The SR, GR and QM universe is so logically counterintuitive, it seems almost anythng could be true. Intuition is important in conceptualizing, of course, but relying on intuition, or worse, common sense, can be like building ones house on the sand!

Actually it’s not counterintuitive. The intellectual mind is a linear narrative, so describing time as a linear dimension is profoundly intuitive. In fact, it is Edgar Allen Poe, the narrativist, who is given credit for first proposing space and ‘duration’ are the same effect. The primary artifacts of our collective inquiry, from the Bible to Big Bang Theory, are build on this beginning to end construct. So saying it’s all ‘written in stone’ is a logical conclusion, but doesn’t this quantum decoherence across time contradict the principle that energy is neither lost, necessarily to the past, or gained, necessarily from the future?
The basic principle of relativity is that neither the point of reference, or the frame of reference is absolute, but that they move relative to one another. The scenery moves past you, as you move through it. But somehow it becomes my hobby horse when I try applying this very basic principle to the apparent dimension of time and observe that events go from being in the future to being in the past, as the content of this dimension goes from past to future, yet it is perfectly logical to propose multiple universes in order to explain this one.
So, yes, I do wonder who is crazy.

Appreciate the clarifications, thanks.

The interesting thing about the explanation for Time’s Arrow is that it points to bizarre constructs such as other universes and time moving backward (all clearly well beyond what we see and observe in this universe). Similarly, String Theory points to ELEVEN dimensions and parallel universes.

To me, this leaves the door wide open for a Spiritual dimension to our existence.

A1: I wrote that more as a way of analogy. However, one can work general relativity with complex variables or higher up with quaternions. In a more direct way complex variables play a central role in quantum mechanics.

A2: The branch cut is a discontinuity associated usually with the integration of a function around a pole.

A3: This is a subtle issue. If you look at the 1984 paper by Hawking & Hartle they compute the amplitude for a transition to a deSitter space using complex variables. They do some pretty ornate integrations by “skating on the complex plane.” So behind the scenes complex variables do play a role, particularly when quantum mechanics is thrown into the mix.

A4: We don’t sense imaginary quantities directly, but we can infer them. A wheel rolling on a flat surface might be one analogue of this, where with every 2-pi rotation it marks out an equal length. In electronically modulated music where there is a phase shift in a note is close to an example. Another is a note where the harmonics which make it up are modulated. This gives the auditory perception of an sequence of notes ascending a scale, but it never really does. It is an acoustical analogue of the Escher drawing of the cyclical waterfall or monks climbing a staircase that closes on itself. The illusion is an artifact of projecting down to two dimensions, and we know that there must be something similar to a branch cut which creates a stack of these staircases linked together to make sense in three dimensions. In such projections there is a “blow up of a point” which plays a role similar to a singularity.

These waves are classical waves, though mathematically we often write them according to complex variables. The analyst then does a “take the real part” at the end. Quantum waves are complex valued, but observable aspects of QM are determined by the modulus square of these wave functions.

A5: The model is really purely mathematical. If it has some applicability to physics it is used.

Lawrence B. Crowell

LOL. We all feel the need to push the envelope, without popping it. Problem is, eventually it does pop and we are continually picking up the pieces and trying figure out how they went together, if they ever did go together. As the old saying goes; Open a can of worms and you need a bigger can to get them back in. It’s all about the journey, because there is no destination.

The SR, GR and QM universe is so logically counterintuitive, it seems almost anythng could be true. Intuition is important in conceptualizing, of course, but relying on intuition, or worse, common sense, can be like building ones house on the sand!

By the way, everything you say and do…your thoughts and expressions, are important in a determinstic universe. What you write, you literally write “in stone”. What we believe may be inconsistent- or consistent- with the nature of reality, but somehow it has a place in the overall process of discovery.

I’m reminded of the really weird ideas of Sir Isaac Newton on religion, and the strange ideas of Hoyle and Dirac. Their strange ideas were just a part of their being human. Everybody, including non-scientists, has strange ideas. In a way, we “brainstorm” our way through life! Our life makes sense to us, at our frame of reference, but to others we seem, at least- different! I’m reminded of the old Pennsylvania Dutch saying: “I think everybody is crazy but me and thee…and sometimes I wonder about thee!”

Since you did read it, I’ll let it slide. Like everything else, our thoughts and expressions end up fading away fast enough anyway.

The issue of deity, I suppose, is how we deal with that.

My current email, which Sean has, is samacox@comcast.net. I made a brief reply to your note and saw it was not on the thread…but no big deal. I was just basically agreeing with your feelings about momentum. I already said my piece about diety, which of course is the subject here…

The thread continues to be interesting…