularly focused on its own survival, yet all of us fall into that category out of necessity on occasion. As you point out, the universe can be a harsh environment, but it is the universal nature of the energy which composes it that is the basis of the unity of consciousness. On the other hand, the focusing and ordering of this energy that is the cause of our mental abilities and the essential impetus for evolutionary advancement, because of the inherent competition it entails, the end state of this concentration are the political wars and economic bubbles which our ambitions create. The result is a cycle of expansion and contraction, growth and collapse, each one providing lessons and opportunities for the next cycle to carry the process a little further. So the concept of good and bad are subjective. What is good for the fox, is bad for the chicken. Wars are considered the ultimate evil, yet they are a product of human success, as humanity conquers the earth and finds itself its own most effective predator.
    The next stage of progression will have to find a way to incorporate this entangled duality into a conscious understanding so that we can grow with it and not simply be controlled by it. The next step in understanding nature and steering its power to our long term benefit.

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Elliot,

    In a universe where actually attaining the speed of light will put you everywhere, all the time, with respect to everything else, I hardly think super-luminal speeds are necessary! Basically, I would believe, “arriving the previous night” has more to do with the geometry of the universal structure, and the way energy densitities (from the photon on up) relate to one another within that structure.

    The electromagnetic aspect of our existence puts the far reaches of the universe at our fingertips. The energy density, particulate part of our existence keeps our feet firmly planted on the ground! Relativistic change affects everything up to the exact speed of light. After that, the universe is photonic.

    This brings up an important conceptual point. When the mass of any energy density of any size attains the speed of light, its mass, as generally considered, becomes infinite. However this is not true in a universe of finite mass. In such a universe, the energy density we select attains the mass of the universe itself…it becomes one with the whole entity, a very different conceptual idea.

    Einstein considered both infinite and finite (mass) models for the universe, but his original grand proportion fits only a universe of finite mass, because the proportion will not admit infinities! He only half laughingly joked that only two things in the universe were infinite, human folly and the universe…and he was not sure about the latter.

    Those proposing a universe of infinite mass use E sub 0…a massless photon and make other adjustments. However the solar calculator in my desk performs tasks under the influence of photons, in fact, the fact that photons do work is a “fact of life”. Schwarzschild’s photon is 0+…of tiny but measurable mass, and thus, itself has the ability to do work. However the Schwarzschild “mirror” geometry, works from a geometric point, a point mass…a “naked singularity” without a functional event horizon. Scale in a universe with energy densities mandates event horizon formation at an experimentally proven location in the geometry. Thus in a universe of finite mass and functional event horizons, Schwarzschilds geometry must be slightly modified to incorporate a measurable Planck Realm.

    A very abreviated (and partial) summary of SR as it applies to the speed of light is as follows: as the speed of a spacecraft relative to the point of departure increases, the mass of the spaceship increases relative to that location, and viewed from the point of departure, the amount of fuel necessary to continue to accelerate the spacecraft near the speed of light would increase. In the spaceship, nothing would seem to be different at all. The same amount of fuel used to accelerate us at 1G when we left, would continue to do the job all the way to the other side of the universe…but when we looked outside, WOW!..would the universe look funny!

    Paul,

    As soon as the hospital got some liquid into me, I revived and actually went home the same day! In no way am I sure I would not have observed “further developments” had I been nearer death than I was. My pants sure were a mess! However, many people die instantaneously…they have no near death experience at all. The real question to me is whether our consciousness is a permanent, if changing fixture of the universes existence.

    John,

    When I use the word “feral”, I do so understanding the semantic limitations of that word…just as many other words. Semantics and the communication of meaning are some of the greatest of challenges we face as conscious beings. 60% of all communication between humans is non-verbal, a fact which really came in handy as I travelled in areas with 20 different languages!

    However technical conceptual communication is especially difficult. We have to use adverbs and adjectives, prepositional phrases and interjections all over the place to effectively communicate.

    Using a word like “feral” is bad to start with, because it implies what we call in Englsh composition, a “personification” of the inanimate unverse. I used to grade students down for that kind of stuff! Strictly speaking, feral refers to an animal, a domestic animal, which has been forced to fend for itself and has become wild. I meant to imply a certain domestication of the universe…it is friendly in the sense that did it not exist as it does, we would not exist. The universe is “wild” in the sense that it has, insofar as living beings are concerned, certain very unforgiving characteristics. It’s kind of like, “no slight intended Sam, but you are dead”, if I run into a tree at 100MPH. We can’t run to the universe and expect it to protect us if we play with crocodiles or swim with sharks. Knowlede and experience help, but sooner or later, if we push our engineering envelope, we get hurt.

    I think one of the serious problems with religious thinkers is that they try to put their diety outside of a universe where nothing, by defintion is outside. They also personify the inanimate, and worst of all use appeal to diety in a plea for protection when education, even common sense would be more rational options. Most objectionable of all, cultures use their concept of diety to control and manipulate.

    There well may be a collective consciousness in the universe. If there is, there may well be factors other than chance operating in the universe, and those factors would be serindipitous(ly) good, since we would be influenced directly and indirectly by everything consciousness in the universe knows, past present and future.

    When I taught binomial expansion, I always warned the students to throw the coins on the floor and flip them many different ways so that the results would be random…and we could contruct our tables with increasing numbers of events and watch our results for each fractional term approach certainty…as well as the obvious fact that the sum of the fractional terms in any binomal expansion model always totals 1 (certainty) in the first place! Math is so tautological!

    Students would sometime test their instructor by not flipping their coins randomly. When they showed my their outlandish results, they looked like the cat that ate the canary! We used Chi Square(d) to show them that in addition to the basic binomial expansion model, we could use other models to clearly indicate whether factors other than chance had been operating in their experiment, and that those models too had geometric aspects.

    Paul Davies in his book a few years back pretty much evaluated the universe using “Chi Squared” with the idea of venturing an opinion as to whether factors other than chance had and have been operating in the cosmos. I honestly don’t agree with his conclusion that: “We are truly meant to be here”, but believe that what we have learned about the universe in the last 100 years strongly implies that factors other than chance have been and are operating in the universe. The reality of consciousness itself strongly implies that existence REQUIRES factors other than chance operate if the universe is to continue. SR/GR/QM and Schwarzchild conceptually suggest that the universe is organized to selectively encourge events of certain kinds, and discourage randomness- even though in the eternal past, the universe was likely a much more random affair than now.

  • Elliot

    Sam,

    it was just a limerick.

    e.

  • John Merryman

    Sam,

    As a comparision of energy/mass to consciousness/intellect, I’ve wondered whether we are concentrations of something far more etherial, much like the amount of energy stored in mass is enormous. It would explain why we cannot perceive any sense of awareness beyond obviously animate entities, yet still exist as a larger, interconnected organism, a Gaia model.

    The problem with language isn’t just its limits, but also its lack thereof, but than it is a process and not an entity. What I was taking from the term ‘feral’ was how we seemingly apply it to what has returned to what we might consider wild, yet the same (a)moral plasticity manifests in many of our normal societal interactions, from Wall St. to Washington and many places inbetween. My larger point is the way that systems tend to self destruct, as their strength and definition turns to rigidity and limitation. Life overcomes this by regeneration, but as the individual entities, we don’t appreciate the necessity of the process. A discussion I’ve been having elsewhere concerns the nature of money and how it functions as a medium of exchange and public utility, but we primarily think of it as a store of value and personal property. The result being reoccuring credit bubbles as wealth concentrates, yet must be redistributed through lending in order to keep the system functioning. The result being a further concentration of wealth as interest is compounded, even to the point of indebting public institutions. Eventually the credit bubble bursts, the economy crashes and we have to build it back up again. If we understood it as the function of government that it is, than the cycle of wealth accumulation might be better managed to build a more fundamentally healthy society. Yet the political dynamic is managed by those who prefer to keep the status quo. In terms of a convective cycle, wealth is like water that evaporates up and precipitates back down, but the current system holds as much as possible up in the clouds until the ground is parched, than drops it as a deluge that does as much damage as rehydration. By understanding the cycle, we could direct it to where it might be the most effectively used.

    Wouldn’t a photon with mass in an infinite universe still create event horizons, since it would constrain how far light could travel?

  • http://martianchronicles.wordpress.com/ Ryan Anderson

    Sean: If it is not on the list already, you may want to add “Hyperion” to the list of books with incompatible arrows. Specifically, The Scholar’s Tale: “The River Lethe’s Taste is Bitter” is a tragic story about a man who has to watch his daughter age in reverse, every day waking up one day younger. It is, in my opinion, the best of the six stories in the book, and one of the more heart-wrenching sci-fi stories that I’ve read.

  • MathandPhysics1
  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Hi Elliot,

    I had a response all set up, minimized it to check a couple of things- and lost it! So lets try this again!

    Your post was very appropriate. If tachyons are found, we may have evidence for a universe with an “umbilical”…not closed as the GR concept proposes. This would solve certain engineering problems, and of course create others!

    The speed of light in a vacuum as observed at our frame of reference is measured constant to at least 10 decimal places. However, the speed of light could and can vary…especially light can be made to slow down. Of course from the frame of reference of a photon itself, being a part of a vast entangled matrix, there is no speed of light at all. A photon coming out of my lamp is entangled with, and the same as the photons coming out of the lamp of an observer on the other side of the universe.

    I used that particular illustration from Special Relativity because I wanted to lead into a good illustration of Einstein’s intuitive genius in conceptually moving from Euclidean Special Relativity to Global General Relativity.

    We look at the thought experiment of the accelerating spacecraft that I briefly described and imagine that while the relativistic effects have been certainly verified in many ways, a thought experiment is really, just a thought experiment.

    The shocker is that while the thought experiment is a simple illustration of an effect of Special Relativity, according to General Relativity such effects, on a much vaster scale are the essence of the world you and I live in. One of the key insights of Einstein in generalizing his relativity concept was that gravitational and non-inertial frames (our accelerating spaceship) are identical. Standing on the surface of the Earth under a constant acceleration of one gravity produces the same kind of relativistic effects (though more complex) as living in a moving spacecraft undergoing a constant acceleration of one gravity!

    We need to remember that even under the slight gravitational attraction of tiny energy densities and experiencing the small accelerations due to gravity that they produce, applied constantly, relativistic effects would appear in their vicinity in only a small fraction of cosmological time- 13.7 Billion (Light) Years. To use the Earth’s gravity as an illustration, the acceleration due to gravity on our planet would produce relativistic effects as people living on the Earth observe the universe in just 20 years or so.

    Einstein thus correctly concluded that the world we observe is created by and the result of relativistic effects. Information and complexity- what we call “particulate” reality- is perched on 4D event horizon surfaces at the edge of the Planck Realm. While we exist because of the information on these event horizon surfaces, (the geometric circumference), we observe reality remotely electromagnetically and photonically from the center of the geometry, many orders of magnitude removed form our actual essence.
    Were the mass of the universe infinite, energy densities of the universe would forever approach, but never actually reach the speed of light (approach the particulate event horizons)…what we observe would linger on the event horizons forever. In a universe of finite mass, energy densities all simultaneously attain the speed of light, become photonic, and reverse “hemispheric” polarity at the same time, which happens to be the age and maximum observed size of the universe. This is NOT coincidental. The actual observed passage of time from macroscopic scales is a result of the finitude of universal mass and is defined by the gravitational time dilation formula.

    The fact that what would, at fist glance seem impossible, or only possible in the distant future (our accelerating spacecraft approaching the speed of light) is actually not only possible, but the basis for our existence, has led me to conclude that anything in this universe which can be done, has already been done and exists at some coordinates in the cosmos. The entangled photonic matrix and the collective consciousness, in coordination with eternally stored particulate information, as I pointed out in a previous post, interact serendipitously over eternity to gradually decrease informational entropy (make the universe more complex) at the sacrifice of a slight overall increase in thermal entropy within the system.

    It would seem that the SRT/GR cosmological configuration could not be ultimately eternal, but I’m personally not hasty to draw such a conclusion. Rather I prefer to consider the system as existing exactly the way Einstein conceived it, and leave it to future generations to work out the mechanisms of the universal evolution and determine how informational complexity could increase with a gradual increase in thermal entropy without de-stabilizing the cosmos. I am also inclined to feel the answer the latter question relates to increasing the longevity of existing organisms…the cosmos dare not tamper with the young without risking overall instability.

    I would imagine you are starting to see just how thought provoking a short post like yours can be! Of course Sean knows that well. That is why he starts threads like this one!

    John,

    The massed and the mass-less photon have interesting conceptual histories. The massed photon, so far as my research indicates, demands a universe of finite mass. Those interested in infinite universal models usually use a mass-less photon. An infinite universe with a massed photon would tend to be too crowded to be observed as having vast fields (space) with only a small percentage of baryonic energy density.

    The main problem with the mass-less photon is the fact that photons, both as particles and waves, do work, however infinite universe models in general have problems, which I think are more serious than those with GR style closed systems of finite mass. Also, as I have pointed out, the universe itself, by the way it is measured and observed, gives strong indications it is finite in mass and marginally closed in space and time…though of course space is necessarily observed as flat in a GR universe.

    Interesting thoughts! I can tell you are interested in conceptual links between the natural and social sciences!

    Best Wishes….

  • Sy Anide

    Sam Cox – (re 22)

    Let me reiterate and clarify the physical part of your comment. I will leave the non-physical parts alone (“collective consciousness”, “entangled photon matrix”, “eternity” and so on).

    The locally measured speed of light in free space (c) is assumed to be a universal constant. Free space, or perfect physical vacuum, is defined as not a medium, and has (by that definition) a refractive index of zero.

    Light travels slower through a medium (i.e., non-vacuum), and can be slowed down to a crawl through media with extremely large refractive indices. This does not affect c, the photons are no longer travelling through free space.

    Causal interactions mediated by photons can be delayed by expanding space along the geodesic (“shortest path”) from source to destination. This still does not affect c; the photons are still travelling through free space, but the distance itself has grown.

    Finally, in GR, distant measurements of the speed of light depend on acceleration; e.g. light in lower gravitatonal potentials will appear to travel more slowly and light in higher gravitational potentials will appear to travel more quickly. However, light in free space in the same gravitational potential will always be measured at c.

    These statements are consistent with observations of (among other things) the Hubble flow, gravitational lensing, observations of astrophysical ASE bodies, as well as terrestrial experience with diamond, glass fibre and analogues with even higher refractive indices, terrestrial surface-orbital interactions as with GPS, even sea level-11km measurements involving aircraft, and earth-surface mars-surface moon-surface signal comparisons.

    Photons have zero rest mass. This means that the combination of the energy (E) and momentum (p) of a photon is identical to its mass (m) in a frame of reference in which the photon is at rest. In particle physics we deal with invariant mass, which is the mass of a particle that remains the same in all frames of reference; in practice invariant mass and rest mass are synonymous. Photons have zero invariant mass, but have both momentum and Energy. In free space the relationship is E = pc, as for any particle in SR, E^2=(mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2. “Relativistic mass” as a synonym for “energy” is something which should be avoided because of the tendency to confuse people. It is thus energy (former “relativistic mass”) that distorts spacetime, not rest mass.

    The zero rest mass of photons has been derived experimentally. The Standard Model and gauge theory (which is important in Lambda-CDM) also predicts a massless photon, and this prediction is sufficiently critical to warrant experiments aimed at setting ever better upper limits to the mass of a photon. Repeatable experiments as of now show an upper limit of approximately 1e-52 kg/photon (or 6e-17 eV/c^2 per photon).

    Lambda-CDM is well supported by observation and is consistent with particle experiments. It is not an “infinite” universe, yet requires a massless photon.

    In general, any predictions requiring a photon with nonzero rest mass are on shaky ground because of experiments in quantum electrodynamics validating gauge symmetry in electromagnetic interactions. Symmetry works only if the carrier particle (the photon) has exactly zero rest mass. Carrier rest mass limits interaction distance. The electromagnetic interaction range is very large (i.e., to at least the observational horizon, ~~4.3e26 m), and retains an inverse square relationship even at large distances.

    A nonzero rest mass would necessasrily limit the distance at which the inverse square relationship holds true. (For example, in the Standard Model, the weak interaction is mediated by the heavy W and Z bosons (in the high tens of GeV/c^2 per boson), and has a very short range (1e-18 m)).

    Finally, “space is necessarily observed as flat in a GR universe” is hard to reconcile. Within the observable universe at the largest scales, spacetime appears flat. In practice we use an FLRW model for the universe , since it leads to reasonable approximations of calculations taking into account visible and dark structures at the largest scales. However, it is not *necessarily* true in order to preserve local physics.

    GR does not require flatness on any scale; it is in fact a tool which is useful for analysing and predicting behaviours in non-flat spacetime (otherwise, we’d just use SR). It does not require that the universe have a closed topology at the largest scales, and in fact there is substantial observational evidence in favour of a very flat or very slightly open topology at the largest scales.

    “I can tell you are interested in conceptual links between the natural and social sciences”

    Who isn’t? One recurring problem is that specialists on one side or the other tend to make wild speculations in areas in which they are not exceptionally well informed. Often these wild speculations have been tested and retested for decades and found to be inconsistent with reality as we know it. This is true in both directions. It’s somewhat sad (and obviously frustrating) that many of these speculations are on their face reasonable, logical extrapolations of well-tested, well-understood theories that apparently lack sufficient predictive power to derive the implications of the speculations to the point where they at least seem a little less wild…

  • John Merryman

    Sy,

    Causal interactions mediated by photons can be delayed by expanding space along the geodesic (“shortest path”) from source to destination. This still does not affect c; the photons are still travelling through free space, but the distance itself has grown.

    This is a point I keep raising with regard to the concept of “expanding space,” as used by Big Bang theory to explain why we are not at the center of the universe, due to other galaxies being redshifted directly away from us. I keep pointing out that if space itself is expanding, than the speed of light would increase proportionally, otherwise it is an increasing distance of stable space, not expanding space. If it is only increasing distance, then an expanding universe model would mean that we are at the center of the universe. It has been my contention that redshift is due to an opposite curvature of space then that caused by gravity and these opposing curvatures balance out, leaving an overall flat space.

    The zero rest mass of photons has been derived experimentally. The Standard Model and gauge theory (which is important in Lambda-CDM) also predicts a massless photon, and this prediction is sufficiently critical to warrant experiments aimed at setting ever better upper limits to the mass of a photon. Repeatable experiments as of now show an upper limit of approximately 1e-52 kg/photon (or 6e-17 eV/c^2 per photon).

    So would light traveling at c actually constitute a particle/photon, or is this a consequence of measuring? To use an analogy, if we were to describe a lightning bolt in terms of the spot it grounds at, we might understand it in terms of that spot and think of it as a ball. Could photons be something similar; The spot where the energy of the wave of light grounds to the contact field? This could help explain how it is massless, other than momentum and energy. That they have specific energy could be a function of transition. Similar to the size of a drop of water being determined by surface tension and gravity, not that water has to be that exact amount.

    I do realize I’m applying other fields to physics and cosmology, but for someone who does take an interest in the broad range of human endeavor, some of the models being used in these fields have characteristics of a kluge, where patches are added to match theory with observation, yet cause more problems further along the process. The tendency to engage in this goes to the subconscious level and prevails across many aspects of human, as well as physical behavior, where pressure builds until a phase transition point is reached and the structure implodes or explodes.

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Sy,

    Thanks for taking the time to summarize all this. I think you clarified and defined these issues very well. If course when my solar calculator works, we are not dealing with photons at rest, but it is very obvious why cosmologically photons would overall be “at rest”…and should conceptually be considered that way. I especially appreciated your final comments on cosmological speculation and extrapolation.

    When I spoke of GR requiring “the flatness of space” I was not referring to GR itself, which is, as a concept global and curved by its very nature, but rather the way the observer sees space in that kind of geometry.

    Sam Cox

  • Sy Anide

    John Merryman –

    “otherwise it is an increasing distance of stable space, not expanding space.”

    Metric expansion of space affects the spatial dimensions (X,Y,Z) in all directions equally at the largest scales. At smaller scales, the expansion is apparently retarded by gravitation and the other forces.

    “If it is only increasing distance, then an expanding universe model would mean that we are at the center of the universe.”

    The expansion is happening everywhere and in all directions, very nearly homogeneously.

    The result is that any vantage point will observe the Hubble flow (large structure redshift increases with distance in every direction, isotropically when at rest with respect to the CMB) and a nearly homogeneous arrangement of large structures (galaxies and clusters, just about everywhere).

    In other words, any observer anywhere might guess that he/she/it has a privileged view and is at the centre of the visible universe.

    ‘It has been my contention that redshift is due to an opposite curvature of space then that caused by gravity”

    Kind-of. The nature of the “dark energy” responsible for fuelling the metric expansion of space may be similar to gravity; it certainly appears to oppose gravitation. We don’t know a lot about it yet, unfortunately, other than that it has extremely small density but fills up all (or at least most) of otherwise empty space.

    The redshift of large objects is consistent with Doppler shifting seen with much nearer objects whose distances and speeds can be measured by triangulation (e.g. RADAR on things here on Earth, rapid accelerations of blackbody radiators of known temperature, RADAR while approaching and departing planets and moons in the solar system, studies of eclipsing binary stars, and so forth). Close large structures have Doppler shifts consistent with peculiar motions towards or away from our general location, while further-away large structures have a significant redshift.

    One of the key points of Doppler shifts in either direction is the preservation of spectral absorption and emission lines, and it is well defined spectra which are searched for.

    Independent of cause, H2 spectrum searches allowed the derivation of the Hubble constant of 71 +- 4 km/s per Mpc.

    We are not at rest with respect to the CMBR (there is a dipole anisotropy), but correcting for that gives us an isotropic redshift of objects whose distance we can also calculate by a variety of longer-range standard candles.

    The redshift is identical to that produced by receding at that velocity, so “everything is moving away from us, with further away stuff moving away faster”. It is hard to construct scenarios other than an essentially uniform long-term metric expansion of space that also anticipates the same well defined spectra we see in telescopes.

    “Could photons be something similar; The spot where the energy of the wave of light grounds to the contact field?”

    Kind-of, yes. A photon is a discretization of a field — that’s the “quantum” in QM (or, more precisely, quantum electrodynamics). The field’s highest energy peak fluctuates randomly across the field (thus, its position and momentum has some uncertainty at the smallest scales). However, the quantization of the field into a point-like particle with discrete energy and discrete momentum reproduces all of its measurable behaviour. In part this is because the field does not divide — the whole field participates in an interaction with an arbitrarily small system, or none of it does — and we have not found any internal structure or component parts.

    So light (which always travels at c in free space) comprises indivisible quantizations of energy and momentum called photons. The quantization energy was arrived at empirically through studies of blackbody radiators and the photoelectric effect, and is related to the frequency; the quantized momentum is its energy divided by c.

    Accreted kludges aren’t pretty, but they (hopefully!) are more accurate nonetheless. We test for accuracy experimentally, and attempt to refine or reject models which are inaccurate. This is important if one’s goal is to describe and predict material events with ever greater accuracy, even if it doesn’t always offer neat insights into the nature of the real underlying processes so modelled.

    Usually new insights start as some sort of intuition or wild speculation, which then must survive rigorous scrutiny in the form of regression testing against known observations, followed by a search for deviations from existing theory which can be tested experimentally at some point in the future.

    I hope I haven’t messed up the editing again. I wish there was a preview feature!

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Cy and John,

    With regard to Dark Energy, space has a temperature of roughly 2.7 degrees Kelvin. The singular antipode of energy densities exhibits gravity as operating in the manner with which we are familiar.

    Since the CMB (CBR) is detected as a “temperature” of space, it would, I think, be reasonable to assume that at the photonic antipode of the universal geometry, as opposed to the singular energy density related antipode, gravity would seem reversed from our coordinates.

    I appreciated both of your additional comments…

    Sam

  • John Merryman

    Sy,

    Metric expansion of space affects the spatial dimensions (X,Y,Z) in all directions equally at the largest scales. At smaller scales, the expansion is apparently retarded by gravitation and the other forces.

    The initial point where I began to question Big Bang Theory was with the observation that “Omega=1″ or is very close. If the expansion is balanced by contraction of gravity, it seemed some form of convection cycle of expanding energy and collapsing mass made more sense.

    The result is that any vantage point will observe the Hubble flow (large structure redshift increases with distance in every direction, isotropically when at rest with respect to the CMB) and a nearly homogeneous arrangement of large structures (galaxies and clusters, just about everywhere).

    So if the universe were to expand to twice its current size, than two galaxies x lightyears apart would be 2x lightyears apart? If so, that isn’t expanding space, it’s an increasing distance in stable space. If it remains x lightyears, how would we know it’s expanding?

    In other words, any observer anywhere might guess that he/she/it has a privileged view and is at the centre of the visible universe.

    Just as if it was an optical effect. Sort of like the light has to run up the down escalator. It travels further, but the source and destination are not actually moving apart.

    The redshift is identical to that produced by receding at that velocity, so “everything is moving away from us, with further away stuff moving away faster”. It is hard to construct scenarios other than an essentially uniform long-term metric expansion of space that also anticipates the same well defined spectra we see in telescopes.

    If it is an optical effect, the further light travels, the more the effect would be compounded, so the faster the source would appear to recede. Eventually it would appear to exceed the speed of light and this would create a horizon line, beyond which visible light couldn’t travel, so the sources would vanish, but lower spectrum radiation would continue over this line, creating a black body effect, similar to the CMBR. At least ths way, we don’t say space is expanding, but then measure it against a stable measure of space.

    In part this is because the field does not divide — the whole field participates in an interaction with an arbitrarily small system, or none of it does — and we have not found any internal structure or component parts.

    Just like with lightning. It draws energy from the entire cloud, hence the branching effect. Carver Mead wrote some interesting stuff on working with electrons, that they can be up to three feet long.

    Sam,

    Is that gravity reversed from energy?

  • Kaleberg

    What, no mention of Merlin? He supposedly lived backwards in time, at least in TH White’s version of the tale.

  • John Merryman

    Hmm, Seems like a live body is editing this at the moment. It’s been real. Sort of. Bye.

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    John asked, Sam

    “Is that gravity reversed from energy?” (#27)

    When we look outward in the universe, the universe becomes younger and smaller. At the “big bang”, 13.7 billion light years out, the unverse, everywhere at the astronomical antipode (360 degrees) is completely singular.

    The CBM is the astronomical map of conditions in a much younger, and smaller universe, shortly after the big bang.

    Space presently is not empty but has a photonic temperature of 2.7 degrees K. If it were empty, of course, it would have no temperature at all. The temperature of space everywhere is a measure of our present coordiates in space time, because, as measured from our frame, the universe had a very hot temperature, and necessary density at its origin.

    This hot dense universe shortly after the big bang, which we are measuring had a great gravitational attraction (towards the big bang). Although the universe has cooled fown to 2.7 degrees K, this gravitational attraction toward the “bang” still exists in the direction of the astronomical antipode.

    Since this attaction toward the bang goes in an opposite direction to the energy density particulate generated gravity of our universe, it seems reversed, like a vacuum energy to us. All this relates to what is almost certainly a modified Schwarzschild bi-particulate two-sphere geometry with two three-spaces…our reality.

    Ned Wright has some great stuff posted on his site about the veracity of various cosmological models.

    Best, Sam

  • John Merryman

    Sam,

    Sorry for dropping the thread. What little internet time I have had recently has been absorbed just keeping up on the various political and economic events.

    When we look outward in the universe, the universe becomes younger and smaller.

    We do look to the past as we move to the future. Are events scrolling away from us as motion produces them, or are we proceeding along a fundamental pathway? I’ve been raising this very basic question/observation for some months and have been unable to draw a similarly basic response, either negative or affirmative. I seriously doubt anyone is concerned about offending me, so I suspect that if there was some clear mistake, it would have been pointed out. Given this, I tend to look askance as to how much modern science has really proven and how much is natural human tendency to extrapolate into the unknown. Reality is most likely infinitely complex and there are no end of patterns to find and examine, but how much are our explorations a product of our own assumptions?

    The temperature of space everywhere is a measure of our present coordiates in space time, because, as measured from our frame, the universe had a very hot temperature, and necessary density at its origin.

    I’m still not sold that the default absolute space is the dimensionless point.

    Although the universe has cooled fown to 2.7 degrees K, this gravitational attraction toward the “bang” still exists in the direction of the astronomical antipode.

    Which is in every direction, the stage of last scattering after Inflation created conveniently flat space. I still think it is flat space because the featureless void is the actual default absolute space and light is optically redshifted, creating a horizon line for the visible spectrum, so that only black body radiation travels over it.

    I read through some of Ned Wright’s site some years ago and responded with some of my own ideas, to no response.

    As I’ve stated, I do think modern physics is based on a reductionistic assumption that reality can be explained in terms of a perfect model, not a wholistic one. This search for the physical Platonic ideal is not only backward, since form is effect, not cause, but it is actually behind the times, not ahead of them. I think much of modern society has gone on over the last hundred years to understanding that “it” is flow, not object. As I’ve pointed out in my arguments over time, position is always only approximate, since without motion, nothing effectively exists, since it cannot be measured. That I get no feedback from members of the scientific establishment doesn’t surprise me, as we are in different time zones.

    As for the search for the Higgs, I think the answer lays in all the data that gets thrown out. The secret is the oyster, not the perfect pearl.

    Obviously I could be all wrong, but it’s an intellectual endeavor, not a financial one, so I can afford to be.

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Hi John, You have some interesting thoughts here. I’ll put my responses in caps so you can identify my reaction….

    Sam,

    Sorry for dropping the thread. What little internet time I have had recently has been absorbed just keeping up on the various political and economic events.

    YES, A LOT HAS BEEN GOING ON. MY HEALTH IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO PERMIT ACTIVE PARTICIPATION, BUT I AM INTERESTED TOO- AND AM INVOLVED IN THE SIMPLE WAYS I CAN. I CAN TELL BY SEAN’S THREAD CHOICE HE, (AND EVERYONE ELSE) IS (ARE) INTERESTED TOO.

    When we look outward in the universe, the universe becomes younger and smaller.

    We do look to the past as we move to the future. IN THE QUASI-STATIC MODEL IMPLIED BY GR AND INITIALLY ASSUMED BY EINSTEIN, WE OURSELVES TO NOT ACTUALLY MOVE OUT OF THE PAST AND INTO THE FUTURE. TIME IS A HOLOGRAPHIC AND QUITE ILLUSORY PROCESS WHICH WE EXPERIENCE ONLY BECAUSE OF THE WAY WE, AS PARTICULATE COMPLEXITY, ELECTROMAGNETICALLY OBSERVE THE UNIVERSE AT CERTAIN PERMANENT COORDINATES. Are events scrolling away from us as motion produces them, or are we proceeding along a fundamental pathway? LIKE THE UNIVERSE, WE PERSONALLY DEVELOP SLOWLY (IN THE MODEL) OVER ETERNITY. I’ve been raising this very basic question/observation for some months and have been unable to draw a similarly basic response, either negative or affirmative. I seriously doubt anyone is concerned about offending me, so I suspect that if there was some clear mistake, it would have been pointed out. I THINK SOME OF THE GUYS FEEL YOU ARE QUITE CONFIDENT OF THE SOUNDNESS OF YOUR PHILOSOPHICAL POSTION AND SEE NO REASON TO RE-STATE THEIR POSITIONS. AFTER ALL, THE UNIVERSE, HOWEVER IT EXISTS, EXISTS BY DEFINITION. INSOFAR AS OUR SPECULATIONS ASSIST US IN FORMULATING A TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS, OUT DISCUSSIONS ARE MEANINGFUL. OTHERWISE MOST PEOPLE ON THE BLOG ARE NOT REALLY INTERESTED IN A GENERAL DISCUSSION. I HAVE BEEN VERY IMPRESSED WITH THIS BLOG. MOST OF THE PEOPLE HERE ARE WELL KNOWN SCIENTISTS LOOKING FOR, AND SHARING IDEAS. REST ASSURED THEY HAVE NOTED YOUR IDEAS, EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY NOT SHARE YOUR PERSPECTIVE. EVERYONE HERE, WITH PRECIOUS FEW EXCEPTIONS IS VERY POLITE. Given this, I tend to look askance as to how much modern science has really proven and how much is natural human tendency to extrapolate into the unknown. Reality is most likely infinitely complex and there are no end of patterns to find and examine, but how much are our explorations a product of our own assumptions?THIS IS WELL STATED JOHN AND REFLECTS BACK TO MY COMMENTS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THIS COMMENT OF YOURS. THESE GUYS ARE LOOKING FOR TESTABLE IDEAS, AND IN QM/SR/GR/AND THE SCHWARZSCHILD GEOMETRY, THEY HAVE THEM. THEIR POINT OF VIEW IS DETERMINED BY A KIND OF ENGINEERING ENVELOPE WITHIN WHICH THESE WELL VERIFIED IDEAS CONCEPTUALLY FIT.

    The temperature of space everywhere is a measure of our present coordiates in space time, because, as measured from our frame, the universe had a very hot temperature, and necessary density at its origin.

    I’m still not sold that the default absolute space is the dimensionless point.

    I DON’T THINK THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE ON THIS BLOG WHO BELIEVE IN EITHER ABSOLUTE SPACE- OR THE DIMENSIONESS POINT. THE HEART OF RELATIVITY IS THE IDEA THAT TIME AND SPACE ARE RELATIVE, NOT ABSOLUTE, AND THAT AT THE LOWEST LEVELS OF SCALE, SPACE AND TIME CEASE AND EVENT HORIZONS FORM. SOME OF THESE PEOPLE TINKER WITH THE REGION BENEATH THE EVENT HORIZON, BUT I WOULDN’T THINK MANY SPEND A LOT OF TIME WITH SUB-EVENT HORIZON “MECHANICS”. THIS ALSO RELATES TO THE INFORMATION PARADOX, WHICH, IT IS PRETTY MUCH AGREED, DOES NOT EXIST. WE KNOW THAT BLACK HOLES “EVAPORATE” BUT THIS PHENOMENON IS COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH A UNIVERSAL MODEL OF SPACE AND TIME WHICH HAS EXTRA DIMENSIONS BEYOND OUR 4D MODEL.

    Although the universe has cooled fown to 2.7 degrees K, this gravitational attraction toward the “bang” still exists in the direction of the astronomical antipode.

    Which is in every direction, CORRECT the stage of last scattering after Inflation created conveniently flat space. FLAT SPACE IS NOT JUST CONVENIENT, IT IS THE WAY THE UNIVERSE WOULD BE EXPECTED TO BE OBSERVED FROM CIRCUMFERENTIAL PARTICULATE 4D EVENT HORIZONS- YET EXPERIENCED AT THE CENTER OF A MARGINALLY CLOSED GR GEOMETRY. I still think it is flat space because the featureless void is the actual default absolute space and light is optically redshifted, creating a horizon line for the visible spectrum, so that only black body radiation travels over it.ALL THE EVIDENCE OUT THERE IS THAT SPACE IS NOT A “MEDIUM” IN THE CLASSICAL SENSE OF THE WORD…IT IS NOT REFRACTORY AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY RELATIVISTIC POSITION WITHIN THE MANIFOLD, YET SPACE IS NOT ULTIMATELY EMPTY AND IT DOES HAVE MASS.

    I read through some of Ned Wright’s site some years ago and responded with some of my own ideas, to no response.NED IS A GREAT GUY…AN EXCELLENT TEACHER AND RESEARCHER, BUT HE IS VERY BUSY. SOMETIMES HE HAS TIME TO RESPOND, BUT HE GETS SO MANY INQUIRIES IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO REPLY TO EVERYONE.

    As I’ve stated, I do think modern physics is based on a reductionistic assumption that reality can be explained in terms of HY perfect model, not a wholistic one. IT IS CLEAR TO MOST SCIENTISTS THAT REDUCTIONISM HAS DEFINITE LIMITS. THE MODEL WHICH SCIENTISTS SEEK IS A HOLISITIC MODEL, AND SR/GR/QM AND THE SCHWARZSCHILD GEOMETRY DO, IN COMBINATION FORM A GOOD, WELL VERIFIED BASIS FOR A HOLISTIC COSMOLOGICAL MODEL.This search for the physical Platonic ideal (EINSTEINS IDEAS ARE VERY PLATONIC) is not only backward, since form is effect, not cause, but it is actually behind the times, not ahead of them. I think much of modern society has gone on over the last hundred years to understanding that “it” is flow, not object. As I’ve pointed out in my arguments over time, position is always only approximate,THIS IS CORRECT, IN A QUASI-STATIC UNIVERSE THINGS ARE RIGID BUT AS A RESULT OF A COSMIC AND VERY RAPID PROPER TIME PULSE, COORDINATES DO SLOWLY (AND ALMOST IMPERCEPTIBLY) CHANGE. THIS SLOW CHANGE IS THE BASIS FOR OUR GREATLY EXAGGERATED SENSE OF TIME PASSAGE. since without motion, nothing effectively exists, since it cannot be measured. THERE IS NO EXISTENCE WITHOUT A PERCEPTION OF TIME. I DON’T REALLY THINK MANY PEOPLE ON THE BLOG WOULD DISAGREE WITH THAT IDEA. That I get no feedback from members of the scientific establishment doesn’t surprise me, as we are in different time zones. THEY NOTE EVERYONES IDEAS AND MOVE ON IN A CONTINUING SEARCH FOR NEW AND TESTABLE IDEAS.

    As for the search for the Higgs, I think the answer lays in all the data that gets thrown out. The secret is the oyster, not the perfect pearl.THERE IS ALWAYS THE POSSIBILITY THAT WE ARE LOOKING IN THE WRONG PLACES FOR OUR ANSWERS. THE REASON WHY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS SO GREAT, IS THAT IT PRODUCES RESULTS; AN EXPANDING TECHNOLOGY AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNIVERSE…HOWEVER COUNTERINTUITIVE IT SEEMS. MANY TIMES WE MISS IMPORTANT CLUES IN DATA…THAT IS VERY EASY TO DO. IT IS ALSO EASY TO OVERLOOK CLUES IN THE DATA WHICH POINT TO THE POSSIBLE VERACITY OF OTHER IDEAS- WHICH WE WOULD PREFER TO OVERLOOK FOR PERSONAL REASONS. SCIENTISTS ARE, AFTER ALL, HUMAN. THAT IS WHY THEY QUESTION EACH OTHER AND POST IDEAS ON BLOGS LIKE THIS ONE. THE IMPORTANT THING IS TO REMAIN INTELLECTUALLY OPEN.

    Obviously I could be all wrong, but it’s an intellectual endeavor, not a financial one, so I can afford to be.YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN AND I KNOW SEAN AND EVFERYONE ELSE WOULD AGREE THAT BEING ON “THE PAYROLL” HAS CERTAIN POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES. NEITHER YOU NOR I HAVE ANY “AXE TO GRIND” BUT THAT INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM DOESN’T NECESSARILY MAKE OUR IDEAS ANY MORE TRUE THAN THEIRS! THE BOTTOM LINE IN SCIENCE IS EXPERIMENTAL VERACITY.

  • John Merryman

    Sam,

    Just copy the block quote tag *blockquote>IN THE QUASI-STATIC MODEL IMPLIED BY GR AND INITIALLY ASSUMED BY EINSTEIN, WE OURSELVES TO NOT ACTUALLY MOVE OUT OF THE PAST AND INTO THE FUTURE. TIME IS A HOLOGRAPHIC AND QUITE ILLUSORY PROCESS WHICH WE EXPERIENCE ONLY BECAUSE OF THE WAY WE, AS PARTICULATE COMPLEXITY, ELECTROMAGNETICALLY OBSERVE THE UNIVERSE AT CERTAIN PERMANENT COORDINATES.

    I realize the point I’m making is a simple statement of how relativity treats time, as you describe it, but it isn’t always taught that way and many people who have spent a great deal of time studying it seem convinced that time really does exist as an additional dimension of space, rather then simply being modeled as one. Also it doesn’t seem recognized that if we understand time as a model of motion and not the basis for it, then this narrative timeline is actually going future to past. Maybe it is so taken for granted and obvious among physicists that they don’t feel it worth commenting on, but it is the kind of point that the general public, such as myself, can grasp and understand why intuition and logic are not always identical. You would think those who do understand the importance of public relations might get this, but it doesn’t seem to be the case.

    I THINK SOME OF THE GUYS FEEL YOU ARE QUITE CONFIDENT OF THE SOUNDNESS OF YOUR PHILOSOPHICAL POSTION AND SEE NO REASON TO RE-STATE THEIR POSITIONS. AFTER ALL, THE UNIVERSE, HOWEVER IT EXISTS, EXISTS BY DEFINITION.

    That is also a point that needs to de reconsidered. As I keep pointing out with the two directions of time, there is the measurement and what is being measured. (Energy going to the future. Information going to the past.)There is a strong tendency to carry this to one extreme and argue that it is all only the measurement/information. Max Tegemark comes recently to mind.

    INSOFAR AS OUR SPECULATIONS ASSIST US IN FORMULATING A TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS, OUT DISCUSSIONS ARE MEANINGFUL. OTHERWISE MOST PEOPLE ON THE BLOG ARE NOT REALLY INTERESTED IN A GENERAL DISCUSSION. I HAVE BEEN VERY IMPRESSED WITH THIS BLOG. MOST OF THE PEOPLE HERE ARE WELL KNOWN SCIENTISTS LOOKING FOR, AND SHARING IDEAS. REST ASSURED THEY HAVE NOTED YOUR IDEAS, EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY NOT SHARE YOUR PERSPECTIVE. EVERYONE HERE, WITH PRECIOUS FEW EXCEPTIONS IS VERY POLITE.

    I no doubt they are being polite, but the recent issue Sean raises concerning “The Truth, Respectfully,” comes to mind. They could easily shut me up and I wouldn’t take it too hard if someone could give me a clear example of how the points I’ve raised have been previously refuted or taken into account. Yes, Lawrence did make the effort, but beyond the jargon, he still seemed to mostly wander off the specific point I was raising. Admittedly I’ve also raised arguments that are not pc for this audience, but I don’t try to hide my background, lack thereof, or general perspective. Yes, I realize this negates their potential respect for my position, but I do understand basic human psychology enough to not play politics, since this is presumably about raising basic questions concerning the nature of reality and it is a public forum, to some extent.

    Given this, I tend to look askance as to how much modern science has really proven and how much is natural human tendency to extrapolate into the unknown. Reality is most likely infinitely complex and there are no end of patterns to find and examine, but how much are our explorations a product of our own assumptions?THIS IS WELL STATED JOHN AND REFLECTS BACK TO MY COMMENTS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THIS COMMENT OF YOURS. THESE GUYS ARE LOOKING FOR TESTABLE IDEAS, AND IN QM/SR/GR/AND THE SCHWARZSCHILD GEOMETRY, THEY HAVE THEM. THEIR POINT OF VIEW IS DETERMINED BY A KIND OF ENGINEERING ENVELOPE WITHIN WHICH THESE WELL VERIFIED IDEAS CONCEPTUALLY FIT.

    The fact is that physical hypotheses have gone far beyond what is testable. Maybe it is time to double back and reconsider some of those original premises, many of which are several generations old. The Copenhagen Interpretation comes to mind.

    I DON’T THINK THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE ON THIS BLOG WHO BELIEVE IN EITHER ABSOLUTE SPACE- OR THE DIMENSIONESS POINT. THE HEART OF RELATIVITY IS THE IDEA THAT TIME AND SPACE ARE RELATIVE, NOT ABSOLUTE, AND THAT AT THE LOWEST LEVELS OF SCALE, SPACE AND TIME CEASE AND EVENT HORIZONS FORM. SOME OF THESE PEOPLE TINKER WITH THE REGION BENEATH THE EVENT HORIZON, BUT I WOULDN’T THINK MANY SPEND A LOT OF TIME WITH SUB-EVENT HORIZON “MECHANICS”. THIS ALSO RELATES TO THE INFORMATION PARADOX, WHICH, IT IS PRETTY MUCH AGREED, DOES NOT EXIST. WE KNOW THAT BLACK HOLES “EVAPORATE” BUT THIS PHENOMENON IS COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH A UNIVERSAL MODEL OF SPACE AND TIME WHICH HAS EXTRA DIMENSIONS BEYOND OUR 4D MODEL.

    Abmittedly I wander off the deep end in questioning Big Bang Theory, but that’s where I went off the reservation to begin with; The idea that if gravity and the expansion of space are effectively opposing factors, how can there be any expansion of the universe? From this everything else I’ve raised flows, from two directions of time, to why doesn’t the speed of light increase proportionally with the expansion of space.

    .ALL THE EVIDENCE OUT THERE IS THAT SPACE IS NOT A “MEDIUM” IN THE CLASSICAL SENSE OF THE WORD…IT IS NOT REFRACTORY AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY RELATIVISTIC POSITION WITHIN THE MANIFOLD, YET SPACE IS NOT ULTIMATELY EMPTY AND IT DOES HAVE MASS.

    I haven’t argued that it is a medium. They most I’ve said about space it that it represents the absolute state and this is not represented by an initial point, but a featureless void, or lack of any such original reference. Lets just say the singularity was a quantum fluctuation. Would it be possible to say this fluctuation is constantly occurring and we are inside it, so that space expands of itself and only collapses to potential points/black holes, since the material generated does have physical definition. This way we have expansion that is similar to what is observed and doesn’t need dark energy to supplement the singularity. The Big Bang universe does constitute a narrative unit from start to finish, so that at the beginning it was in the future and eventually it will be in the past, just as any narrative unit does. As usual physics is only focused on the measurement and not what is being measured, the energy which goes from one unit to the next, just as the sun and earth go from one day to the next.
    I better get back to work…

    Regards,
    John

  • John Merryman

    I knew I shouldn’t have messed with trying to put that tag in there;

    Sam,

    Just copy the block quote tag above the text box and paste it about as many quotes as you will need, then copy what you want to quote and paste it into them, between the middle arrows>IN THE QUASI-STATIC MODEL IMPLIED BY GR AND INITIALLY ASSUMED BY EINSTEIN, WE OURSELVES TO NOT ACTUALLY MOVE OUT OF THE PAST AND INTO THE FUTURE. TIME IS A HOLOGRAPHIC AND QUITE ILLUSORY PROCESS WHICH WE EXPERIENCE ONLY BECAUSE OF THE WAY WE, AS PARTICULATE COMPLEXITY, ELECTROMAGNETICALLY OBSERVE THE UNIVERSE AT CERTAIN PERMANENT COORDINATES.

  • John Merryman

    It seems to be the arrows which cut off text…

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Hi John, Pardon me for just recapitulating a few reflections, with which I know you were and are familiar.

    The only thing I wanted to address in this response was your concern about the Big Bang. Believe me there are many scientists with reservations about the “Big Bang”. It is most important to realize that everything we deduce about the bang may in fact be quite real, and verifiable…it is a “bang” as observed from OUR particulate 4D existence….hot, with early nflation, great gravity and unimaginable density- everything…but as observed from OUR frame of reference!

    We deduce the bang by working backwards from our coordinates in space-time and we describe it within those parameters, which may be OK from our local frame…in fact we may be able to build a technology on this information, yet the universe may in fact be quite different structurally.

    Remember our astronauts accelerating away from the Earth? What observers on the Earth observe is completely different from what the astronauts observe as they look out the window of their spacecraft. Their universe really looks different than the one they knew on the Earth when they departed.

    The KEY is, the astronauts could build a workable technology out of the universe they observe from their accelerating spacecraft. Living on the Earth with a gravitational acceleration of 1G produces multiple (not single direction) accelerations, which give us the universe we observe. Our world, just like the universe in an accelerating spacecraft, is the result of relativistic effects. Our world seems “normal” to us. Little do we know that we are observeing the universe in a very unique and particular way, on particulate 4D event horizon surfaces, in extreme gravitational dilation…from the center of a marginally closed spherical geometry.

    Now for the Bang…it is, like the rest of the universe we observe, but a relativistic effect…real, YES…to us. However to conceive of the big bang as a massive explosion from a geometric point is downright foolish, in the light of what we know about relativity and relativisitic effects. Even from our frame of reference, it is better to start in the right place, with ourselves, for the universe exists the way we observe it. We stay, in GR, at the same coordinates forever. It is space and time which collapse, making us one with everything else which also exists in the cosmos at their own permanent locations.

    Take Organic Evolution…again a relativisitc effect, produced by the way we observe the universe on event horizon surfaces in extreme gravitational dilation. Is Organic Evolution correct? Of course it is correct, for organic evolution is the way we observe life to originate and develop from our frame of reference. Like all other relativistic effects which make up our world, we can build a technology from what we observe in the processess of organic evolution.

    However, GR tells us bluntly, that what is so logical to us (what we see out the window of our spaceship Earth) is only the tip of the cosmological iceberg. There are cosmic principles and forces involved far more profound than organic evolution which we can infer by what we know about physics…the equivalence of non-inertial and gravitational frames of reference, in this case.

    Take my word for it John, we live in an amazing universe. I for one, do not even pretend to really understand what is happening…but I think mankind is learning, and will not only understand, but control and be a part of those cosmological principles which have brought us to this blog, at these coordinates in space and time.

    Best Wishes, Sam Cox

  • John Merryman

    Sam,

    I do have some grasp of relativity. My point about the big bang is that gravity is collapsing space at AT THE SAME TIME AND AT THE SAME RATE as it is expanding. Think of it in terms of my observation that our proceeding forward in time from past to future is relative to its passing by us going the other way, from future to past. These factors of expansion and contraction are happening at the same time. So as with the two directions of time, what we would seem to have is an equilibrium, with the illusion of relative motion.

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Hi John,

    Absolutely. What is observed as expanding from one frame, is observed as collapsing from another, 180/360 degrees removed in space and time but particulately superposed as pulsating energy, matter/antimatter occillations at the quark level of scale which cosmologically occur at a rate of 2.8 trillion times per Earth second.

    Thinking this through it is easy to understand the quasi-static universe! Everything stays eternally in the same place…obviously! By gravitational time dilation, and observing electromagnetically and remotely, we see an almost instantaneous pulse as taking the vast age (and space) of the universe. In the sky, at the astronomical antipode, (The CMB) we read this sub-microscopic pulse (one half of it) as the “power spectrum”.

    By the way, all this follows from the fact that a wad of keys and a bowling ball accelerate at the same rate when released at the same distance from the center of the Earth. Gravity is a fictitious force (Merry go Round- like) which results from a “curvature” of space/time induced by the presence of energy densities. This curvature is, at macroscopic scales, unrelated to the individual mass of energy densities in the vicinity of the Earth for example.

    The “curvature” we call gravity is an induced manifold which appears in the presence of information and complexity on multiple 4D event horizon surfaces. These 4D event horizon surfaces form as a result of the fact that the very existence of energy densities prohibits their existence- or that of space/time at a certain place in scale, and that these scale/anergy density relationships vary with great complexity, depending on the mass of the energy denisties and how, and from what place within the manifold they are observed.

    What makes all this worth talking about is its experimental veracity. All this is not some dumb conjecture of a weirdo, unless we consider Einstein, and a concept which is predictive to 33 decimal places to be weird! GR works right down to the event horizon. Some people try to take it further, but as you can see from what I have just said, taking GR below the event horizon is not conceptually consistent…that is, indeed, a bit “weird”.

    Best, Sam Cox

  • John Merryman

    Sam,

    Maybe the reason GR doesn’t go beyond the event horizon is because it is reflected back as “the other side of the merry-go-round,” caused by release of energy.

    Think of it this way; Gravity curves space inward, but from what frame of reference? Flat space? No, because there is no such thing as objective flat space, so it must be curving it in from the opposite effect of expanding space and whatever is the intermediate level between these two directions is the equilibrium. Sort of if you took a bulldozer and pushed all the hills into all the valleys, what is left is flat. So how would these hills between the gravitational valleys be detected in the first place? Since this effect doesn’t have a gravitational focal point, it wouldn’t bend the path of light. It would be pervasive across all space, so how would it affect light crossing this space which is expanding as surely as gravity pulls light in? Logically by redshifting the light. If the space is actually expanding, why wouldn’t the source be actually receding? Given that space is measured by its contents and all such measurable “stuff” is falling into gravity, even the light falling onto the lens of our telescopes, the pressure of this expansion is relieved by gravity. So while the expansion is one side of the merry-go-round going one way, gravity is the other side going the other way, AT THE SAME TIME. The more space that light crosses, the more the effect is compounded, so the faster the source appears to recede. When the source is far enough away that it appears to recede at the speed of light, the effect is a horizon line for visible light and only black body radiation goes over this horizon line. That’s why the CMBR comes from all directions and why those visible sources are redshifted directly away from us without the earth being the center of the universe and without having the speed of light increase as space expands, since the same objects will remain in view, much as light bending around a gravity field doesn’t actually cause the source of this light to be pushed to the side of the field, but is an effect on the transmission of the light, rather then the position of the source.
    Therefore redshift is due entirely to this form of cosmological constant which balances gravity, just as one side of the merry-go-round balances the other side and there is no need of an initial singularity.

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Hi…A couple of thoughts…

    Particulate energy densities, by defintion become singular, depending on their mass as we “descend” in scale, larger particles first, then smaller and finally the smallest. Certainly the entire universe below 10 to the minus 36th Cm is and must be by definition, singular. I laughed once at a well known scientist’s comment that “there isn’t much down there”….very well stated.

    However, over the universe as a whole, the singular Planck realm makes up 73% of the mass of the universe.

    The point is, the whole SR/GR concept of space, time and gravity limits the existence of energy densities to certain scale ranges. Its a matter of definition- that is how the concept plays out.

    I like your analogy of filling in the holes with the piles of dirt extracted from them in the first place…pretty good!

    However, gravity, just because it seems to act like a vacuum as in the CMB does not really operate in reverse…it, in effect pulls down everywhere in the universe. As you mention, our Merry Go Round is moving in the same direction on both sides, it only seems to move in different directions because of the way gravity is observed…what coordinates we observe from.

    That does not mean that gravity on the “other side” of a twin universe would not take some getting used to! We would stand on the ground, yet the initial sensation would be that of paralysis. Never the less, what we needed would come to us “automatically”. It would be an easier world, but as someone already mentioned on the blog, a world of decreasing thermal entropy would be accompanied by increasing informational entropy…IE we would become more childlike.

    “there is no need of an initial singularity.” I would venture you phrased that incorrectly, because the universe actually exists as it is observed. If we observe the universe to exist a certain way…that is what exists…IE there IS an initial singularity. One of the things about a GR universe we need to remember is that it exists in a near infinite variety of ways. If you doubt that, consider the different frames of all the plants, animals and people in this world. My world is really real to me and your world is really real to you. Our coordinates are similar enough we can communicate, but even in the case of humanity, we can’t change coordinates too far in space and time without having difficulties with our communication of meaning!

    800 years ago, were we to move backward in time, learning English as it existed then would have been a project like us learning the German language today. In linguistics we study “mutual intelligbility” and “word correspondence”. We try to translate ancient languages, read the geological record and study the history of evolution by the study of fossels. In reality, we are attempting not only to understand the universe, we are attempting a kind of communication. Obviously we can communicate with humans, even other living things, but some might argue we cannot communicate with the inanimate. I know using such words as communicating with the inanimate seems a contradiction in terms, but I think there is value in the idea.

    Math, Physics and Engineering stand at the pinacle of science. When we discover such a fundamental truth as that the universe exists as it is observed, and we experimentally confirm that concept, we establish a link between the natural and even social sciences which we can identify even in the semantic nomenclature they share.

    Yes, the universe is much more profound structually that the initial singularity. I spent quite a bit of time on the blog reviewing the reasons why that is true. In that sense you are correct. However we are conceptually on very thin ice in a GR universe, when we assert there was no initial singularity.

    Best, Sam Cox

  • John Merryman

    Sam,

    A major part of the other side of the merry-go-round, the source of these hills, is the radiant energy expanding out of gravitational wells, across the visible universe. A singularity would be a point of infinite density, but if there are limits to this density, black holes would be the eye of gravitational vortexes into which matter falls, before it reaches the wall beyond which it cannot fall further and is radiated back out.

    The universe exists as observed because an objective perspective is an oxymoron.

    You don’t really address my point that if gravity and expansion are opposite factors and are in general equilibrium, then it describes a cycle of collapsing mass and expanding energy, a convective process where one side expands until it cools down and starts to collapse until the pressure heats it back up and it starts to expand again. It was in Hawking’s Brief History of Time that I first came across the point that expansion and gravity must be in close balance for the universe to be as stable as it is and experiments since apparently prove it.

    we are conceptually on very thin ice in a GR universe, when we assert there was no initial singularity.

    Is that because it really doesn’t make sense, or because it’s like entering a mac program on a pc and it just does not compute. I realize that professional physicists are extremely focused, but if there is some conceptual mistake buried in the foundations of their theories, are they capable of deconstructing what has become the essence of their being, much as any adherent of a system is both master and slave to the paradigm?

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Hi John,

    All the evidence points to a big bang. The standard model is founded on it, and the standard model is an excellent (though significantly not perfect) predictor of the evolution of the universe following a bang.

    Is there something beyond the standard model? I’m sure there is, yet any new model will not only explain discrepancies in the Standard Model, but be equally predictive of the other events following the Big Bang.

    Scientists have biases just like anyone else, and they (should) admit those biases, but as I said before, their theories must fall within the mathematical envelope of already tested ideas- or scientists quickly lose their credibility in their profession. All good scientists are on record as having some very weird ideas…Isaac Newton, PAM Dirac and Fred Hoyle are good examples.

    One of the points which I have made over the years is that many scientists are (kind of) ignoring the inherent geometry and cosmological implications of current concepts which are so well verified we could almost call them laws of the universe.

    I agree with you that sometimes there is little difference between mastery and slavery!…however, in science, if a concept is predictive and verifiable, we are stuck with it until we find something yet better. In the meantime, we look for subtle flaws and observational deviations in our concept…we keep testing it. Science is an ongoing process.

    Best, Sam

  • John Merryman

    Sam,

    As I’ve pointed out previously, we could use the same logic that says time is an additional dimension of directional space to argue that temperature is a parameter of volume space and the math would be just as precise. The reason we don’t is that as individual units, we function as social particles, not mass, so we have a little more perspective on mass relationships and can clarify the relationship between temperature and volume a little more objectively then we discern the relationship between time and distance. The logic is somewhat similar to windchill factor, in that it is a triangulation of factors from our perspective.
    The Standard Model and Big Bang theory are very precise as well, except when they are not and observation doesn’t quite match theory, then patches get added, such as Inflation, Dark matter and energy and any number of other “renormalizations,” as Lawrence so descriptively put them.
    History will vindicate Fred Hoyle.

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    John said,

    “The Standard Model and Big Bang theory are very precise as well, except when they are not and observation doesn’t quite match theory, then patches get added, such as Inflation, Dark matter and energy and any number of other “renormalizations,” as Lawrence so descriptively put them.
    History will vindicate Fred Hoyle.”

    Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Inflation are really at the bottom line semantic terms. One of my serious beefs with science is the poor way terminology is coined, but you really can’t blame the scientists. These notions are so esoteric to the average person that you might just as well name these things black, white and in-between!

    Inflation is the early expansion of the universe at an almost infinite velocity.

    Dark Matter is extra mass demanded by the rotational characteristics of galaxies.

    Dark Energy is that 73% of the universal mass which has to be more or less equally distributed everywhere in the cosmic structure.

    You spoke of Ned Wright. Ned really respects the work of Fred Hoyle. Although “Freddie” certainly was wrong on many points, Ned well understands that the Relativity is, at its heart, conceptually a static, or quasi-static concept. Since Relativity is so well verified, the universe therefore must have, in some way, a quasi-static structure.

    Very interesting…

  • John Merryman

    Sam,

    Inflation shoehorns the observations which would otherwise support an infinite universe into a finite model. Such as the time required to establish thermal equilibrium, as well as verifiable equilibrium between expansion and collapse, ie. flat space, since it must be many orders of magnitude larger then what is visible for what is visible to be flat. Given that there are about as many variations on Inflation theory as there are Inflation theorists, it means that only two points are relevant, observation and singularity based model. Everything connecting them is speculation, which requires violating basic laws of physics, such as C. If light is being “carried” along by this inflation, so that it doesn’t violate C, then the speed of light is effectively increasing as the universe expands. At the singularity, the speed of light would have to be zero. Think about it, you can’t say there is a stable speed of light that pre-exists the universe and inflation is just expanding the universe to match it. So, when the universe was the size of the proverbial basketball, or whatever it was when inflation started, it would take light just as long to cross this universe as it would at the point where inflation stopped, since C would be increasing at the same rate as inflation. This means that inflation is utterly meaningless, since it wouldn’t matter if the universe remained the size of the basketball, as it would still take light billions of years for light to cross it and we wouldn’t know the difference. As for when inflation stopped, what happened then? How did we suddenly switch to a universe which continues to expand, but a lightspeed that is stabilized so that we could detect this expansion?

    As for dark energy and dark matter, specifically they are both gaps between theory and observation. What if there is expanding space, but not an expanding universe? It would create additional pressure on gravitational systems, resulting in the effect for which dark matter is theorized. How about if redshift is a form of curvature of the passage of light, rather than recessional velocity of the source? The dark energy to actually move galaxies further apart wouldn’t be necessary, only that required to impede the passage of light. Which may just be gravity.

    Reality is an incredibly complex puzzle, but humanity has a proven track record of moving seamlessly from facts to imagination with the same lack of impedimenta as a pendulum swinging past its nadir. It is only as the establishment line becomes ever more detached from observation that it is clear there is a problem. As the history of religion shows, for many this is just not a issue. For me, it is.

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Looking over your questions, I think that it becomes pretty clear how important the concept of “event horizon” is.

    It is very misleading to speak about the “size” of a universe which is everywhere. It can be shown experimentally that matter and energy (light) cannot and do not exist below a certain level of scale. That level of scale and the nature of the curved manifold of space in the vicinity is determined by the relative size and mass of energy densities.

    So far as light and matter are concerned, there are well defined limits to their very existence. Light could not and would not travel across a universe the size of a basketball, because at that scale, light would not exist.

    This illustration is misleading too, but for overall conceptual purposes, all the matter in the known universe, if combined, would form an event horizon with a radius roughly the size of our solar system….the solar system, with all its stored information would form an event horizon with a radius of a few feet.

    The point is that light, matter, space and time are all limited in their relationships and extent. There are certain conditions under which they cannot exist as we know them. From our frame, we can even measure gravity as propagating at the speed of light, but if gravity propagated at the speed of light, the universe would be unstable. A stable universe requires near Newtonian gravity. This reality shows us how different the universe we observe truly is from cosmic reality, and forcefully reminds us that the universe sructurally is very different from the way we observe it.

    On another thread, bloggers are talking about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics right now. One of the advantages of infinite universe models is that they are open, and the 2nd law does not prohibit their continued existence. However there are many disadvantages to infinite models too. To take only one of hundreds of examples, the density formula will not admit infinities. Neither will the grand proportion of Einstein…as initially presented, anyway. For the universe to develop the way it has, it had to have a very specific intital density. For nuclear and thermonuclear technology to work, the grand proportion must be just the way it was intitially proposed. There are hundreds of reasons why the universe must be finite in mass, and GR says it is unbounded in spatial extent.

    All this looks bad (for the finite universe) from an engineering standpoint, because closed systems in engineering experience increasing thermal entropy to equilibrium- a heat death. However in an extremely vast but finite massed universe with certain very particular intial conditions and dimensional configuration, it is possible that increasing thermal entropy is “traded” for a gradual decrease in informational entropy (increase in complexity) over eternity…or very nearly eternal conditions.

    Nobody in his or her right mind would propose to have all the answers to these basic questions, we do not. There are things to be said for universes of infinite and finite mass.

    However the SR/GR model…the best we have right now, is based on finite mass and a marginally closed geometry. This seems to conflict with engineering principles, but because of the models experimental veracity, and the relationships we observe between thermal entropy and complexity, I think we should be very slow to draw conclusions, considering what we know about the conceptual demands of our best models which are all conceptually deterministic.

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Errata…second paragraph, previous thread…

    “That matter and energy as we understand them”…etc

  • John Merryman

    Sam,

    Light could not and would not travel across a universe the size of a basketball, because at that scale, light would not exist.

    I realize that, but I’m not the one to propose Inflation theory. I’m just trying to point out the logical inconsistencies with its justification for transcending C. It’s an extension of my earlier point that using a stable lightspeed to measure what is presumed to be expanding space, as opposed to an increasing distance of stable space as defined by C, is contradictory.

    but for overall conceptual purposes, all the matter in the known universe, if combined, would form an event horizon with a radius roughly the size of our solar system….the solar system, with all its stored information would form an event horizon with a radius of a few feet.

    So how could it have originated as a singularity, which is presumably much smaller?

    This reality shows us how different the universe we observe truly is from cosmic reality, and forcefully reminds us that the universe structurally is very different from the way we observe it.

    Does that apply to assuming the entire universe must be expanding from a point because distant galaxies are redshifted?

    There are hundreds of reasons why the universe must be finite in mass, and GR says it is unbounded in spatial extent.

    All this looks bad (for the finite universe) from an engineering standpoint, because closed systems in engineering experience increasing thermal entropy to equilibrium- a heat death.

    Various kinds of horizons effectively limit any subjective perspective of the universe to the extent it is finite from any possible point of view. Whether it is the distance light and even black body radiation can travel before they are entirely dissipated, even if it’s for many billions of lightyears. Yet this doesn’t make it a closed system, since approximately as much energy is pouring back toward any area as is being radiated away. Structure is informational energy.

    However in an extremely vast but finite massed universe with certain very particular initial conditions and dimensional configuration, it is possible that increasing thermal entropy is “traded” for a gradual decrease in informational entropy (increase in complexity) over eternity…or very nearly eternal conditions.

    And it’s traded back when these structural configurations break down and radiate away their constituent energy.

    I think we should be very slow to draw conclusions, considering what we know about the conceptual demands of our best models which are all conceptually deterministic.

    You still don’t address my primary point that if expansion and gravitational collapse are in general balance, as they appear to be, there is no Big Bang/Big Crunch cycle! Both sides of the merry-go-round exist in the here and now and pervade all aspects of our existence, from the entropic structural deterministic collapse of the old, to the energetic, chaotic expansion of youth. Matter and complex structure falling into gravitational wells, as the energy radiates away, is shot out the poles of galaxies as jets of charged electrons, or novas, super novas, etc. exploding the most dense concentrations of matter back out across the universe like some celestial Tower of Babel, unable to withstand its eternal and internal contradictions. The whole cycle exists in all its chaotic grandeur out across the universe, but we only see parts at a time and create this patchwork kaleidoscope with various parts emphasized and others ignored. Do you really think a model that finds it necessary to say every quantum decision results in multiple realities going in different directions is really pointing in the right direction? Or that possibly the conceptual biases of scientific minds are insistent on defining even what they know cannot be defined. That particles are motion based as much or more than motion is particle based. Form truly follows function.

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Hi John,

    “You still don’t address my primary point that if expansion and gravitational collapse are in general balance, as they appear to be, there is no Big Bang/Big Crunch cycle!”

    You are right- but only from the standpoint of the overall cosmological structure.

    If, in reality and at the quark level, the universe undergoes a synchronized proper time pulse 2.8 trillion cycles per Earth second, we are (obviously)actually looking at unchanging eternal reality in our surroundings as we discuss this! That is exactly what I mean by an “eternal, quasi-static universe”.

    The fact that time seems to pass very slowly to us, and space seems so vast, is a product of our remotely and electromagnetically observing (cross-reading) our 4D event horizon existence in extreme, but mathematically predictable and definable gravitational time dilation, at certain coordinates in the manifold…place in scale…space/time.

    The bang and the crunch are only phenomena the existence of which we define from our present observing frame of reference! However, even though these phenomena are only relativistic effects, they none the less are real- to us…as you say, the CBR HAS a temperature! In the same way, even though gravity in the universe HAS to be Newtonian to prevent instability, gravity propagating at the speed of light seems real to us, well, not seems real, IS real.

    The speed of light is a limiting factor of our 4D reality…neither we nor anything else is observed to possibly “go faster” than c. We build particle accelerators and must take relativisitic changes in mass into effect…unless we want to be hit by single protons with the inertia of a baseball pitched at 100mph!

    Our very existence results from the same kind of relativistic effects resulting from accelerations we find on a less complex level in a particle accelerator.

    Our existence is particulate…on the 4D event horizon surfaces of the singular realm (Planck Realm). I don’t pretend to fully understand where all the surface organization and complexity we observe from our frame came from, but it is clear that all this complexity not only permits our existence as individuals, but is also permanently entangled via the Planck Realm with the rest of the universe.

    “Do you really think a model that finds it necessary to say every quantum decision results in multiple realities going in different directions is really pointing in the right direction?”

    I believe we get important clues about the overall nature of our world from that model. However, when we observe the universe within a certain geometry, with certain topological characterisitics and as existing with a certain mass, this general model gets constrained into the universe we observe…at our location in the manifold. What we observe to happen in the extreme sub-microscopic seems incongruous to us-it IS incongruous to us…but that is the sub-microscopic, after all…unconstrained by the conditions and mathematical manifold within which we exist.

    So constrained, everything cannot and does not happen…in fact, since the model is overall conceptually deterministic, we can justifiably conclude that what happens in the universe is very structured and limited, but phylogenically progressive.

  • John Merryman

    Sam,

    You may have addressed my question, but haven’t answered it. Gravity and galactic redshift are not microscopic phenomena. If they are balanced on the cosmic level, that negates the need to postulate an expanding universe because the expansion of space characterized by redshift is balanced by the collapse of space described by gravity.

    Nothing personal, but my experience is that the response from those enmeshed in a field is almost robotic if you offer them perspectives which the paradigm doesn’t take into account. Whether it’s pointing out to a religious person that the absolute is basis, not apex, so the spiritual absolute would be the essence out of which we rise, not an ideal from which we fell. Or pointing out to a mainstream economist that as a medium of exchange issued and regulated by the government, money is a form of public utility, not private property, etc. The sense is that they step back from the edge and will not even consider looking over it. If it’s not in the equations, it isn’t real. If it’s real, it must be in the equations. Catch 22.

  • Pingback: Economist » Blog Archive » Comment on Incompatible Arrows, IV: F. Scott Fitzgerald by John…()

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    John said,

    “You may have addressed my question, but haven’t answered it. Gravity and galactic redshift are not microscopic phenomena. If they are balanced on the cosmic level, that negates the need to postulate an expanding universe because the expansion of space characterized by redshift is balanced by the collapse of space described by gravity.”

    It is really hard to imagine how a GR universe which is eternally everywhere, could be expanding, in a cosmological sense anyway! Again we have this important matter of frame of reference rearing its ugly conceptual head. I assume you are aware that in spite all we know about doppler phenomena, scientists…the alert ones anyway, are continuing to evaluate this matter of the expanding universe, and lately, the accelerating universe. We can observe very old stars in some of the most distant galaxies, and astronomers are looking for answers to this observation- and others. The accelerating universe is best explained by extra large (macroscopic, matching and unseen “over the horizon”) dimensions- the extra 3 space of the Schwarzschild mirror geometry…the “5th” dimension of Kalusa.

    We just HAVE to understand that the universe exists cosmologically in one way, and as it is observed in quite another way. Both are important.

    John I have no quarrel over that second paragraph. It is easy (and natural) for anyone to assume a certain frame of reference, and then define the whole universe by it! In fact, as you know, that inclination is so human, whether we are scientists, economists or philosophers we have a tendency to assume a frame of reference and claim it as our own. I have just taken quite a bit of time to point out that the universe of SR/GR/QM exists as it is observed.

    Therefore this inclination we all have is not unexpected since in a way, ANY frame of reference we assume, even crazy ones, can seem (and in terms of experience- BE- the victims at Auswitz) real. History is replete with examples of folks assuming a frame of reference and then attempting to force everyone else to adopt their point of view. On a sociological level, the solution to the problem is to be well traveled. In science, the solution is to be well studied. In economic thinking, the partial solution at least, is to think globally.

    Well, John, I think that if we are not conceptually bridging the gulf between the natural and social siences in this discussion, we sure are making a stab at it!

  • John Merryman

    Sam,

    Busy weekend and certainly some of the people involved impress the observation that we all look at situations from different perspectives, even when we inhabit the same general location.

    I do realize the fact that reality presents different perspectives and there is no one over all perspective is at the very heart of modern physics. I also have the impression the most fundamental drive of physics, as well as religion and any number of other biological endeavors is to overcome this limitation, whether it’s God or a Grand Unified Field theory and if finding it fails, build a sturdy wall around our little corner. There it is again, that cycle of expansion and consolidation.(of expectations in this case)
    That said, there are times when this wave of limitless potential collapses into hard finite fact not because nature hides her secrets in indecipherable complexity, but because she leaves them sitting in the most obvious of places and we only trip over them after looking everywhere else. Of course, even the hardest of facts are only the seeds of further questions.

  • John Merryman

    Most of the people actually. All of the people actually.

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    John,

    Well stated. That’s the interesting thing about the universe.

    On the one hand we have this set of universal mathematical and physical constraints which are the same for everyone and everything, everywhere.

    On the other hand, the universe is observed slightly, greatly or extremely differently, and in reality it IS slightly, greatly or extremely different from an almost infinite variety of frames. Even in the case of an individual human, our frame of reference (perspective on the universe) changes with every passing day.

    What makes the set of universal mathematical and physical constraints important (rather than just being esoteric and extraneous) is 1. They define the existence, nature, properties and behavior of particulate energy densities 2. They define the manifold within which 4D event horizion surfaces are read as information and complexity, remotely, in gravitational time dilation. 3. They permit the existence of an understanding of the universe by at least a part of itself. and 4. They permit an almost unlimited technological advance and potentially an equally unlimited increase in informational complexity in the universe.

    All of the above aspects are likewise tied to the very existence of the universe…IE the continued existence of the universe depends on the inter-related (entangled) aspects of both the cosmological facts and the electromagnetic experience of the paradyme.

    So, the universe DOES exist as it is observed…really, really…and we CAN build a technology on that we observe, and our relationship with both the feral, inanimate part of the universe and the complex biosphere is very personal in the sense that our continued existence as informational complexity depends on our response to the stimulae we encounter.

    Yet, understanding the cosmological aspects of the universe is, in a sense the key to influencing, controlling, correctly understanding- and appreciating this awesome, and most probably eternal experience we call our “lives”.

  • John Merryman

    Sam,

    The simple point still exists; Redshift and gravity are cohabitating processes and by viewing them out of sync, cosmology has created a universal creation/destruction narrative that is unnecessary and despite its conceptual complexity, is quite outdated in relation to our increasingly inter-related understanding of reality

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Hi John,

    I don’t think well informed cosmologists, anyway, conceptualize redshift and gravity out of sync. Think of the gravitational redshift for example…approaching the event horizon of a black hole, light becomes increasingly redshifted. Since distant galaxies are also redshifted, it is easy to see the correspondence between the big bang and what from our frame we observe as a chacteristic of light in the vicinity of the singular realm…distant galaxies’ apparent acceleration outward toward the astronomical antipode can also be interpereted as being a consequence of their observed proximity to the cosmic singularity…in this case the big bang…the Schwarzschild “white hole”. The fact that this whole observational paradyme is foundationally 7D is ridiculously obvious.

    Redshift, of course is caused both by relative motion and gravity. Relative motion and gravity are thus obviously related to each other…relates to the principle of the equivalence of gravitational and non-inertial frames, and the fact that objects of very different mass react in much the same way to gravitation. The manifold resulting from all this (free fall) interaction between energy densities, is described by GR. When event horizon surfaces, particulate or otherwise intervene (momentarily or over cosmological time) in energy-density free-fall, accelerations (and corresponding relativistic effects) are produced which (when remotely observed- cross-read) result in this universe of ours.

    The key is, the universe undergoes an everywhere proper time “pulse” 2.8 trillion times per Earth second at (at least) the quark level of the baryonic realm. When this pulse is electromagnetically and remotely cross-read (because of the geometry and topology of the system) in extreme gravitational time dilation, what WE observe as time and space are created…as Einstein liked to quip: “Time is an illusion”. Time is NOT really and illusion. (Time would only be a true illusion in a fully static universe, but a fully static universe grinds to a total halt, it cannot be experienced). The point is, we just don’t view time- or the universe itself an anywhere near the way they- and we- actually exist.

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Errata,

    Last Paragraph… “really AN illusion”.

    “the universe itself IN anywhere near,” etc

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Hi John,

    Earlier, a gentleman pointed out that from a conceptual point of view at least, the photon (you are interested in light and electromagnetic energy) has a rest mass of 0. I didn’t comment at that time, except to thank him for his excellent summary, but this might be an appropriate time to comment on the photon’s mass or lack of mass.

    The photons which do work and run my calculator have relativistic mass by virtue of their motion…inertia with respect to me.

    However, the zero rest mass photon, it would seem to me, is more linked conceptually to the static or infinite (not finite) universe paradymes. It is also linked to the verified, matrix photon concept…that all photons are really part of a universe pervading matrix, which is entangled everywhere almost instantaeously. Since I fully aggree with that experiemtally verified idea, I didn’t comment much further.

    However, I still don’t think the 0 rest mass photon actually exists except as a theoretical concept, for when a photon is at rest, it ceases to be a photon- as we observe photons anyway. Experiments are continuing in efforts at obtaining a mass value for the photon…I think they are down to 10 to the minus 52nd gram and no dice yet…however logically, the absoute rest mass of any observabe photon in a universe of finite mass must be greater than 0, and would be expected to be many orders of magnitude lighter than 10 to the -52nd gram.

    I start to see conceptual red flags when anybody speaks of 0’s and infinities, in this universe anyway. Mathematicians and some astrophysicists have few problems with 0’s and infinities…they work with them all the time, but to assert we live in a finite universe where the photon actually exists with a rest mass of zero, is, to me anyway conceptually interesting, even significant, but potentially misleading.

    In the end the whole argument may turn out to be moot anyway. Photons and even atoms in the sub-microscopic are quantum entitites, and quantum stangeness may eventually resolve any issues we might think we have about the nature of the photon.

  • John Merryman

    Sam,

    I don’t mean to question the intelligence or integrity of scientists, but rather point out the subconsious biases inherent to the process. Julianne’s recent post, “Influence” provides a clear example of the very organic process at work, where conceptual layers build one atop the previous, so the strength of the foundation matters more then the direction it’s going, until such time as potential instabilities become manifested. With everyone out to prove themselves and get ahead, the inherent social and bureaucratic inertia doesn’t encourage questions about premises, only to further refine the accepted model. As I pointed out, temperature is as logical a parameter of volume space as time is of distance space, so the line between objective and subjective modeling has been long obscured and the effort by everyone to have their say is more likely to create a din of competing voices then clarity.

    Think of the gravitational redshift for example…approaching the event horizon of a black hole, light becomes increasingly redshifted.

    Given that gravitational effects supposedly project at least as far as light, every point in space is being pulled by gravity from all directions. Do these cancel each other out, or might they create a turbulance that would impede the passage of light? Halton Arp and company have presented a range of quasars and galaxies that appear connected, but have very different redshifts. with these, it is not the source falling into a gravity well that is shifted by its infall, but the light climbing out, so this isn’t an effect of recessional velocity, since the high redshift quasar isn’t actually receding at the rate suggested by the degree of its redshift. So are these distant galaxies actually receding, or could it be an effect on the light? As you point out they do have the signature of old stars, as well as there being galaxy clusters much larger then the time frame allows. yes, there are probably conceptual issues with an infinite universe where redshift curvature creates a horizon line around the visible universe, but the current model has far more problems then established cosmology likes to admit. An optical cause for redshift would provide a much less complex description, without such add ons as Inflation and Dark Energy.

    “Time is an illusion”. Time is NOT really and illusion. (Time would only be a true illusion in a fully static universe, but a fully static universe grinds to a total halt, it cannot be experienced).

    As I keep pointing out, time as a measure of motion, rather than actual narrative dimension, explains this quite nicely. It is neither linear, with present as subjective reference, or simultaneous present, since motion isn’t instantaneous. Time is no more illusionary than temperature, nor does it exist otherwise. A fully static universe would have a temperature of absolute zero.

    As for photons, I also agree they exist as a function of force/motion, rather than particle. More of a transmission point between fields, than an object.

    So yes, physics breaks down at absolutes and infinities for very logical reasons. One is unmeasurable and the other is immeasurable.

    Back to work….

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Hi John,

    I always admire extreme skepticism in scientists for the reasons you mentioned. The recent post on Dark Matter is excellent, for we are immediately informed that this scientist is not quick to jump to conclusions…rather, he gives detailed reasons why he refuses to jump to conclusions.

    There is a big difference between some graduate student (or heaven forbid, even a senior member of the scientific community) trying to make a name for him-herself and the true scientist…up to date on the history of science and developments in the field, knowledgeable of the math, geometry topology and extent of experimental veracity applicable to existing models, extremely curious about what is really going on in the universe (no holds barred) and most of all, determined to find out the truth about reality.

    You find people of this latter type on this blog…in fact blogging is a great way to share ideas and perspective on important issues in science.

  • John Merryman

    Sam,

    It still seems to me that particle physics is overly fixated on particles. What if it is the particles that are the illusion and they are simply transfer points between field and it’s all about the network, not the nodes? Just being philosophical and that just isn’t metric enough….

    What is Dark Matter? It is an effect which causes the outer perimeter of galaxies to spin as fast as the inner parts, without centrifugal force flinging them off. Specifically it’s an effect of attraction, not necessarily a consequence of mass, but it is assumed gravity is a consequence of mass, so there must be some hidden dark matter. What if matter is a consequence of gravity and mass is simply the areas where the fields intersect, creating nodes in the network?

    Plasma cosmology has some interesting thoughts as well;

    http://www.plasmacosmology.net/

    “A world renowned electrical engineer, Dr Anthony C. Perratt — a graduate student of Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfven — has worked on plasma simulations for many years. See the links page for further details of this leading light in Plasma Physics.
    He has utilized super-computing capabilities to apply the Maxwell-Lorentz equations (the basic laws governing the forces and interactions of electric and magnetic fields) to huge ensembles of charged particles. He calls this PIC – Particle In Cell simulation. The results are almost indistinguishable from images of actual galaxies.”

    “The trouble is, early in the twentieth century, the astronomical community decided that gravity rules the heavens, and having settled on this secure and mathematically elegant vision of the cosmos, they are reluctant to entertain ideas about more exotic forces playing any significant role.

    Most of these objects are many light years in length, and display the classic signatures of Plasma/EM behaviour — ‘beading’, spiralling, and ‘kink’ or ‘sawtooth’ instabilities.

    As Alfvén pointed out, time after time, the underlying assumptions of cosmologists today “are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods and it is only the plasma itself which does not ‘understand’ how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them.” “

  • John Merryman

    Sam,
    Think of a tree or a lightning bolt as a transfer of energy from the field of the atmosphere to the field of the ground. If you reductionistically measured only the plane at which these two fields meet, those phenomena would only appear as spots on the plane.

  • Wayne

    It still seems to me that particle physics is overly fixated on particles. What if it is the particles that are the illusion and they are simply transfer points between field and it’s all about the network, not the nodes? Just being philosophical and that just isn’t metric enough….

    I like it John, keep it up. I much rather an explanation incorporating the incorporeal network as opposed to the deterministic nodes. I feel that our models include only the nodes and though we’ve come so far in our interpretations of the cosmos in this realm, and these interpretations have been accurate and effective to a point, though it will never be complete until we consider this other side, the network as you said. Perhaps the unparticle, stuff in between, the ‘ .’

    Might not be contributing a whole lot recently, but I am reading. Well discussed you guys, I’m pleased you’re still deep in thought. Almost got this whole 7D projection down Sam, I’ve still an enlightenment or two before I muster some clear imagery of the geometry, but it’s close.

    Wayne

  • John Merryman

    Wayne,

    Thanks.

    Some time ago I had a discussion with Jason as to what dimensions really are. My argument was that they are model, not basis of reality and as such, they are simply projections, lines, if you will. So three dimensions are actually the coordinate system of the center point, thus a subjective and reductionistic map of space, rather than the actual territory of space itself. Since there are any number of reference points in space, there are any number of coordinate systems to describe them. Such as each of us on the surface of this planet comprise a coordinate system that don’t all use the same surface plane. My point being that space is infinitely dimensional in the first place.

    As I remember, Jason’s counterargument was that space is three dimensional because three dimensions are the least number required to define it and it didn’t matter how they where oriented.

    To put it in philosophical terms, you might say the Arabs and the Israelis use different coordinate systems to define the same space.

    One of the ideas which inspired this insight was reading of crystals that were described as five dimensional because their magnetic orientation had shifted as they were forming.

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    #66 John…

    I completely agree. The model is first and foremost…descriptive of the unverse. The fact that SR/GR/QM and the Schwarzschild geometry mathematically describe the manifold and energy density relationships is what makes them useful. However there is something beyond a simple description of the universe….well, a LOT beyond a simple description.

    I would like to add one thought. In an absolute sense, we, as conscious observers look in only two directions in the universe…macroscopically and microscopically…outward and inward, everywhere at 360 degrees.

    Our observation of particulate reality and the passage of time results in the 4D manifold with which we are so familiar.

    #65 Wayne…

    The nice thing about 7D is that it is actually so simple. When you look at your desk, you are looking at an eternal fixture of the universe. In the Planck Realm, within your desk, every quark experiences a coordinated polarity reversal from material to anti-material 2.8 trillion cycles per second. That is happening everywhere in the universe too, and everything else, like your desk stays in exactly the same place (invariant frames) forever.

    From our frame, in which we electromagnetically and remotely cross read this rapid pulse in extreme gravitational time dilation, the rapid proper time pulse becomes vast 3D space plus greatly slowed, single direction and process time…4D…a single 4D “hemispheric” cross-section of the universe. Motion and change we observe is a magnified reflection of what is actually a rapid sub-microscopic proper time pulse of the universe.

    So far as we are concerned, what is actually happening 2.8 trillion times per Earth second is observe to occur once every perhaps 100 billion years…starts with a big bang and leads to a fresh cosmic singularity. Since that is the way we observe relativisitic effects in our universe, that is the reality we exist in- and live by. We can and do build technology on the way we observe and measure our relativistic universe…the universe which seems so “normal” to us.

    When we look heaven-ward at the CBR, we observe a “power spectum” in the tiny variations of the 2.7 degree K temperature of space, the remains of the “ancient” big bang, which is really 1/2 of a single proper time pulse of the universe, which occurs 2.8 trillion times per Earth second in the sub-microscopic. In fact, if you view the posted Fermi projection of the proper time occillation pulse, you will be interested to note that even though it is not as refined and amplified as the astronomical power spectum, there is a striking resemblence…no coincidence, of course!

    In the sky of the other particulate superposed 4D anti-hemisphere, we would observe the lower half of the same proper time occillation pulse we observe from our present frame of reference.

    Since there is but one continuous single process time dimension which links both 4D particulate “hemispheres”, observed reality…the manifold within within which observed relativisitic effects, resulting from particulate energy density related accellerations occur, consists of two three spaces linked by a common single process time dimension…3+3+1=7D. The cosmological structure is foundationally 7D, even though we can only observe one 4D cross-section at a time…the other half is “over the horizon” and the two halves cannot be observed simultaneously- except in the extreme sub-microscopic. From our macroscopic frame, the existence of the unseen “hemisphere” CAN be inferred by careful measurement of macroscopic universe.

    We ourselves stay in the same place…at the same set of coordinates forever, however, because of the mathematical irrationality of the system and the fact that a general proper time pulse, however tiny and rapid, actually occurs, at our location in scale, we observe motion and change (time) to occur…and 3D space to exist…

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Some interesting animation…

    Shows what happens to an unattended frame home over a period of 500 years, or what (we know) happens to a human in 70…how well I know! My desk, and me for that matter, are eternally in perfect condition at certain coordinates, and eternally at or near the point of “getting or being re-cycled” at others.

    Our existence starts as potential (in my case, real genetic material continuously existent for a large fraction of the existence of the universe) and continues to our decomposition, which of course (in my case) includes continuing links into the future via progeny. I am entangled, also permanently, in different states of awareness with actually the entire universe, not just what we refer to as the “organic” portion, since the existence of my life depends on important inorganic conditions and physical constraints.

    Scientists speak of the “momentum” of General Relativity. This momentum periodically brings the embedded infomation which is “me” to my coordinates in spacetime, whereupon, I exist- at my “place”. My desk, same. A tree, same. A star, same. All embedded information and complexity…same, and brother is this deterministic!…just as the current models we use to describe reality are at their conceptual hearts, deterministic. The word interdependence comes to mind.

    On the surface of the Earth, a good projective analogy of the momentum of General Relativity is the oceanic tides gradually exposing a sandbar to the atmosphere, and then submerging same periodically- where it contines to exist as embedded information, but is not “observed”. Just as the sandbar appears initially as almost a point, grows and changes shape, reaches a maximum size and then diminishes and disappears, so do we. The existence of a sandbar as a sandbar, at least depends on this periodic exposure of energy densities along an interface and on surfaces, just as my world and I exist on particulate 4D event horizon surfaces.

    We can be sure that the information paradox does not exist. Therefore we can be reasonably confident that all embedded and stored information in the low entropy regions of the universe near the singular realm is conserved. This lends further credence, beyond the conceptual nature of the SR/GR/QM models themselves, to the notion that the universe is indeed deterministic.

  • John Merryman

    Sam,

    I think that to the extent we see in a direction, it’s into the past, since everything we perceive is past by the time we see it. Because of that, we see macroscopically as a function of the microscopic, yet can only contextualize the micro in terms of the macro, so these two are inseparable in any meaningful way. (Expansion/contraction as synonymous, not sequential)

    I still think the singularity is ultimately unnecessary to explain the process, that the microscopic is stable at the macroscopic level. I can understand how easy it is to include a bottleneck process to the entire universe, but the universe isn’t an organism, it’s the ecosystem and even if one part of it did collapse and expand, it would only be in the context of an even larger process keeping this action in a larger equilibrium. We do see this collapse/expansion process on the galactic and even galaxy cluster level, but on the largest level, space does seem to be flat, not curved and it’s the curvature that causes this cycle.

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    John,

    I think your first paragraph in #69 is really an interesting perspective on single-direction time process, as we observe it from our coordinates in the manifold.

    The reason why I would be inclined to stick with singularity, is that singularity is a natural consequence of the descriptive models presently in use. Microscopic singularity is a result of the interaction of increasingly tiny energy densities with the constaints of extremely small scale…IE the universe is defined as, and must be singular (IE non-particulate) below a certain level of scale. Of course we can measure the effects of large, massive singular objects, which (also because of their character) must be entangled with the Planck Realm everywhere.

    Again, there is this matter of frame of reference…at a certain frame the whole universe would be observed to be a single low entropy object…while the universe we observe is by definition not singular at all…that cosmological aspect of the universes structure is not obvious in our every day lives…on our “stage”.

  • Wayne

    I like the sandbar example. That helped a good deal. I suppose the only remaining quib I have concerns the eternal nature of the coordinates. I understand this and am comfortable in understanding, however I feel that in the course of the unfolding entangled states through the ‘re-cycling’ of the universe, as certain observables rise and diminish, this appears to leave no room for a (however subtle) modification to these coordinates for the next cycle. Leading to novelty as opposed to repetition.

    It is our nature to believe we change the environment we are immersed in (free will), and our environment in turn changes us or influences our change (determinism). This doesn’t seem consistent with the idea that the coordinates of our 7D projection remain constant, eternally. I would imagine that every moment we sit and think about a future potential, and every moment we seek to collapse all possible potentials by actively participating in the manifestation of that potential into reality (or past circumstance as John puts it), this in some way affects the coordinates of the next cycle (ie. we aren’t a static CD on repeat, we are parts of a living CD that at all moments is helping create itself within constraints that arise from the state of ‘everything else’ at any given moment).

    In other words, we, together with our environment, actively ‘create’ our coordinates, or ‘choose’ our coordinates, every moment through the dynamic to and fro of determinism (the action of everything else ‘pushing in’ on us) versus (what could lovingly be called) optimism (the active ‘pushing back’ on the [almost] infinite from the singular). That indeed the appearance of a fixed coordinate system is the ‘method’ in which our actions are remembered by the cosmos, but not the territory of the actions themselves. For instance, our actions are not predetermined, but determined as they happen and not a moment before. Once they happen, they hurtle into past circumstance, and are immediately ‘saved’ by entanglement forever, to be influential (indeed crucial) in the unfolding of the remainder of the present cycle and onwards into the next cycle, and the next…

    Wasn’t sure if this has been said or implied, or if I haven’t explained myself thoroughly enough, or if I am simply spinning a new web to catch the same flies, but I will clarify myself another way if necessary. We’ve definitely discussed this before, I suppose it came up again because I didn’t get an answer I could grasp.

    Wayne

  • John Merryman

    Sam,

    Microscopic singularity is a result of the interaction of increasingly tiny energy densities with the constaints of extremely small scale…IE the universe is defined as, and must be singular (IE non-particulate) below a certain level of scale.

    There is a very big difference between one and oneness, unit and unitary. A unitary state is effectively neutral, ie. zero. While a unit is a set, ie. one. It’s essentially the same logical flaw at the heart of monotheism. The absolute is basis, as in the universal state, not apex, as in the ideal, point of focus, singularity, etc. As I pointed out, geometry never really incorporated zero as anything other than the starting point. Zero isn’t the dimensionless point, it is the lack of any such definition. The featureless void. Non-being, not virtual being. As absolute zero, it isn’t the starting point of motion, but the complete absence of it. Yes, it is the starting point of motion, but not any specific motion. Structure doesn’t all start at one specific incident but bubbles up out of the field in any number of ways and they interact. That’s why laws are deterministic but reality is not, as there is no way to limit or regulate the input.

    The problem with projecting the universe as a cosmic particle is that it must be a virgin birth, so to speak. It cannot exist in a larger context. Consider Inflation and what would happen if it were to encounter the debris of other universes and dimensions. Given the forces involved with this rate of expansion, it wouldn’t take much of a pin to put a very big hole in that balloon. So in what appears to be flat and infinite space, with constantly evolving structure and energy, we have managed to theorize process as an object. From self centered, to group centered, to theocentric to earth centered to heliocentric to galaxy centered, now to universal singularity centered, we are constantly trying to find some point of reference by which to define everything else, but it just doesn’t work that way because to define is to limit and limits only define your understanding of reality, not reality itself. The map and model isn’t all the territory.

    Wayne,

    The future meanders, as it is as often a reaction to the present, as a continuation of it.

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Hi Wayne,

    You have a good understanding of the concept. Here is another projective analogy…an old 33rpm record.

    Because of the tiny, everywhere, universal proper-time pulse and the fact that the relationships within the system are mathematically described using pi…and spherical geomerty, not only is “time” brought into existence, along with space, but the system is not static but quasi-static…there is motion and change- the contribution of informational compexity like ourselves is not illusory.

    Rather what happens in our lives i(the collective “consciousness”) is in total over the universe as a whole the actual reason for the continuing existence over erernity of a universe of finite mass! Each cycle the thermal entropy of the universe increases slightly, but this thermal entropy is conserved- and preserved as a slight decrease in overall informational entropy…the universe slowly is becoming more complex.

    We are the very reason why it is possible for the universe to continue to exist as an observed entity!…a key part of the structure of the universe, which insures stability. Life can become or be unstable. Only 1% of the species of living organisms which have existed in the past, actually exist today, but overall life avances, ultimately by encouraging the development of high levels of conscious complexity.

    You spoke of “free will”. It does exist in this kind of universe, in fact and in a sense, the universe actually “wills” itself into continuing and more conscious existence (awareness of itself) by encouraging increasing informational complexity.

    The 33rpm record’s motion is periodic, but as the turn-table rotates each time, the needle returns to a slightly different location…there is a gradual shift in coordinates…making room for additional stored information on the record and greatly increasing its information-storing capacity.

    Obviously, the universe is neither a sandbar nor a record, but the geometry of the universe- and our technology- is replete with 1, 2, 3 and 4D projections of existence in a 7D cosmic structure.

  • Wayne

    Awesome, that’s exactly what I wanted to hear, and indeed exactly what I thought you were going to say.

    I feel a little sad looking in on physicists nowadays. Scientists have looked at religion for the past couple hundred years and thought, they’re missing some bigger picture. Religion lacks explanation of the observable processes in the cosmos that can be deterministically described. Now one must look at the results of modern scientists and think yet again, they’re missing something. This time they lack an explanation for the observable processes in the cosmos that are not able to be deterministically described.

    There arises some future where it is not religion in the sense that we know modern religion, nor science in the sense that we know modern science, that we find ourselves believing. We find that only with the wisdom of both can we truly understand the cosmos. We begin to think and understand in a way that is something else entirely, something novel.

    It is interesting that man has embraced religious belief for so many millennia before the realization of the deterministic, and science only a handful of centuries before the rediscovery of religion. It seems the spiral is tightening, that our understanding is arriving faster than it ever has.

    Whether or not this is to be our redemption remains to be seen. It is not redeeming if only a few understand this. I feel, however, that regardless of what is to come, catastrophic or otherwise, that the presence of those who do understand shall persist in their contribution, as complexity is valued and desirable indeed. More will see in time. As it has always been. As it will be.

    Wayne

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Wayne said,

    “There arises some future where it is not religion in the sense that we know modern religion, nor science in the sense that we know modern science, that we find ourselves believing. We find that only with the wisdom of both can we truly understand the cosmos. We begin to think and understand in a way that is something else entirely, something novel.”

    This process of synthesis you describe is very important in Math, chemistry, logic, in many other fields and of course cosmology, where we combine local Euclidean Special Relativity, Global, curved General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and the Schwarzschild geometry.

    Very quietly scientists are saying less and less about the notion that Quantum Mechanics might not be compatable with relativity, for all these concepts, and the geometry too are very predictive and conceptually deterministic. Few cosmological concepts share GR’s ability to predict the limits of its own predictive capacity!…about 33 places. Quantum Mechanics blends in with SR/GR in the exreme submicroscopic beautifully. It is interesting that as observed quantum stangeness diminishes with increasing scale, we find ourselves in a determinsitic GR manifold!

    What makes all this so powerful is its experimental veracity..we are not just “shooting off our mouths” when we discuss this.

    Religion is many things. It combines elements of ancient intuition, cultural ritual and has an inderent anthopological aspect which makes it a uniquely human institution. I don’t want you to miss what I semantically am referring to when I use the word “Anthropological” , a word which has a very academic “ring” to it. When I say “Anthopological”, I am referring to “Baboon Troop Psycho-Sexual Dynamics”…that rather nasty element of animal behavior which we often associate with politics. Logic and scientific skepticism are not usually associated with religion. Rather logic in theology is usually heavily biased and based on an attempt to justify faith in certain tenets.

    For these reasons, while I have studied Anthropology and am very interested in the intuitive aspect of religion, and philosophy for that matter, I think it is better to look to the natural sciences, with their extreme sketicism, and demand for experimental verification as we attempt to sketch out a potentially viable outline of a fundamental, consistent and essentially truthful religious concept.

    This is my opinion of course, but as you know, I believe what we know with some certainty about the universe points to the very real possibility of eternal life. What we know also indicates that life is particulate, not ghost-like, but that all information and complexity in the universe is entangled in the sub-microscopic , and that there may well be a servo-mechanism process in the universe which we see as serendipity…factors other than chance appearing and operating in our lives… as the result of the electomagnetic “collective consciousness” of all informational complexity.

    Just as we have a very personal relationship with the inorganic universe…we must live and work within its constraints or perish, we also have a potentially very personal relationship with the sum of all the conscious complexity in the universe.

    I believe that one of the great mistakes of religion has been to conceptually combine the engineering envelope constaints and parameters of the inorganic universe with the influence of the “collective consciousness”…for they are two different entities.

    The cosmic inorganic constaints and physical parameters operate completely and forcefully according to random chance. These are not any kind of a god at all…like Mount Everest, they are just “there”. It is this aspect of life in the universe which frightened early man out of his wits and gave rise to the idea of a vindictive diety of some kind.

    The quantum entangled collective consciousness, connected to all embedded particulate biological complexity, exists together struggles and has struggled to cope with the 2nd law within the cosmic mathematical parameters and physical constriants since eternity began…forever. This aspect of existence is likewise very personal…IE we have a very personal relationship with same and it can be a huge factor “other than chance” both in influencing our lives and controlling the future phylogenic development of the universe.

    We see life as developing from a “stew” of organic chamicals in the early seas of the Earth, and from our 4D frame of reference, we are absolutely correct.

    Cosmologically, we and everyrthing in the universe developed in quite another way. I started “here” at the “beginning” of eternity and you started “there” at the beginning of eternity. We each have personally developed from the inorganic universe until we became organic molecules and then the person we are.

    Gradually our lives have emerged from the womb and lengthened…NOT over cosmological time, but phylogenically over eternity itself. There may have been a time when I was still-born. Later, I died of Pneumonia as a 6 year old child. An eternity later, I was killed by a passing car in my teens. Still later over eternity, I died in a corporate plane crash. Today, I manage MS and Prostate cancer.

    My life is lengthening (probably rapidly initially and then more slowly). My developing consciousness is itself a measurement of eternity, untold numbers of universal pulses in the sub-microscopic…each one experienced by me- and you as space and time taking 100 billion years to elapse.

    We wonder why innocent children die, and the universe seems hard to understrand, but an eternity from now, that child may not die at this stage in their existence at all. What we observe in our world seems incomprehensible some times, yet in this 7D cosmic scenario, what we are observing is only a cross section of an eternal phylogenic process…neither the universe, nor us is ever “finished”. Who knows? An eternity from now, the United States may join the League of Nations and give financial aid to Europe after World War I…and Adolph Hitler will live out his life as an unknown paper hanger!

    Think of 2.8 trillion proper time pulses of the universe each Earth second in the sub-microscopic and then imagine each of these pulses being electomagnetically and consciously experienced in extreme gravitational time dilation as taking 100 billion years. When you do you will begin to get some idea of what eternity really is, what we are and mean to the universe and what existence in the universe really means (and should mean) to us.

  • Wayne

    That’s good stuff Sam. I’m going to feed this back to you in my own words to see if I’ve got this right, then ask a couple questions.

    2.8 trillion new cycles of the cosmos occur every moment, resulting in our present experience of reality. Our experience of reality in this present is only possible because these 2.8 trillion cycles occur each moment (all equally sized as the present cosmos which is severely time dilated by gravity [the same ~100 billion years]). So, our accumulated phylogenic evolution over these 2.8 trillion cycles of cosmos per second results in the experience we have in each passing moment. In a way, this is the best possible moment we could be experiencing in this cycle of the cosmos, since each cycle of the 2.8 trillion is a more complex and more ordered version of our consciousness than the ones before.

    Considering the present moment, we are also a cycle in the 2.8 trillion cycles per second of some higher form of ourselves. Some higher cosmos.

    I’m going to stop for a second. I’m tripping balls Sam, this is nuts. Beautiful, ecstatic, and so incredible I feel it’s too awesome to be true. Then when I remember that the cosmos is that awesome, it comforts me that it’s the closest to the truth of anything I’ve considered before. I knew I liked the idea when I first read about it on your site, but that this is blossoming in ways I didn’t think of before is quite soothing. Indeed the universe is not only stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think. The stranger we are able to think, if one considers strange to be totally incredible, awe-inspiring, and beautiful (which I do), then the more the cosmos becomes incredible, awe-inspiring, and beautiful. Whew. Wow.

    It’s incredible. It’s incredible because I’m feeling the resonances of what exactly this means in so many other beliefs. So many other interpretations of the cosmos, so many other beliefs about the cosmos are normally so distant each other it is difficult to entwine them together under a common understanding, even when we already know they should be entwined somehow.

    I’ve always thought of the cosmos as an eternal recombination of what has happened into something new, with a direction into something greater or higher or more complex than it was before. There must be some structure to it I thought, but how can you explain the structure of eternity. I feel this does quite a job at it.

    So where does the number 2.8 trillion come from again? If every passing moment is the result of evolution (transcendence and inclusion) over 2.8 trillion cycles of a “lower” cosmos (if I can call it that), then the amount our consciousness can develop each passing moment becomes limited to this number. But then again, we are also embedded in a higher cosmos in which this present is one of 2.8 trillion cycles, which isn’t really limiting at all. There certainly is no limitation to eternity.

    One other question that I could muster out of all that was this, for each of the 2.8 trillion cycles that make up our reality every moment, would you say that, in each of those cycles, there are 2.8 trillion cycles occurring for their every moment (all ~100 billion years of moments for all 2.8 trillion cycles)? So every single “level” of the cosmos would be evolving at all times, every moment. I think that’s right, just checking.

    Alright that’s all I can manage for now. Great stuff Sam.

    Wayne

  • John Merryman

    Sam,

    I sort of lose it with the last few paragraphs of your response to Wayne. I also feel we are a focus of some more elemental consciousness and our complexity is a result of very long term evolutionary processes, but that the integrative nature is more prosaic. That we are simply the linkage between what came before and what comes after. Eternity requires information construction and destruction as two sides of the same process, otherwise it would quickly overload on informational stasis and grind to a frozen state. This is why accumulation and storage of information has taken so long to evolve, since our lifetimes are optimal mutations toward necessary survival and reproduction, but the resulting constant loss of educational awareness make a larger structure of institutional stability hard to maintain. When you compare biological evolution and conscious technical evolution, our societies are culturally less evolved than dinosaurs were biologically evolved. Yes, dinosaurs had brains the size of a peanut and they functioned largely as subconscious reaction, but compare that to our governmental institutions and their general inability to transcend circumstance. Yes, we have mastered technology, but do our electro-mechanical devices really go much beyond the biological mechanisms that have traversed the surface of this planet for hundreds of millions of years? We like to think we are special and our abilities multiply by the decade, but consider the internet; It is essentially the central nervous system of an infant organism, just starting communication among millions of individual cells.
    So I don’t think it is so much a form of transmigration of individual souls through a variety of lives, but one large nascent organism and we are simply nerve and neuron cells trading packets of energy and information. This process consumes the old as it creates the new and memories of the past are little more than bleached bones, being nibbled away by small creatures looking for calcium. The information that is our defining individuality falls into the past, as the energy of consciousness proceeds into the future.

  • Wayne

    John, I don’t disagree with what you have to say, and I don’t think Sam would either. The discussion is concerning how it is we exist to begin with, what allows us to be present every moment, why we experience each moment the way that we do, and what it takes for that to arise. Finding a way to explain this in the realms of scientific models that has thus far been proven experimentally is where the 2.8 trillion pulse per second comes in.

    I think everything you said is a great description of what is going on each cycle of the cosmos, your words being a model or a description of how the cosmos unfolds. However, it is not where our description ends, for there is much more going on than that.

    I was going to try and explain the 2.8 trillion pulse per second, but as I wrote a response it seemed that the only way to understand it is to work it out oneself over time. I need to think about it all some more personally, give me a day or so and I’ll try and explain it the way I understand it. It’s tough stuff to see, but so worth it indeed. Think about it some more, try to think in much larger scales than just our one cosmos. Indeed, 2.8 trillion successive cycles of cosmos per second (each successive cycle tweaked a little based on the evolution of our consciousness over each cycle) giving rise to a single moment in another cosmos, some higher ordering of cosmos. Whew, it freaks me out just writing this. But it’s so awesome! Holy crap!

    Wayne

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    John said,

    “So I don’t think it is so much a form of transmigration of individual souls through a variety of lives, but one large nascent organism and we are simply nerve and neuron cells trading packets of energy and information. This process consumes the old as it creates the new and memories of the past are little more than bleached bones, being nibbled away by small creatures looking for calcium. The information that is our defining individuality falls into the past, as the energy of consciousness proceeds into the future.”

    I’ll write something for Wayne a bit later, but I wanted to point out again that the universe exists as it is observed, and the universe gives high priority to individual existence…with a certain necessary social relatedness. The very fact that invariant frames of reference are fundamental in the geometry implies the importance of individual existence at frames of reference which are modest in space/time/energy coordinates by comparison with the vastness of the structure as a whole.

    Look at what I said from the aspect of perspective. Viewing the structure of the universe from 4D on a complex set of particulate event horizon surfces, from a remote location in the manifold (at the center of the geometry), the gravitational accelerations and relativistic effects result in a certain cross-section of the universe- and a very real one. Consciousness in the universe is not like some giant all-encompasing Amoeba…it relates to individual particulate entities which are linked (entangled) only at the lowest levels of scale in the quantum Planck Realm.

    I recall that old science fiction movie where an Amoeba came from outer space and gradually started to devour all life on Earth! The generals decided to destroy it with an atomic bomb. When they did, baby Amoebas rained down over the whole world out of the mushroom cloud. The last scene of the movie was the horrified look on the generals faces when they realized their fate, and understood they had only discoverd how the thing reproduced! You and I are individuals. without our unique frame, our unique genetic heritage and our unique set of experiences in life, we would not and could not exist. The universe needs us as the particulate beings we are- and likewise values the unique frame of every other living thing in the universe, but even in 4D encourages social relatedness and interdependence!

    When I look at my desk, I look at one cross section of eternity. It is real because its frame is invariant…eternal. At the heart of my desk, every quark undergoes a proper time pulse 2.8 trillion times per second- forever, so in that sense, since the frame is invariant, and the pulses continue forever- that desk REALLY isn’t going anywhere!

    If I change my frame and view the desk remotely in space and time, I take not a single frame, but a set of frames and view the desk as a tree, being milled, constructed, existing on my desk and eventually being destroyed. That perspective is also valid.

    If I view the desk as a part of not a 4D but a 7D structure, I see the desk in a different way yet…as Oxygen, Hydrogen and Carbon atoms forming in the big bang and the hearts of stars. These atoms then gradually combine to form a desk, which then becomes Oxygen, Hydrogen and Carbon atoms again and goes back into the primordial black hole, where particle charge inversion occurs and the process repeats forever. This last perspective is justified also by the carefully verified models of the universe at our disposal.

    Each perspective is correct…each way of viewing my desk teaches us something very signifiicant about the nature of the universe- and its “n” dimensionality.

    I liked that last comment of yours that “the energy of consciousness proceeds into the future”. And HOW! From our frame, we remember the past and forget the future, but in this model, the universe and all it will be in the eternal future is already formed and eternally ahead of us. The single process time dimension prohibits our remembering the future- from our present coordinates. However, it can be seen from the model, that the future (and anything consciously directing it) is already an eternity ahead of us.

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Errata: “Existing AS my desk…etc”

  • John Merryman

    Wayne,

    I suppose my views are generally anthropocentric in the sense that while I try to be objective, it is a view that is encompassing of human reality, so my appreciation for the Planck realm is tempered by a concern for the various economic, ecologic and political tipping points we appear to be headed for and what insights might inform where we are headed. In that sense, what hundreds of millions of religiously motivated people believe is actually far more important than scientific speculations into other dimensions and other alternate realities. Whether it’s due to objective logic or subconscious bias, these outlooks all seem to have a beginning to end narrative structure and it is far more likely we will be subject to the effects of a self-fufilling end of civilization religious prophesy than be affected by the big crunch, disappearing universe, etc.

    Not to be too grumpy, just reading too much news…

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    John, I understand completely. I’m a religous person myself but I have personally seen the damage errant religion can do, and believe that any religous person should be advised to keep an open mind and refect carefully on the implications of what they are being taught….

    Wayne, the work below was done with the B-sub-s meson, but the context indicates a general phenomenon of this kind at the quark level is probable… The trace of the pulse (which generally resembles the astronomical power spectum), can be found posted on the Fermi site…Sam

    06-19

    September 25, 2006

    Media Contacts:
    Fermilab – Mike Perricone, mikep@fnal.gov, 630-840-3351

    For immediate release

    IT MIGHT BE…IT COULD BE…IT IS!!!

    Fermilab’s CDF scientists make it official: They have discovered the quick-change behavior of the B-sub-s meson, which switches between matter and antimatter 3 trillion times a second.

    BATAVIA, Illinois – Scientists of the CDF collaboration at the Department of Energy’s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory announced today (September 25, 2006) that they have met the exacting standard to claim discovery of astonishingly rapid transitions between matter and antimatter: 3 trillion oscillations per second.

    Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Undersecretary for Science in the U.S. Department of Energy, congratulated the CDF collaboration on the result.

    “This remarkable tour de force details with exquisite precision how the antiworld is tied to our everyday realm,” Dr. Orbach said. “It is a beautiful example of how, using increasingly sophisticated analysis, one can extract discovery from data from which much less was expected. It is a triumph for Fermilab.”

    The CDF discovery of the oscillation rate, marking the final chapter in a 20-year search, is immediately significant for two major reasons: reinforcing the validity of the Standard Model, which governs physicists’ understanding of the fundamental particles and forces; and narrowing down the possible forms of supersymmetry, a theory proposing that each known particle has its own more massive “super” partner particle.

    Many experiments worldwide have worked to perform high precision measurements of the behavior of matter and antimatter, especially as it pertains to strange, charm and bottom quarks. Scientists hope that by assembling a large number of precise measurements involving the exotic behavior of these particles, they can begin to understand why they exist, how they interact with one another and what role they played in the development of the early universe. Most importantly, they could also be the place in which to look for new physics beyond the Standard Model, which scientists believe is incomplete. Although none of these particles exists in nature today, they were, however, present in great abundance in the early universe. Thus, scientists can only produce and study them at large particle accelerators.

    With a talk at Fermilab on Friday, September 22, Christoph Paus of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, representing the CDF experiment, presented the discovery to the scientific community. The experimenters acquired their data between February 2002 and January 2006, an operating period known as Tevatron Run 2, where tens of trillions of proton-antiproton collisions were produced at the world’s highest-energy particle accelerator. The results have been submitted in a paper to Physical Review Letters.

    This first major discovery of Run 2 continues the tradition of particle physics discoveries at Fermilab, where the bottom (1977) and top (1995) quarks were discovered. Surprisingly, the bizarre behavior of the B_s (pronounced “B sub s”) mesons is actually predicted by the Standard Model of fundamental particles and forces. The discovery of this oscillatory behavior is thus another reinforcement of the Standard Model’s durability.

    “Scientists have been pursuing this measurement for two decades, but the convergence of capabilities to make it possible has occurred just now,” said CDF cospokesperson Jacobo Konigsberg of the University of Florida. “We needed to produce sufficient quantities to be able to study these particles in detail. That condition was met by the superb performance of the Tevatron. Then, with a process this fast, we needed extremely precise detectors and sophisticated analysis tools. Those conditions were met at CDF, along with the skill and contributions of a great team of people.”

    CDF physicists have previously measured the rate of the matter-antimatter transitions for the B_s meson, which consists of the heavy bottom quark bound by the strong nuclear interaction to a strange antiquark. Now they have achieved the standard for a discovery in the field of particle physics, where the probability for a false observation must be proven to be less than about 5 in 10 million (5/10,000,000). For CDF’s result the probability is even smaller, at 8 in 100 million (8/100,000,000).

    “Everyone in Fermilab’s Accelerator Division has worked hard to create the number of collisions that were required to reach this impressive result,” said Fermilab Director Pier Oddone. “We’re glad that CDF has been able to put these efforts to such good effect. This is one of the signature measurements for Run II, and as we collect several times the data already on hand, I have great expectations for future discoveries.”

    Determining the astonishing rate of 3 trillion oscillations per second required sophisticated analysis techniques. CDF cospokespersons Konigsberg and Fermilab’s Rob Roser explained that the B_s meson is a very short-lived particle. In order to understand its underlying characteristics, scientists have to observe how each particle decays to determine its true make-up.

    “Developing the software tools to make maximal use of the information in each collision takes time and effort,” said Roser, “but the rewards are there in terms of discovery potential and increased level of precision.”

    Many different theoretical models of how the universe works at a fundamental level will be now be confronted with the CDF discovery. The currently popular models of supersymmetry, for example, predict a much higher transition frequency than that observed by CDF, and those models will need to be reconsidered.

    Marvin Goldberg, Division of Physics program director of the National Science Foundation, emphasized the collaborative role of the experimenters.

    “This result reminds us that discoveries in particle physics require the coherent efforts of many people as well as advanced physical infrastructure,” Goldberg said. “By combining the luminosity of the Tevatron, the precision of the CDF detector and the intellectual prowess of the international CDF collaboration with sophisticated data analysis, this remarkable result from a remarkable effort will advance our understanding of the way the universe works.”

    To further advance that understanding, Roser, Konigsberg and their colleagues continue to seek phenomena that are not predicted by the Standard Model. The prize would be a discovery of new physics.

    “While the B_s oscillation discovery was one of the benchmark results that we wanted from the Tevatron,” said Roser, “we still have more than half the data from Run 2 waiting to be analyzed. We’re looking forward to more results, and we’re always hoping for surprises.”

    CDF is an international experiment of 700 physicists from 61 institutions and 13 countries. It is supported by DOE, NSF and a number of international funding agencies (the full list can be found at http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/collaboration/Funding_Agencies.html). With the Tevatron, the world’s highest-energy particle accelerator, in 1995 the CDF and DZero collaborations discovered the top quark, the final and most massive quark in the Standard Model.

    Fermilab is a Department of Energy Office of Science national laboratory operated under contract by Universities Research Association, Inc.

    Graphic: The figure shows the CDF measurement of the B_s oscillation frequency at 2.8 trillion times per second. The analysis is designed such that possible oscillation frequencies have an amplitude consistent with 1.0 while those not present in the data will have an amplitude consistent with zero. Image courtesy CDF collaboration.

    InterAction Collaboration media contacts:

    Fermilab, US: Mike Perricone, 630-840-3351, mikep@fnal.gov
    INFN, Italy: Barbara Gallavotti, + 39 06 6868162 (office), + 39 335 6606075 (cell phone), + 39 06 6868162 (fax), Barbara.Gallavotti@presid.infn.it
    High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Japan: Youhei Morita, + 81 029 8796047, + 81 029 8796049 (fax), youhei.morita@kek.jp
    IN2P3-CNRS, France: Dominique Armand, + 33 01 44 96 47 51, darmand@admin.in2p3.fr
    Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia: Boris Starchenko, + 7 096 221 6 38 24, irinak@jinr.ru
    Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC), United Kingdom: Peter Barratt, + 44 (0) 1793 442025, + 44 (0) 787 602 899 (mobile), peter.barratt@pparc.ac.uk
    Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, California, USA: Ron Kolb, + 1 510 486 7586, rrkolb@lbl.gov
    CDF institutions:
    1. Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan
    2. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois
    3. Institut de Fisica d’Altes Energies (IFAE-Barcelona), Spain
    4. Baylor University, Waco, Texas
    5. Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts
    6. University of California at Davis, Davis, CA
    7. University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
    8. University of California at San Diego, San Diego, CA
    9. University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA
    10. Instituto de Fisica de Cantabria, CSIC-University of Cantabria, 39005 Santander, Spain
    11. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
    12. University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
    13. Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
    14. Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
    15. Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, Illinois
    16. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
    17. University of Geneva, Switzerland
    18. Glasgow University, United Kingdom
    19. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
    20. University of Helsinki, Finland
    21. University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois
    22. INFN, University of Bologna, Italy
    23. INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Italy
    24. INFN Sezione di Padova, Universita di Padova, Italy
    25. INFN, University and Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa, Italy
    26. INFN, University di Roma I, Italy
    27. INFN, Trieste, Italy, and Universita di Udine, Italy
    28. IPP, Institute of Particle Physics, McGill University, Montréal, Canada
    29. University of Toronto, Canada
    30. ITEP, Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
    31. The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
    32. Universitaet Karlsruhe, Germany
    33. National Laboratory for High Energy Physics (KEK), Tsukuba, Japan
    34. The Center for High Energy Physics(CHEP) Kyungpook National University, Seoul National University, and SungKyunKwan University, Korea
    35. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Berkeley, California
    36. University of Liverpool, United Kingdom
    37. University College London, United Kingdom
    38. CIEMAT, Madrid, Spain
    39. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, Massachusetts
    40. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan
    41. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
    42. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico
    43. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
    44. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
    45. Osaka City University, Japan
    46. Okayama University, Japan
    47. University of Oxford, United Kingdom
    48. LPNHE and CNRS-IN2P3 – Paris, France
    49. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    50. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    51. Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
    52. University of Rochester, Rochester, New York
    53. Rockefeller University, New York, New York
    54. Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey
    55. Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas
    56. Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts
    57. University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
    58. Waseda University Tokyo, Japan
    59. Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan
    60. University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
    61. Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut

    Return to Current Press Releases

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Hi Wayne,

    Thanks. It really is an interesting concept…actually more of a cosmic vision. I tried to include some further reflections in my note to John.

    Sam

  • John Merryman

    Sam,

    I’m not completely knocking a particulate view of reality, just trying to put it in context.

    If I view the desk as a part of not a 4D but a 7D structure, I see the desk in a different way yet…as Oxygen, Hydrogen and Carbon atoms forming in the big bang and the hearts of stars. These atoms then gradually combine to form a desk, which then becomes Oxygen, Hydrogen and Carbon atoms again and goes back into the primordial black hole, where particle charge inversion occurs and the process repeats forever. This last perspective is justified also by the carefully verified models of the universe at our disposal.

    Think of the history of your desk as a tree, with its trunk and branches in the past, where we can see them and the roots in the future where we can’t see them. All the parts draw together into the trunk of the desk and the present is the plane between air and ground. What we have is a bottleneck of the desk, but there are innumerable other desks and trees and bottlenecks out there, all coming together and pulling back apart.
    Now what you are arguing is that there is one grand bottleneck out of which we came and another into which we fall and I’m saying that ain’t so. It is an inifinite sea of bottlenecks, some much bigger than others, but even if we propose the biggest universe-swallowing bottleneck of them all, it still exists in some larger matrix of other bottlenecks and trying to argue otherwise requires extreme stretches of logic, such as Inflation Theory. As I’ve argued, the default absolute is the void out of which the network of sandbars emerge as the water drops, not one singular peak/node from which we have all descended.

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Hi John,

    Thanks for your note. I completely understand your point of view. My main concern was that I didn’t come across too strongly re my point of view on religion. Being raised in a very devout home, I fully respect the positive aspects of religous faith very much. However I have seen religous fanaticism really hurt vulnerable people, and I urge all my friends and family to be as discerning as possible in matters of faith and religous philosophy.

    The information about the matter- antimatter occillations was posted as a discovery by Fermi in October 06. While the experiments were confined to the quarks of a single particle, the write-up made it clear that what was learned probably reflected a general principle of the universe, and was predicted by the Standard Model.

    Sam

  • John Merryman

    Sam,

    I’ve long had a suspician that the anti-matter anomaly could be resolved within the context of the microcosmic and didn’t require it to be in some other realm/dimension. From my perspective, it further re-enforces the concept that reality is a function of activity and motion, rather than just little particles bouncing around. The network as much or more than the nodes.

    Being raised as a minimally church going Episcopalian, my religious views tend to be based more on personal experience. I would describe myself as more of a pantheist, than monotheist. That is because there is some elemental basis of biology that we are nowhere near explaining. The question of whether material reality is particle based, or field based is difficult enough to decipher, so whether consciousness is particle based or field based is a further question. Since I’m of the opinion that the physical is field based more so than modern science is willing to go, the same questions arise with consciousness.

  • Wayne

    Now what you are arguing is that there is one grand bottleneck out of which we came and another into which we fall and I’m saying that ain’t so. It is an inifinite sea of bottlenecks, some much bigger than others, but even if we propose the biggest universe-swallowing bottleneck of them all, it still exists in some larger matrix of other bottlenecks and trying to argue otherwise requires extreme stretches of logic, such as Inflation Theory.

    I would say that in imagining what a 7D desk looks like, we are considering in this case the desk as a particulate, one 7D particulate cross section, which essentially is one single moment in space and time where the desk exists as a desk, and all past events resulting in the desk, and all future events that occur following the existence of the desk. There is a white whole at the left exploding all of time, space, and events (resulting in oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon atoms and all energy required to make the desk) into a desk at the moment we are cross sectioning, and a black hole at the right slowly pulling them back into the primordial. Remember, we are taking one cross section in 7D of this particulate, the desk in the moment it exists as a desk. Nothing else.

    I completely agree that there are an infinite see of particulate cross sections that behave this way within the universe. When you say the universe itself is also connected to an infinite see of bottlenecks, I can kind of agree with this, but regardless, when you consider the whole of the cosmos, you must consider the whole thing as particulate as well, behaving in the same white hole to black hole type evolution. This is cosmology, the big bang to big crunch, or big dissolution, whatever causes us to return to the primordial and repeat the cycle, looking at the universe itself as particulate just as we look at all particulate cross sections within the universe.

    John, I’m just as upset about the shite state of affairs on this planet as you, or Sam, or any other mindful being is on this planet. We all know we’re on the boundaries of something big, good or bad, or inevitably, both. I follow the news more closely than I ever have in my life, and resonances occurring in the present with the past are staggering.

    In my defense of using discussion like this to at the very least boost our own comfortability in understanding the cosmos, it is evolution in itself. We are wishing to become comfortable with the cosmos, so that we may act in absolute clarity, utter fluidity, with no distractions or obstacles that arise from a lack of comfort with ourselves and our environment. We are all hurtling through this life attempting to achieve some state of peace to live in, and this state of peace, at least for fellows like us, takes discussing the Planck realm and 7D Schwarzchild geometry. I would say that humans, and indeed all of evolution, is particulate forms and beings drawing themselves into some new state of equilibrium where we can observe the universe unobstructed, undeterred by the universe itself.

    We, as humans, are only able to act most efficiently when our minds are in some state of peace or comfort, that’s what’s allowed American technology to skyrocket in the past two hundred years, we aren’t hungry, or worried about climate, or worried that we’ll be killed at any moment. Just enough comfort breeds advancement, too much comfort breeds apathy. We are in a state of too much comfort, which is why our education system, our government, and our quality of life for our children and even ourselves has decayed. The tide is about to turn. Every one of us feels it.

    In all of this, however, if we can achieve some peace in our own lives, and try to simply be peaceful, clear-headed, and concentrated- others around us will be influenced to feel the same way. It’s not a show, or an act, it is knowing that we are at peace because we know that whatever terrors are to come are going to happen whether we are frantic or calm about it. We all feel fear or upset when everyone else feels fear or upset. It takes the stronger willed to show everyone else to be collected in the face of hardship that leads the struggling to equilibrium again. This is the way the cosmos has unfolded forever, and forever more. Utter pandemonium, to utter peace, lather rinse repeat.

    The key is realizing that we are dipping into disarray, and then prepare for it by doing just what I said, being calm and concentrated as examples for all those who don’t quite see the trend. Doing this is one more iteration of complexity and order, knowing what has come in the past, and consciously changing the future by acting on what we remember. Indeed, we remember much more that simply what has happened since our conception. We have an eternity of experience on our side. It is a comforting thought.

    Sam, could you get back to me about where the 2.8 trillion pulse number comes from? And also, does each pulse or cycle experience the 2.8 trillion pulse in each of their respective moments? Since each pulse is itself a full blown 100 billion year cycle in it’s own frame?

    Last thing, I would venture that duality has much to do with the nature of the cosmos. In this, matter becomes particulate and field based, as does consciousness. I don’t feel that there are always equal parts of both, but that the cosmos is always in a state of these parts being in a back and forth with each other, always drawing into the equilibrium, giving rise to our experiences.

    Thanks guys. Remember John, we’re all discussing this for a reason, it’s what we take from our discussions and experiences, how much we are paying attention and interacting with the present that will allow brighter futures.

  • John Merryman

    Wayne,

    It’s difficult to tie everything I’m thinking into a few paragraphs, so I wasn’t taking you to task for your focus on the cosmos, but that the Big Bang/Big Crunch chronology is emblematic of a particularly monolithic thought process which tends to see reality as a singular unit, rather than unitary, which as I pointed out to Sam, are completely different concepts. This tendency to confuse unitary with a unit, is a source of social conflict as we assume our political and religious constructs must be ideals that apply to everyone else, rather than mutations from a basic state. We all do focus, as that is how the brain functions. The problem is when large groups all focus on the same thing and the resulting mass movement has nothing to balance it and becomes destablizing. Cosmology does have a tendency to trumpet what it sees as confirmation of its theories and given bottlenecks are a primary defining factor of reality, it isn’t hard to patch together a convincing argument the entire universe is between two of them. In its confidence though, it does tend to plaster over inconsistancies with whatever logical compromise it takes to fill the gap.

    The matter/anti-matter relationship is more logical as polarities than actual particles.

    Time is not a passage from left to right, front to back or any other direction. It is a method for measuring the rate of motion, just as temperature is. As a measure of motion, any direction is relative. To the hands of the clock, the face is going counterclockwise. Past and future do not physically exist because the energy is in a state of constant change and the passage of time are the series of forms it describes. As energy goes from past form to future ones, these states go from being in the future to being in the past. As our physical brain moves into the future, our mind is a record of the events receding into the past.
    Much that we consider permanent; institutions, currencies, religions, theories, etc., is going to turn to dust and we will pick up the pieces and build something new.

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Hi John and Wayne,

    I’ve been following your ideas carefully and they are interesting. It is really clear that Wayne understands the 7D idea fully. Wayne, check the Fermi website and look at its press releases from October 06. Although the quarks of one particle were specifically evaluated, it is clear from the writeup that the character of the whole universe at the quark level of scale is at issue.

    Femi people and scientists in the know are very excited about this field discovery…as Wayne noted, papers are appearing. This is a field discovery, NOT a paper or something. The Hadron equipment will further explore this aspect of the basic units of particulate existence later this year and into the more distant future, I am sure.

    The tracing of the occillation is shown on the release and is enlargable right on the Fermi posting. Compare that tracing with the Astronomical power spectrum trace on Ned Wrights website!

    One final comment. Ones’ life…our period of existence, in this model, takes on a new significance, not just structurally because we are an eternal,important part of the universe, but most importanly, for ourselves, humanity at large and the total ecosystem.

    The decisons we make, the attitudes we have and as Wayne mentions, our state of mind in general are very important. John Kennedy said: “God’s work on Earth must truly be our own”. He hit the nail on the head. The peoples of the world, with each of us doing our small part, can either make our perpetual existence a kind of heaven, or we can personally and collectively construct our own hell.

    Love kindness and peace are NOT the esotric bublings of idiots with their heads in the clouds…these are to be personal and collective goals for all mankind. Our eternal security, satisfaction, happiness and peace depend upon the achievement of these goals.

    Sam

  • John Merryman

    Sam,

    It is still a study in opposites. The world to come will have to endure birthing pains.
    Love, kindness, happiness are the expansion of the spirit, yet it’s the contractions that punctuate history.

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    John said,

    “It is still a study in opposites. The world to come will have to endure birthing pains.”

    I completely agree John. If I could make a wish, impossible for the universe to grant though it is, I would not wish for money, love, position or power, but rather that I could understand what I understand about the nature of the universe now, as an old man- when I am young. One of my first memories is chasing my younger brother around the house and glancing in the mirror on my parents dresser. I stopped briefly, looked in the mirror and recognized myself for the first time. My main reaction; I wondered why I was so young, but not for long! I continued my game of tag- into eternity.

    Young people need, desperately need compassion, acceptance, knowledge and wisdom, and they need it early and effectively transmitted. I guess what I really am wishing for are good parents, mentors and trained, effective teachers. Mine I would give only a “B”, but my situation was “A+” compared to that of many young people around the world. Perhaps the universe will eventually rectify that situation.

    I was sitting across the table at “Applebees” the other evening from one of my 18 grandchildren, in his teens. Most of the 9 of us were laughing and having a great time eating our baby back ribs, but he was distracted and ill at ease. He was obviously surprised that I read his feelings, and was very relieved when I looked him straight in the eye and told him that his grandpop and grandmom loved him very much, thought about him all the time, and were very concerned about his well being.

    The Japanese say that childhood is like the spingtime…an appropriate observation. Each part of our lives has its own challenges, headaches and dangers. The universe is constructed in such a way that we experience existence that way. However, it is much easier I think, to face eternity with the support of ones friends and family, some understanding and wisdom gleaned from years of experience and education- and above all, a little optimism!

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Errata…

    The date on that Fermi press release was 9/25/06

    The address is: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/press_releases/CDF_meson.html

    The tracing is of the overall occillation frequency…NOT a profile of overall quark/antiquark occillation behavior.

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Errata…

    The date on that Fermi press release was 9/25/06

    The tracing is of the overall occillation frequency…NOT a profile of overall quark/antiquark occillation behavior.

  • John Merryman

    Sam,

    I’m in the same boat. Lots of times we look up and wonder why it isn’t better and sometimes we look down and are glad it isn’t worse.
    I guess I’m in this conversation because after a lifetime of reverse engineering reality, trying to figure out what could be done better, I find the same conflict between a reductionistic and linear human viewpoint in a wholistic and relative reality where our obsession with specifics blinds us to the consequences of our action. Short term thinking defeats long term planning. I’m somewhat resigned to the fact that that’s just the way things work, but I do see an opportunity with the coming financial meltdown and the political instability it will cause to try and inject a few very basic memes into the larger conversation. Specifically that money is actually a form of public utility, like a road system and if we were to begin thinking of it as such, we might begin treating it as such, which would instill a natural balance between rights and responsibilities. Suffice to say, the situation hasn’t gone much past the denial stage yet, so considering new ways of thinking is still some distance in the future. Not that anyone will listen even then, but not because I didn’t try.
    So I’m mostly using my limited interneting time to argue some of the more esoteric aspects of this disconnect between what is western absolutism and eastern dualism. Or possibly between Plao’s ideals and Aristotle’s reasoning. As much as modern physics has incorporated relativity, I still see a subversive vein of absolutism in the need to objectify process. We created an all-knowing God and now that we killed it, we want to replace it by knowing everything ourselves. To do this we assume everything must exist for us to find it, so time must be a permanent dimension in which all information remains locked, rather than a process which destroys as it creates. A big part of what you know was the journey of finding it, then losing it and finding it again, maybe from a slightly different perspective that put the original knowledge in a totally different light. You can’t pass that kind of knowledge onto the young, they have to do the journey themselves. That’s the problem with objectifying reality; we think there is some final destination, but it’s entirely about the journey. Those matter antimatter particles are polarities that don’t exist otherwise. A final destination would be like absolute zero; nothing. Flatline.
    As somebody famous once put it, it’s better to teach someone to fish than to give them a fish.

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    John said,

    “A big part of what you know was the journey of finding it, then losing it and finding it again, maybe from a slightly different perspective that put the original knowledge in a totally different light. You can’t pass that kind of knowledge onto the young, they have to do the journey themselves. That’s the problem with objectifying reality; we think there is some final destination, but it’s entirely about the journey.”

    I appreciated all of what you said, but I think the above pretty much summarizes things.

    It is true that everyones frame of reference is different and frame of reference is never perfectly repeated- even in 7D and up. My grandchildren have a quite different genetic endowment and a very different set of life circumstances. We all are kind of “stuck” with what we have, and have to live life for ourselves. We don’t feel paralyzed, but the nature of the social and natural universe indicates that any real prerogatives we as individuals may have are quite limited.

    Yet the biosphere is a study in interdependence, social relations are a study in interdependence, and even the inorganic universe itself is an entangled lesson in related interdependence. We all can and should play our part, however small. Free will is NOT an illusion in the quasi-static model…it is an intergral part of the process which keeps the universe stable by phylogenic development and a gradually increasing trend in overall complexity of information.

    For others following this thread who are also aware of the Fermi discovery of matter-antimatter occillations, I would like to point out that the results of this fieldwork work indicate not only occillations of a certain specific frequency, but synchronicity in this behavior, which is also predicted as a general characterisitic of the universe by the Standard Model.

    The fact that the universe acts in a predictable (and synchronous) way so deep in the quantum realm has profound significance.

  • John Merryman

    Sam,

    Yet the biosphere is a study in interdependence, social relations are a study in interdependence, and even the inorganic universe itself is an entangled lesson in related interdependence. We all can and should play our part, however small. Free will is NOT an illusion in the quasi-static model

    The reason life doesn’t have meaning is because meaning is static and reductionistic, while life is dynamic and wholistic. It is all about integrated purpose. We pull back on the string of the cosmos as much as they pull on us. Without this interdependence, we would have no use for anything else and everything else would have no use for us.

    For others following this thread who are also aware of the Fermi discovery of matter-antimatter occillations, I would like to point out that the results of this fieldwork work indicate not only occillations of a certain specific frequency, but synchronicity in this behavior, which is also predicted as a general characterisitic of the universe by the Standard Model.

    I wonder if this has anything to do with the earth flipping its polarity every several thousand years?

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Hi John,

    “I wonder if this has anything to do with the earth flipping its polarity every several thousand years?”

    I wouldn’t think directly, but such behavior is dimensionally projective. It’s like the waterfall, which exists as an entity at a fixed position, yet the water flowing over it is dynamic, has momentum and reflects the continuous action of the periodic water cycle…evaporation, condensation, precipitation, runoff and again evaportation. Of course waterfalls are not completely invariant in their location either, they generally gradually shift upstream…projective of gradual coordinate shift in this quasi-static model. Our world is filled with 1,2,3 and 4D projections of the higher dimensional structure…and of course, this is to be geometrically expected. All that we observe is but a thin cross-section of reality. We think the universe we observe is awesome, but if we could observe the universe as it actually exists, it would blow us away…

  • John Merryman

    Sam,

    Our brains model reality as reductionist dimensional structures because we could not process the amount of input otherwise. It’s static modeling of dynamic reality. Science is determined to develop a static description of reality. A God’s eye view. There is no such “universe as it actually exists.”

    I tend toward a feral view of informational complexity. What can be created, will also be destroyed.

  • John Merryman

    In other words, it does blow us away.

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Hi John,

    The double meaning was intended!…Sam

  • John Merryman

    Sam,

    I know you understand how opposites define reality, the two sides of the merry-go-round going opposite directions, the water going downstream, as the falls works its way upstream, but I’m still trying to make the point that the dimensional description of reality is a static model, not the actual basis of reality and it doesn’t effectively describe the consequences of a dynamic process.
    It is natural to think of time as a dimension. It is the basis of narrative, but as the physicists like to point out, perception and reality are not always the same thing.

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    John,

    It’s clear you understand the concept quite well, and remembered that I said that the whole basis of existence in this kind of a universe is the observation of “action” on a complex set of particulate 4D event horizon surfaces at a specific set of coordinates in the manifold…therefore talking about observing the whole structure as blowing us away was an oxymoron (I won’t check it, but I think that’s the word)…an impossibility. Observing the while thing would be like being 250 feet from an exploding 100 megaton nuke!…just a flash of light- no experience at all!

    I believe one of the secrets of staying “open” is not taking ourselves too seriously…being able to have a good laugh, and appreciate what Stephen Hawking said even more…”The universe just IS”. Understanding the universe might bring some kind of personal satisfaction and lead to a great technology, but so what? In the end, those things exist somewhere in the manifold anyway. I don’t think these great scientific triumphs are any more cosmologically significant than the first reproducing organism, or the first organic molecule. When we measure anything, the units we select and what we observe are in a sense arbitrary- related only to the way the universe is observed from an assigned or selected frame.

    I don’t doubt you for a minute when you observe that there seems to be something very special about time as opposed to the other spatial dimensions. I think however that the fact that treating time as spacelike in GR gives precise solutions IS significant. If time, as stange as it seems to us, really had a different “essence” we would logically expect that using time as a simple spacelike dimension in GR would affect the predictive capacity of the concept- and it does not.

    Relativity is totally incredible…

  • John Merryman

    Sam,

    The point I’ve been making is that time is a consequence of motion, rather than the basis for it. Yes, the relationship is mathematically precise, but than so is the relationship between temperature and volume space, but we don’t argue temperature is an additional parameter of volume space, as we argue that time is an additional dimension of distance space.

    The difference between viewing time as a consequence of motion, rather than the basis for it is that as motion forms specific configurations, it then changes to new configurations. So to the extent that reality would simply be energy defining space, the events being created go from future potential to past circumstance. Therefore, as a measure and description of motion, rather than the basis for it, the series of events called time actually goes future to past, as the physical reality goes the other way, from past events to future ones.

    As I’ve pointed out, this affects various conundrums from Zeno’s Paradox to the Uncertainty Principle, since it would be meaningless to describe the present as a point because this would be equivalent to a temperature of absolute zero and reality would cease to exist.

    Just as the water goes downhill and the waterfall goes uphill, to the hands of the clock, it is the face that is going counterclockwise, from future to past. As the earth and sun go from past days to future ones, these days go from being in the future to being in the past. Even a vibrating string goes from past vibrations to future ones, as these vibrations which define it go from being in the future to being in the past. Energy goes past to future, as the information defining it goes from future to past.

  • http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/ Sam Cox

    Hi John,

    I wanted to tell you I have to have the second spinal operation in six months (for a thoracic disc herniation I got doing heavy lifting overseas) later this week.

    So, I’ll look in on the blog as I can, but my participation will be more “off and on” for a while. I find participation on Sean’s blog to be very informative, interesting and a real pleasure!

    Best, Sam

  • John Merryman

    Sam,

    I hope all goes well. Good luck with the operation.

  • Wayne

    Indeed, best of luck Sam. May you return to us in good health.

    Wayne

  • Pingback: Have a Thermodynamically Consistent Christmas | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine()

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Cosmic Variance

Random samplings from a universe of ideas.

About Sean Carroll

Sean Carroll is a Senior Research Associate in the Department of Physics at the California Institute of Technology. His research interests include theoretical aspects of cosmology, field theory, and gravitation. His most recent book is The Particle at the End of the Universe, about the Large Hadron Collider and the search for the Higgs boson. Here are some of his favorite blog posts, home page, and email: carroll [at] cosmicvariance.com .

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »