Unified Field: Wave Equations, Standing Waves, Entropy & Dark Matter

[Russell E. Rierson]

When y(x,t) is the transverse displacement of a vibrating string, y(x,t) can be determined by the wave equation

[@^2y/@t^2] = v^2[ @^2 y/@x^2] , where @ denotes the partial derivative symbol.

Standing waves can be set up in an 1-dimensional string, analogous to that in a violin string. The form of the standing wave becomes y(x,t) = psi(x) sin (wt)

Two sinusoidal traveling waves with the same amplitude and wavelength moving in opposite directions on a string, become resonating "standing waves":

y(x,t) = y1(x,t) + y2(x,t) = Asin(kx - wt) + Asin(kx + wt) = [2Asin(kx)]*cos(wt).

As the entropy continues to increase in the universe, and if the universe is a closed system, the entropy may be considered to be the result of a "damping force". This damping force may also be one possible solution to the dark matter enigma.

Solve the Schwarzschild solution for the entire universe, since the universe can be postulated to be a closed system with nothing outside itself. The condition of "nothingness" leads one to ask "What are the properties of nothingness?" Of course there are no measurable properties, but nothingness in itself must be a type of massless solid. A condition that has no distance - metric scales. In other words, there is no outside to the universe, no measurable border between something and nothing.

Nothing then becomes analogous to a perfectly symmetrical pressure force on the surface of existence.

-(F)^2 ---->|U|<---- +(F)^2

Simple harmonic oscillation given by the equation (F)^2 = -(K*X)^2

What is K ? What is X ?

U stands for universe. So it becomes reasonable to assume that the entire universe is analogous to that which is inside the event horizon of a black hole. The cosmos becomes a quantum superposition of states, collapsing under the crushing force of "nothingness".

Analytically continue the Schwarzschild solution to the imaginary values of the time variable. The Schwarzschild solution becomes periodic in the imaginary time direction.

All waves would then be standing waves in the closed universe. A Schrodinger wave equation in one dimension is of the form:

d^2 psi/dx^2 + (2m/hbar^2) [E - U(x)] psi(x)

U(x) is the potential energy and E is the total energy.

psi(x) is the wave function for a state in which the energy E is constant in time. Such states are called stationary states. Certain definite vibration frequencies are allowed multiples of fundamental wavelengths

lambda = h/p

|psi(x)|^2 dx, is the probability of finding a particle(universe) in a certain state between the region x and x+dx

psi^2 = psi psi* . When psi is complex, psi* is the complex conjugate of psi. psi^2 (x) is the probability density.

An equation for the damped oscillator in one dimension:

X = A[exp[-(b/2m)t]]*cos[wt + theta]

Why not describe Einstein's equation as a rule that tells the geometry of space how to evolve as function of time? Lorentzian manifolds M, diffeomorphic to R x S, where the manifold S represents space, and t, an element of R, represents time. So spacetime is sliced into instants of time as an arbitrary choice, or possibly boundary limits, imposed by Planck's constant.

F: M---> R x S

Spacetime becomes quantized or "sliced up" but that could be what nature really does. According to relativity, an objects position and momentum can only be defined with respect to a frame of reference, i.e. another object. Yet the universe as a whole has no frame of reference outside of itself, so how can its momentum be defined? It can only be defined with reference to itself. Worldlines fill up spacetime and the criss crossing of world lines mark events beyond the need for coordinate systems or coordinates. Points in spacetime are given the name "events" so there is a coordinate independence.

The geometric view of physics means that the laws of physics are the same in every Lorentz reference system. Local Lorentz invariance. But since the universe has no exterior reference frame, and it must refer to itself, its world line intersects with itself. This quantized-evolution of spacetime dictated by GR and QM, means that the world line of the past intersects with the world lines of the present, for the universe. A geometric stacking of space like slices, parameterized by t, The universe is a function of itself. Spacetime becomes compressed. As the time evolution proceeds in the thermodynamic direction of t, the space like sheets continually increase in density. The information storage of space time.

(->(->(->(U)<-)<-)<-)

This increasing refractive spacetime density must be background independent. The increasing density functions are, in a sense, equivalent to the non-Euclidean geometry of Riemann and Einstein.

Russell E. Rierson
analog57@yahoo.com

 

[phoenixthoth]

hello again timewind. nice to hear you've formulated some new things. i hope someone who knows more than me about physics takes notice.

phoenix

 

[phoenixthoth]

"Why not describe Einstein's equation as a rule that tells the geometry of space how to evolve as function of time? Lorentzian manifolds M, diffeomorphic to R x S, where the manifold S represents space, and t, an element of R, represents time. So spacetime is sliced into instants of time as an arbitrary choice, or possibly boundary limits, imposed by Planck's constant. "

here goes nothing.

suppose the state of the universe is actually given by an iterated function system. you iterate the system using discrete, probably arbitrary "instants", time intervals and the results give the state of matter and the four forces. now what if you want tinier time intervals than the ones you start out with? then you can try to FRACTIONALLY iterate the system. the question is whether the IFS is embeddable in a continuous flow, which would lead one to believe time is continuous, or if it is only embeddable in an either rational or only into tiny intervals.

on a tangentially related question, isn't, say, 15 seconds basically an instant when compared to 15 billion years?

cheers,
phoenix

 

[Eh]

Yikes.

 

[phoenixthoth]

by asking the "right" questions, we've become aware of pandora's box.

reality is pandora's box.

yikes, indeed.

it's a fractal. but not just any fractal. an infinitely large fractal. where to begin, where to go, where to look, how close to look, how much detail is sufficient, how simple is the overall picture...

cheers,
phoenix

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

So the goal must be to derive a nonlinear Schrodinger equation that gives local the invariances that we currently observe! A global nonlinear, locally invariant system ...?

http://lsec.cc.ac.cn/~ttang/MMref/references/budd99.pdf

BECs UNDERGO BRAGG EXPLOSION. Bose Einstein condensates (BEC) provide a versatile testbed for looking at quantum phenomena. And maybe cosmology too. In their calculations, physicists at the University of Nottingham first load an alkali BEC into an optical lattice, a honeycomb of laser light which holds atoms in a 3D gridwork. (For another recent BEC-in-a-lattice story, see www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/split/626-1.html[/url] <[PLAIN]http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/split/626-1.html > ) Then they jar the cloud of atoms, setting the BEC into motion, and have it scatter from the same "crystal" of light beams. Instead of x rays undergoing Bragg scattering from crystallized protein, the BEC waves scatter from a crystal of light. But as it threads through the optical lattice, the pattern of Bragg reflections can create traveling zones (essentially self-perpetuating solitons and local whirlpools, or vortices) where atoms in the condensate are actually excluded (see figure at <http://www.aip.org/mgr/png/2003/185.htm > ). These solitons can in turn destabilize the BEC, causing it to explode outward. The Nottingham researchers have been trying to model this explosion using a nonlinear Schrodinger equation, a modified version of the equation that governs electron waves inside atoms. According to Mark Fromhold (mark.fromhold@nottingham.ac.uk, 44-0115-9515192), similar equations are being used in the statistical study of galaxy distribution. (See for example, Scott et al., Physical Review Letters, 21 Mar 2003)

http://www.aip.org/mgr/png/2003/185.htm


http://www.fm/7-sphere/supp/supp29.htm


Does a nonlinear universe, give us the "strange loop" of Godelian self-reference? The clear cut distinction between the active transformer and the passive transformed is no more? No longer is the state vector the passive victim. It fights back. Is this fusion between the operator and the state vector what completes the self-referential feedback control circuit, which becomes the mechanism of free will?



http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/stapp.html

We turn, therefore, to a description of Weinberg's theory, in the context of the problem of the shifting of the probabilities away from those predicted by orthodox quantum theory, and toward those defined by an "intent" represented by particular features of the state of the brain of the observer.

Weinberg's nonlinear quantum theory is rooted in the fact that the quantum-mchanical equations of motion for a general quantum system are just the classical equations of motion for a very simple kind of classical system, namely a collection of classical simple harmonic oscillators. Thus a natural way to generalize quantum theory is to generalize this simple classical system.

I find the transactional interpretation in accordance with a nonlinear universe!



http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw48.html

Non-linear quantum mechanics may change that. Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureate for his work in unifying the electromagnetic and weak interactions, has recently been investigating "non-linear" corrections to standard quantum mechanics. The onset of non-linear behavior is seen in other areas of physics and may, he suggests, also be present but unnoticed in quantum mechanics. Weinberg's non-linear QM subtly alters certain properties of the standard theory, producing new physical effects that can be detected through precise measurements.
As mentioned above, the mathematics of quantum mechanics is delicately balanced to block EPR communication. However, a recent paper in Physical Review Letters by Joseph Polchinski has demonstrated that Weinberg's non-linear corrections upset this balance, unblocking observer-to-observer EPR communication. Separated measurements on the same quantum system begin to "talk" to each other and faster-than-light or backward-in-time signalling becomes possible. Polchinski describes such an arrangement as an "EPR telephone".
He goes on to describe an "Everett-Wheeler telephone". In standard QM in the Many Worlds scenario in which the wave function does not collapse, a measurement performed in one MW universe can have no effect on a measurement made in another. Polchinski demonstrates that in non-linear QM such measurements "talk" and can be used for transmission of information from one MW branch universe to another. With Polchinski's non-linear quantum telephones you could talk to yourself at an earlier time or to your alter ego in an alternate universe.
The Weinberg/Polchinski work had implications that are devastating for the Copenhagen repersentation of the wave function as "observer knowledge". Polchinski has shown that a tiny non-linear modification transforms the "hidden" nonlocality of the standard QM formalism into a manifest property that can be used for nonlocal observer-to-observer communication which is inconsistent with the "knowledge" interpretation.
Thus, the Copenhagen interpretation is not "robust" because it is inconsistent with a tiny modification of the standard formalism. The transactional interpretation and the many-worlds interpretation, on the other hand, are so robust that they can be tested and verified (or falsified) by the same effect. If quantum mechanics has any detectable nonlinearity, we get a backwards-in-time telephone or a telephone to alternate universes, depending on which interpretation is valid.
But is quantum mechanics non-linear? Atomic physics experiments have been used by several experimental groups to test Weinberg's non-linear theory. So far these tests have been negative, indicating that any non-linearities in the quantum formalism are very small, if they exist at all. In my view the negative results are not surprising because the atomic transitions involve only a few electron-volts of energy. If quantum mechanics does have non-linear properties, I would expect them to depend on energy and to appear only at a much higher energy scale. Weinberg-Polchinski tests should be made, if possible, with the highest energy particle accelerators. Perhaps then we can find out what connections can be made with Polchinski's quantum telephones.

 

[Mentat]

Welcome to the PFs, Russel!

I will have to read your entire post later (I have to get off-line soon), but I do have one disagreement as of now: You attempt to calculate the wave-function of "nothingness", when such a thing cannot even really exist. I know that theories are created as to the production of the Universe from nothing, but that needn't imply an actual "nothingness", merely the fact that no state is thouroughly determinable at any given time. Thus, I understand that we can calculate the wave-function of a seemingly "nothing" state, but to postulate that this state exists "outside the Universe" is logically fallacious, since there isn't anything "outside the Universe" ("Universe" means "everything") even if it's a closed system.

 

[Mentat]

I guess I wasn't completely clear in my previous post, so let me clarify: My problem with your idea - as much as I read of it anyway - is that is postulates the Universe as a closed system, with a state of nothingness outside of it. Logic dictates that "outside of the Universe" is a non-sequitor, and really has no meaning. So, while we can postulate that the Universe came from nothing, that doesn't mean that there is that same indeterminacy "outside of the Universe" it just means that the Universe, as a state of indeterminacy, has always existed (and has always not existed, for that is what Quantum Mechanics dictates (a thing both exists and doesn't exist)).

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

Stephen Hawking's excellent book, "Universe in a Nutshell", explains holography as a phenomenon of interference of wave patterns. Light from a laser is split into two separate beams, one bounces off the object and gets reflected onto a photo-sensitized plate. The other beam is reflected into a lens and collides with the reflected light of the object. When a laser is shone through the developed plate, a fully three dimensional image of the original object is created.

According to conventional theories, the surface area of the horizon surrounding a black hole, measures its entropy, where entropy is defined as a measure of the number of internal states that the black hole can be in without looking different to an outside observer, who can only measure mass, rotation and charge. This leads to another theory which states that the maximum entropy of any closed region of space can never exceed one quarter of the area of the circumscribing surface, with the entropy being the measure of the total information contained by the system. So the theorists came to realize that the information associated with all phenomena in the three dimensional world, can be stored on its two dimensional boundary, like a holographic image.

Since entropy can also be defined as the number of states within a region of space, and the entropy of the universe must always increase, the next logical step is to realize that the spacetime density, i.e. the information encoded within a circumscribed region of space, must be increasing in the thermodynamic direction of time.

Spacetime = Memory storage?

A universal computation?


We can define "nothingness" as a condition of zero space and zero time.

A massless solid.

So spacetime emerges from a condition of nothingness and the so called nill state of existence is equivalent to a force. A compression force that gives all physical law.

--->|U|<---

 

[Avron]

*Very* interesting Russel. While I understand where the other gentalman is comming from, I haven't heard a better definition of what "exists" outside the universe yet, since it's definition by default MUST have very different properties than the "nothing" that exists within the universe. I see nothing wrong with postulating via inference the properties of a condition we know nothing about (the meaningless when taken on it's own) by looking at a condition we do know something about, when that condition must necassarily have corrolating properties... i.e., it's no longer meaningless when viewed through the inference of the meaningfull since they are related.

That's my attempt at putting it in it's most basic terms, anyway. Time and new neural connections will tell.

Brian Harred

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

Absolute truth can exist within certain limited contexts, as we define it. But if absolute truth is defined as "the whole truth", then forget it. The total sum of human knowledge is just one small droplet in an infinite sea of TRUTH.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%F6del's_incompleteness_theorem

quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In mathematical logic , Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two celebrated theorems proven by Kurt Gödel . Somewhat simplified, the first theorem states that:
in any consistent formal system of mathematics sufficiently strong to allow one to do basic arithmetic , one can construct a statement about natural numbers that can be neither proven nor disproven within that system.

[...]

Gödel's second incompleteness theorem, which is proved by formalizing part of the proof of the first within the system itself, states that any sufficiently strong consistent system cannot prove its own consistency.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, spacetime does not really need to be "sliced up" in that it can proceed in discrete steps, yet, still be continuous.

[density 1]--->[density 2]--->[density 3]---> ... --->[density n]


[<-[->[<-[-><-]->]<-]->]
Intersecting wavefronts = increasing density of spacelike slices

As the wavefronts intersect, it becomes a mathematical computation:

2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, ...2^n


h represents Planck's constant

G is Newton's universal gravitational constant.

c is the speed of light in vacuum.

S = distance scale

T = time scale.

p is momentum

Planck length = sqrt[hG/c^3] = constant ratio

Planck time = sqrt[hG/c^5] = constant ratio

[Planck length]/[Planck time] = c = [S/T]_n = [S/T]_n+k

Discrete quanta = hf

Continuous wavelength = h/p

Since we are continuing to discover how symmetry is violated in the universe, it should be possible to devise an experiment to determine how the spacetime expansion vs. matter contraction symmetry, is violated. Then it should be possible to prove, or disprove Eddington's idea.

A quote from the book "The Expanding Universe" by Sir Arthur Eddington:

quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


All change is relative. The universe is expanding relatively to our common standards; our common standards are shrinking relatively to the size of the universe. The theory of the "expanding universe" might also be called the theory of the "shrinking atom" .

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Pyrite]

Name: Pyrite
cause of death: massive neural explosion caused by contemplating Russel's unified field theory . It is estimated that the explosion took out three city blocks.

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

The theory of General Relativity breaks down below the Planck scales. As Stephen Hawking explains, this means the the universe has a quantum mechanical origin.


Perhaps there is no escaping the fact that language[mathematics] corresponds to the perceptual universe, in that language describes discrete "things", and things themselves are representable by identity operators. Even if the theory [universe] is not completely constructed due to Godellian incompleteness, it must have an identity, such, that it may be represented as ...a variable?

A = identity

Truth = A V ~A

Whatever the mathematical structure that corresponds to physical existence is, it must be governed by invariance principles. The general contains the specific. Bivalent logics. Sure, fuzzy logic concepts also correspond to what we percieve, but those fuzzy logics can be represented as symmetry invariances, just as Aristotle's law can be

An invariance explains a symmetry.


Periodicity is also a symmetry. Rotate into the complex plane and we have real numbers on the horizonal axis and imaginary numbers on the
vertical axis. So a periodic function could exist with periodicity
along both the imaginary AND the real axis. Such functions would have
amazing symmetries. Functions that remain unchanged, when the complex
variable "z" is changed.

f(z)---->f(az+b/cz+d)

Where the elements a,b,c,d, are arranged as a matrix, forming an
algebraic group. An infinite number of possible variations that
commute with each other as the function f, is invariant under group
transformations. These functions are known as "automorphic forms".

Topologically speaking, the wormhole transformations must be
invariant with regards to time travel. In other words, by traveling
backwards in time, we "complete" the future, and no paradoxes are
created.

So when spacetime tears and the wormhole is created, it must obey
certain transformative rules, which probably appear to be
discontinuities from a "3-D" perspective, but really, these
transformations are continuous!

So the number of holes[genus] on the surface of space, determine
whether there exist an infinite, or finite, number of solutions to
the universal equations?

Multiverse, or one Universe?

Strong Anthropic Principle or Weak Anthropic Principle?


For the universe as a whole, the boundary conditions must be specified with regards to the field configurations via, summing over the path integral, utilizing a Euclidean action. But by summing over compact metrics, Hartle and Hawking give us the "No Boundary Proposal", such, that the boundary condition for the universe is, that it has no boundary.


To artificially slice up space and time [e.g. canonical quantization] seems un-natural.

Actually, spacetime does not really need to be "sliced up" in that it can proceed in discrete steps, yet, still be continuous. The slices must be in Planck units.

E = hf

[density 1]--->[density 2]--->[density 3]---> ... --->[density n]


[<-[->[<-[-><-]->]<-]->]

Intersecting wavefronts = increasing density of spacelike slices, but the slices are a transformation that is continuous.

As the wavefronts intersect, it becomes a mathematical computation:

2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, ...2^n

The information density of space increases. This is a relation and its inverse.

For example, unity is a constant, representable by:

[1 = c ] = [1/2 + 1/2] = [1/4 + 3/4] = [1/5 + 4/5] = [1/6 + 5/6]

The left fraction represents [energy/momentum] and the right fraction represents compressed [space/time] density, where space means "distance interval" , a relative measurement.

[E/p]<--->[S/T]

[1/R]<--->[R]

The physics for a circle of radius R, is the same for a circle of radius 1/R


E/p = S/T = c


[Space/time] and [energy/momentum] are two different forms of the same invariant quantity [c].

[E/p]_n = [E/p]_n+1 = [S/T]_n = [S/T]_n+1

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Pyrite
Name: Pyrite
cause of death: massive neural explosion caused by contemplating Russel's unified field theory . It is estimated that the explosion took out three city blocks.

My regrets concerning "tragedy" which have happened with you. It happened because you tried to process all volume of the information with which so generously filled this topic. You did not consider, that the unique thing which has no limit (real infinity) it is the information. All attempts to understand and describe infinity of space which is an illusion, can end with such result only.

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

First, let me apologize for some paragraphs that are ...repeats, of past posts ;)

According to the book "Gravitation", chapter 15, geometry of spacetime gives instructions to matter telling matter to follow the straightest path, which is a geodesic. Matter in turn, tells spacetime geometry how to curve in such a way, as to gaurantee the conservation of momentum and energy. The Einstein tensor[geometric feature-description] is also conserved in this relationship between matter and the spacetime geometry. Eli Cartan's "boundary of a boundary equals zero."

Einstein's equation basically says

Einstein Tensor [G] = Stress-Energy Tensor [T]

[spacetime geometry] determines [matter-energy's path] = geodesic.

[Matter-energy] determines [spacetime geometry] = non-Euclidean geometry.

.
Conservation of momentum energy is explained as an automatic consequence of the zero boundary of a boundary. Where conservation of energy-momentum means no creation or destruction of energy momentum in a 4D region of spacetime [4D cube] The integral of "creation events" i.e. the integral of
d*T for energy momentum, over the 4D region is required to be zero, and gives the conservation of momentum energy. The mathematical machinery for identically meeting the conservation laws is the boundary of a boundary equals zero.

[spacetime tells mass]<=====[<<geodesic path for particle<<]=====>[mass tells spacetime]


An object following a geodesic has no unbalanced forces acting on it. Its energy-momentum is a constant. In order for the object to deviate from the geodesic, it must be accelerated. Energy must be expended, for exampl,e its rocket boosters could fire, or an outside force like a meteor impact .


Mass "m" is a form of condensed space-time.

Yes, the mass-energy equivalence is given by the equation

E = m*c^2

Really, the equation is:

E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4

For a photon, the rest mass is zero, the equation reduces to:

E^2 = p^2 c^2

Since p is the momentum of a photon of light, the equation becomes:

E/p = c

Light is also a wave with a frequency (f) of oscillation and its energy is also given by the equation:

E = h*f = p*c

wavelength, Lambda = c/f

E/f = h = p*Lamda

Waves are ripples in a basic medium. Einstein explains that the ether is unecessary as a medium, so the ripples are vibrations of spacetime itself. Mass-energy is a form of condensed space-time.

As the ripples intersect with each other, it becomes a domino effect with the ripples coninually increasing in density. Very similar to taking a penny and doubling it as an iterative sequence.

2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, ... 2^n

Since the ripples are increasing in density they are "compressed" . As spacetime becomes compressed, matter is re-configured as a balancing effect, so the force of gravity and accelerations are perceived as they presently are.


[<->[<->[<-><->]<->]<->]

The increasing spacetime density must be background independent.


Actually, spacetime does not really need to be "sliced up" in that it can proceed in discrete steps, yet, still be continuous.

[density 1]--->[density 2]--->[density 3]---> ... --->[density n]

h represents Planck's constant

G is Newton's universal gravitational constant.

c is the speed of light in vacuum.

S = distance scale

T = time scale.

p is momentum

Planck length = sqrt[hG/c^3] = constant ratio

Planck time = sqrt[hG/c^5] = constant ratio

[Planck length]/[Planck time] = c = [S/T]_n = [S/T]_n+k

Discrete quanta = hf

Continuous wavelength = h/p

Since we are continuing to discover how symmetry is violated in the universe, it should be possible to devise an experiment to determine how the spacetime expansion vs. matter contraction symmetry, is violated. Then it should be possible to prove, or disprove Eddington's idea.

A quote from the book "The Expanding Universe" by Sir Arthur Eddington:

All change is relative. The universe is expanding relatively to our common standards; our common standards are shrinking relatively to the size of the universe. The theory of the "expanding universe" might also be called the theory of the "shrinking atom" .

Quantum mechanics leads us to the realization that all matter-energy can be explained in terms of "waves". In a confined region(i.e. a closed universe or a black hole) the waves exists as STANDING WAVES In a closed system, the entropy never decreases.

The analogy with black holes is an interesting one but if there is nothing outside the universe, then it cannot be radiating energy outside itself as black holes are explained to be. So the amount of information i.e. "quantum states" in the universe is increasing. We see it as entropy, but to an information processor with huge computational capabilities, it is compressible information.

Quantum field theory calculations where imaginary time is periodic, with period 1/T are equivalent to statistical mechanics calculations where the temperature is T. The periodic waveforms that are opposed yet "in phase" would be at standing wave resonance, giving the action.

Periodicity is a symmetry. Rotate into the complex plane and we have
real numbers on the horizonal axis and imaginary numbers on the
vertical axis. So a periodic function could exist with periodicity
along both the imaginary AND the real axis. Such functions would have
amazing symmetries. Functions that remain unchanged, when the complex
variable "z" is changed.

f(z)---->f(az+b/cz+d)

Where the elements a,b,c,d, are arranged as a matrix, forming an
algebraic group. An infinite number of possible variations that
commute with each other as the function f, is invariant under group
transformations. These functions are known as "automorphic forms".

Topologically speaking, the wormhole transformations must be
invariant with regards to time travel. In other words, by traveling
backwards in time, we "complete" the future, and no paradoxes are
created.

So when spacetime tears and a wormhole is created, it must obey
certain transformative rules, which probably appear to be
discontinuities from a "3-D" perspective, but really, these
transformations are continuous!

So the number of holes[genus] on the surface of space, determine
whether there exist an infinite, or finite, number of solutions to
the universal equations?

Multiverse, or one Universe?

Strong Anthropic Principle or Weak Anthropic Principle?

The information density of space increases. This is a relation and its inverse.

For example, unity is a constant, representable by:

[1 = c ] = [1/2 + 1/2] = [1/4 + 3/4] = [1/5 + 4/5] = [1/6 + 5/6]

The left fraction represents [energy/momentum] and the right fraction represents compressed [space/time] density, where space means "distance interval" , a relative measurement.

[E/p]<--->[S/T]

[1/R]<--->[R]

The physics for a circle of radius R, is the same for a circle of radius 1/R

E/p = S/T = c

[Space/time] and [energy/momentum] are two different forms of the same invariant quantity [c].

[E/p]_n = [E/p]_n+1 = [S/T]_n = [S/T]_n+1

Yes, c+c = c

[c + c]/[1 + c^2/c^2] = c

So E/p + S/t = 2c/2 = c

S/T = E/p = S/T + E/p = c

We live in a nonlinear universe. Einstein's equations don't lie

c+c = c

aleph_0 + aleph_0 = aleph_0

0 + 0 = 0

Gravity exists because the information density of space-time is increasing. This creates a "pressure force" where processed space, compresses mass-energy, and mass-energy reacts by compressing space. The process is "time", which becomes dilated due to the increased information density of massive objects.

mass energy = information

space = self similar relation

time = process = change

So space compresses matter-energy and matter-energy gives an equal and opposite reaction.

Space-time tells matter how to move and matter tells space-time how to curve.

[mass tells spacetime ]<===[<<free fall<<]===>[ space-time tells mass]





Lyapunov stability requires that a state remain bounded for all time, for all initial conditions - not just for some specific initial condition. If there is even one initial condition that causes one of the states to approach infinity with time, then the system is Lyapunov unstable.

For a system, e.g. , x(t) = [system = x1(t), x2(t), ...(xn(t) ],
if we choose (for example) x1(0) = 1 and x2(0) = 2. In this case x1(t) = 1+2t and x2(t) = 2. In other words, x1(t) approaches infinity with time, which proves that the system is Lyapunov unstable.

It is clear that there is a type of chaotic dynamics for the solar system and good ol' linear stability does not correspond to what actually is happening.

[output] is not [a linear function of input]

Likewise, the linear dodecahedron model for the universe probably will not work in the long run. I suspect the world is something more akin to the Penrose five fold symmetry.



Definition:

if X(t,x0) is a solution to d/dt (x) = V(x)

We say X(t,x0) is Liapunov Stable if given any epsilon > 0, we may find delta (epsilon ) > 0 such that if we have

|x0 - x0' | < delta ( epsilon)

THEN

| X(t,x0) - x(t,x0')| < epsilon
for all t > 0 and for all x0'



The epsilon-delta definition of a limit:
For every number epsilon > 0 there exists a number delta > 0 such that
|f(x) - b| < epsilon when 0 < |x - a| < delta

timelike < 0

lightlike = 0

spacelike > 0

If the hamiltonian, H, is a constant value along the trajectories, d/dt(H) = 0

Bounded for all time?

 

[Rybo]

In the spatially volumetric geometry --i.e. 3 or more dimensions-- of Universe we have the following;

1) the finite and quantisizable physical --i.e. fermions and spin 1 bosons-- Universe in
whatever phase/form of eteranal transitions

2) the finite and non-quantisizeable quasi-physical --ergo faster than speed-of-radiation-- gravity buffer-zone between the physical and...

3) ...the infinite nothingess outside of physical and quasi-physical Universe.

These 3 componets geometrically equate to the inside of polyhedron, the outside of the polyhedron and the liittle bit of polyhedron the separates the iniside from outside.

Physical Universes eternal existence is due to eternal principles involving causal geometric interrelationships of a finite integral system consisting of complementary 60 degree stability of structure and 90 degree latitudal tolerance of all precessional motion.

Concurrent with these aformentioned aspects there exists individual spin/rotation, expanison-contraction, orbit and torque/spiral.

Subsequent resultants of the aformentioned are charge, (?).

Mass is the subsequent resultant of interfereing vectors of gravity accompanied by retarded speeds.

Gravity "IS" ergo we are a subsequent resultant of gravity i.e. we are the physical soul of gravity, metaphysically attracted to the electro-magneetic --specifically light-- relationship to quasi-physical gravity.

Rybo

 

[onycho]

Perspective of Reality

http://realitythesis.homestead.com/EExistence.html

What is the meaning of point of obseration of reality?

Is our universe a reality or is it only a limitation from a human perspective?

Are the smallest particles that science observes a wave, a solid particle or sometimes energy and sometimes reverting back to matter?

How is that sub-atomic particles have been found to have intelligence of their own? When these particles are fired one at a time through a slit to a lumincest screen, they appear as a bit of light. When another slit is placed several feet down on the front screen, these fired subatomic particles sometimes appear to choose (on their own) to travel down to the new slit and appear on the luminscent screen.

Is there a unvierse with a border and what is on the other side of that border? Could it be that there is in reality only an invisible dimension? Could it be that there is no universe, particles or anything other than a singularity (timelessness) in which there is a flow of 'freewill.' Could we be nothing more or less than than continuous flow with a particular characteristic in which we perceive ourselves to be within a real universe with solid particles, mathematical quantum physics or anything that we percieve as emotion, pain, love, existence itself?

Take a look at my site for a potential answer to the above.
[al] [al]

 

[elas]

The cosmos becomes a quantum superposition of states, collapsing under the crushing force of "nothingness".

Does this mean you too believe the solution lies in a vacuum theory? and why collapsing? isn't this contrary to observed behaviour of universe?


Yet the universe as a whole has no frame of reference outside of itself,

Are you saying that in all infinity there is only our own tiny universe? If so why? Surely it is mathematically correct to say that the portion of infinity occupied by one universe is less the the portion of the universe occupied by one photon.


You attempt to calculate the wave-function of "nothingness", when such a thing cannot even really exist

"nothingness" has force and force must have a force carrier, this is why space has a minimum energy level (not a zero energy level). It is your concept of "nothingness" that is wrong.

 

[onycho]

Does this mean you too believe the solution lies in a vacuum theory? and why collapsing? isn't this contrary to observed behaviour of universe?

Not at all. I believe that the solution lies in an undefined dimension not pereceptable to human cognitive abilities. What can we humans observe from our perspective?

All things perceived are seemingly based on our human senses and defined by many physicists and cosmologists theories. Science simply states that quantum mechanics, the boundaries of the universe, energy, gravity, time and all things observed are 'unknown.' There are almost as many theories as there are physicists.

Are you saying that in all infinity there is only our own tiny universe? If so why? Surely it is mathematically correct to say that the portion of infinity occupied by one universe is less the the portion of the universe occupied by one photon.

I am saying that there is in reality an infinity or singularity (~) within this dimension with no universe, no matter, no energy, no space and no time. Only our observation point of reference and that 'we' are simply a following unknown substance called 'freewill.' When you speak of mathematically correct measurements I believe that we are observing nothing more than our intellect and senses perceive but does not exist. Ergo, all is an illusion of reality.

"nothingness" has force and force must have a force carrier, this is why space has a minimum energy level (not a zero energy level). It is your concept of "nothingness" that is wrong.

Why do you say that "nothingness" must have a force or carrier? If in reality there is no space or energy or matter but simply a point of perspective then minimum or maximum measurements are meaningless. Even based on current theories, this observable universe of ours is 99.9999999% empty space with the remainder being nano particles which sometimes become energy and sometimes revert back to particles. All of this compounded by the fact that some of these 'particles' appear animate and possesses intelect. How do you measure or explain this quandry? How do you explain energy, mass, space, time 1,000,000,000,000 (100) of a second before the 'BIG BANG?' Was there a 'BIG BANG' or was there always a timeless unmeasurable dimension?

In my humble opinion I believe that existence is neither measurable nor understandable due to the limitations of our neurons perceptions. Why must humanity feel that measurements of observations and substance are valid? Are we still fixated in the 'flat Earth reality'?

 

[elas]

Not at all. I believe that the solution lies in an undefined dimension not pereceptable to human cognitive abilities

Sorry, but in order to debate something it must be definable. I cannot debate with someone who can always hide behind the curtain of a non-provable dimension. That does not mean you are wrong, but simply that you leave no room for a reply.

 

[onycho]

Sorry, but in order to debate something it must be definable. I cannot debate with someone who can always hide behind the curtain of a non-provable dimension. That does not mean you are wrong, but simply that you leave no room for a reply.

Okay then please give me the dimensions in our particular universe with something more than present oberservational reference frames or instrumentation which gives more than suppositions, probabilities, hypothesis', theories, suggestive findings or anything else that gives any degree of certainty.

The possibility of extra dimensions, beyond the three dimensions of space of our everyday experience, sometimes crops up as a convenient, if rather vague, plot in science fiction. In science, however, the idea of extra dimensions has a rich history, dating back at least as far as the 1920s. Recently there has been a remarkable renaissance in this area due to the work of a number of theoretical physicists. It now seems possible that we, the Earth and, indeed, the entire visible universe are stuck on a membrane in a higher-dimensional space, like dust particles that are trapped on a soap bubble.

The major issues behind this new development. Why, for example, don't we see these extra dimensions? If they exist, how can we detect them? And perhaps the trickiest question of all: how did this fanciful idea come to be considered in the first place?

The whole notion of extra dimensions has its origin in the search for a unified theory of the forces observed in nature. The story began in the 1860s with the unification of the electric and magnetic forces by James Clerk Maxwell. As well as the extraordinary prediction that light is an electromagnetic wave, Maxwell's theory had a hidden property that was not realized until much later. It has what we now call a "gauge symmetry".

Gauge symmetry can be visualized in the following geometrical way. Suppose that every charged particle has associated with it an arrow that can rotate round in a circle like one of the hands of a clock. This rotation does not take place in the 3-D space that we observe, so the circle is - for the moment - purely mathematical, and the symmetry, known as U(1), is deemed "internal". The symmetry principle states that the absolute positions of these arrows can never be determined. Moreover, the symmetry is said to be "gauged" or "local" - meaning that the definition of absolute arrow position can change with time and location. Allowing such variations introduces a spurious current unless we add an extra ingredient to exactly compensate for it. This extra mathematical ingredient is the electromagnetic field.

The presence of this field explains the physical properties associated with electromagnetism. For example, the field carries pulses of energy that observed as particles of light - photons - and the exchange of photons results in the net electromagnetic force between charged particles.

In the 1920s Maxwell's unification of electricity and magnetism, together with Einstein's new general theory of relativity, inspired Theodor Kaluza and Oskar Klein to suggest that it might be possible to unify electromagnetism and gravity in an overarching geometrical scheme involving extra dimensions.

General relativity is a wonderful example of a geometrical theory. It too is derived from a local symmetry, known as Lorentz symmetry, that involves the four dimensions (three space plus one time) of everyday experience. In this case, velocities are like the arrows of the U(1) symmetry. So Lorentz symmetry incorporates the fact that the results from physical experiments are independent of the direction from which we view them and of our velocity. General relativity makes the symmetry local and, as for electromagnetism, that requires a field - which in this case is the geometry of space-time itself. Local "ripples" in space-time are the gravitational equivalent of photons - gravitons.

Inspired by this idea, Kaluza and Klein proposed including the U(1) symmetry of electromagnetism into this geometric scheme by adding a fourth spatial dimension, giving a total of five. The 5-D space-time begins with the full 5-D Lorentz symmetry. However, if the extra dimension is curled up on itself, or "compactified", part of the symmetry is lost. What remains is precisely the 4-D Lorentz symmetry of general relativity and the U(1) gauge symmetry of electromagnetism. In this picture, the "internal space" of electromagnetism is actually a real extra dimension that is curled up, and the photon is really a component of the higher-dimensional graviton.

Elas how can we dismiss the theory that humans may have a significant limitations of our cognitive abilities to assume we exist in an unknown dimension in the middle of some black hole where timelessness (<~>) is the reality. Where the energy and substance that comprises our awareness is nothing more than pure WISDOM?

But the WISDOM of a Creator which allows our observed and scientific measurement realities seem so very real.

To begin to understand that mankind has reached some final plateau of knowledge that can be measured is folly. What is real or only that which we are intended to comprehend is also a possibility.

 

[brodix]

paradigm shifting

I have no particular experience in this subject, other than following it for the last 25 years, but I still don't agree with the premise of Big Bang theory.

Gravity collapses the measure of space. This process continuously radiates out the constituent energy of the matter involved.

If gravity is the collapse of (the measure of)space, then why is radiation not the corresponding expansion?

Omega=1, ie. the universe is flat. That means the force(s) of expansion and collapse are equal.

As space effectively falls into the vortex of galaxies, an equivalent amount is created between them. As this is a balanced process, where is the additional expansion for the universe as a whole to expand?

If the universe is infinite, then there would be no place for local expansion to go, other than creating additional pressure on gravitational systems. This would be a very effective explanation for the galactic velocity being attributed to an otherwise undetectable dark matter. Especially as this velocity is on the outer circumference, where external pressure would have the greatest effect.

When light from very distant sources passes through the gravitational field of intermediate galaxies, it creates a lensing effect in which the distant light is magnified. Apparently the light waves are being shortened and pushed back up the spectrum. They are blue-shifted. This serves to counteract the over-all redshift of inter-galactic space.

Given the distribution of galaxies, the lights of distant galaxies are more likely to pass through intermediate gravitational fields than are the lights of closer sources. The result is that these closer sources have a greater average redshift. This creates the impression, from the perspective of Big Bang theory, that the rate of expansion is increasing.

It has been recently noted that the black holes at the core of galaxies are consuming relatively little matter and are ejecting jets of electrons out their poles. Could it be that black holes are not physical objects, or holes into other dimensions, but are in fact the eye of a storm? And the real activity is leading up to the eye wall.

Cosmic background radiation is described as the residue of the Big Bang, although has been difficult to explain why it remains quite so smooth after so long. Could it be that this smoothness is actually a phase transition, where cummulative radiation becomes unstable and starts to condense out as hydrogen?

So what I'm describing is a convection cycle, as matter collapses and energy expands.

One of the other problems I have with the BBT is the the greater the distance viewed, the greater the radius of space being considered, while according to BBT, the further we see, the smaller the universe was.

I've argued this on a number of forums and do not expect too may participants to seriously question current dogma, but I just feel the occasional need to raise a few questions.

 

[onycho]

Brodix the exact physical property of 'gravity' in science today is UNKNOWN. We can observe this 'dimension called gravity' and it's seeming effect on matter and time but no one has yet been able to say with certainty the prime principle of this unknown force.

You speak of this unknown gravitational force collapsing the measure of space which continuously radiates out the constituent energy of the matter involved. The same exact knowledge of what 'energy' is as yet UNKNOWN.

These functions are either observation from one's perspective or theory.

You make two observations:

1) Omega=1, ie. the universe is flat. That means the force(s) of expansion and collapse are equal. 2) If the universe is infinite, then there would be no place for local expansion to go, other than creating additional pressure on gravitational systems.

Can our universe be flat and infinite or both?

Can our infinite universe be both flat and expanding?

You speak of an 'infinite' universe but what do you perceive that word to mean? In what terms of human observation or in what totally unknown reality is an 'infinity' of anything? Can infinity have any measurements, qantification or dimentions in human terms?

When light from very distant sources passes through the gravitational field of intermediate galaxies, it creates a lensing effect in which the distant light is magnified. Apparently the light waves are being shortened and pushed back up the spectrum. They are blue-shifted. This serves to counteract the over-all redshift of inter-galactic space.

For your quote to make sense, one would have to understand exactly the nature of a photon (light). The photon like all things in the universe of ours is either wave, particle or both. That lensing effect you speak of appears to occur when a photon passes through a crytal and the apparent color portions are split apart. Again, this is what our brains see from our human brain's occipital cortex. Our brains are also thought to be made up of the same matter as that of every other particle in this universe.

What makes our complex neuronal observations valid?

It has been recently noted that the black holes at the core of galaxies are consuming relatively little matter and are ejecting jets of electrons out their poles. Could it be that black holes are not physical objects, or holes into other dimensions, but are in fact the eye of a storm? And the real activity is leading up to the eye wall.

You make an excellent point. These observations of galaxies, black holes, macro and micro physics may be based on error. The more physicists and cosmologists observe the more questions arise and less certainty becomes apparent.

It may also be that humanity continue to strive to know the true nature of reality. Philosophically what is reality and what is that in which we permitted to observe as reality.

The BBT you describe may be real or it may be nothing more than another observation of primal radiation that we are allowed to observe from our perspective.

As you may have noted, I cannot be certain of anything. I have seen a magician move an entire island in the ocean from one point to another. I have no idea how this magician's illusion was created but it was in reality only an illusion.

Cosmic background radiation is described as the residue of the Big Bang, although has been difficult to explain why it remains quite so smooth after so long. Could it be that this smoothness is actually a phase transition, where cummulative radiation becomes unstable and starts to condense out as hydrogen?

What you have described above can also be described as an illusion on a much grander scale. I personally believe that 'we' actually exist in a freeflowing form of an unknonwn plasma of 'freewill' and only make the observations described by the physicists, cosmologits and theorists. That we exist in a singularity (timelessness) and in a heretofore unknown dimension.

Also I do believe that all of things are found in a real blueprint of everything (not just our universe). This blueprint is made up of over 300,000 letters in which the answers are multilayered. The total number of 26 individual letters in multilayered rows. In this blueprint a total of somewhat over 340,000 letter combinations of these basic 26 letters make up that blue print laid down by the 'unseen hand' that is responsible for all things. Something like a strand of what we know as the DNA genetic molecule.

But that too is my perspective and probably has nothing to do with the reality we all strive to know.

 

[brodix]

Brodix the exact physical property of 'gravity' in science today is UNKNOWN. We can observe this 'dimension called gravity' and it's seeming effect on matter and time but no one has yet been able to say with certainty the prime principle of this unknown force.

You speak of this unknown gravitational force collapsing the measure of space which continuously radiates out the constituent energy of the matter involved. The same exact knowledge of what 'energy' is as yet UNKNOWN.

Onycho,

I'm talking relative, not absolutes, just making the point that radiation and gravity are opposites. One is the essential effect of matter and the other is the essential effect of energy.

These functions are either observation from one's perspective or theory.

Is there a problem with that?

You make two observations:

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Omega=1, ie. the universe is flat. That means the force(s) of expansion and collapse are equal. 2) If the universe is infinite, then there would be no place for local expansion to go, other than creating additional pressure on gravitational systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Can our universe be flat and infinite or both?

Yes. One is equilibrium and the other is boundlessness. If it was bounded, it wouldn't be in equilibrium because of the implied pressure.

Can our infinite universe be both flat and expanding?

No. Omega wouldn't equal 1.

You speak of an 'infinite' universe but what do you perceive that word to mean? In what terms of human observation or in what totally unknown reality is an 'infinity' of anything? Can infinity have any measurements, qantification or dimentions in human terms?

I can understand why you might ask this, given that definition is limitation and vice versa, but a final definition/limitation would be a contradiction, because it is subjective. It is its own limitation.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
When light from very distant sources passes through the gravitational field of intermediate galaxies, it creates a lensing effect in which the distant light is magnified. Apparently the light waves are being shortened and pushed back up the spectrum. They are blue-shifted. This serves to counteract the over-all redshift of inter-galactic space.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

For your quote to make sense, one would have to understand exactly the nature of a photon (light). The photon like all things in the universe of ours is either wave, particle or both. That lensing effect you speak of appears to occur when a photon passes through a crytal and the apparent color portions are split apart. Again, this is what our brains see from our human brain's occipital cortex. Our brains are also thought to be made up of the same matter as that of every other particle in this universe.

Lenses also magnify light by focusing it. If the wave is unaffected, how is this possible?

What makes our complex neuronal observations valid?

Why would they be invalid? Reality is not a matter of absolutes.


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been recently noted that the black holes at the core of galaxies are consuming relatively little matter and are ejecting jets of electrons out their poles. Could it be that black holes are not physical objects, or holes into other dimensions, but are in fact the eye of a storm? And the real activity is leading up to the eye wall.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


You make an excellent point. These observations of galaxies, black holes, macro and micro physics may be based on error. The more physicists and cosmologists observe the more questions arise and less certainty becomes apparent.

It may also be that humanity continue to strive to know the true nature of reality. Philosophically what is reality and what is that in which we permitted to observe as reality.

The BBT you describe may be real or it may be nothing more than another observation of primal radiation that we are allowed to observe from our perspective.

As you may have noted, I cannot be certain of anything. I have seen a magician move an entire island in the ocean from one point to another. I have no idea how this magician's illusion was created but it was in reality only an illusion.

I've had reality pop at the seams, so I'm not going to be judgmental.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cosmic background radiation is described as the residue of the Big Bang, although has been difficult to explain why it remains quite so smooth after so long. Could it be that this smoothness is actually a phase transition, where cummulative radiation becomes unstable and starts to condense out as hydrogen?
------------------------------------------------------------------------


What you have described above can also be described as an illusion on a much grander scale. I personally believe that 'we' actually exist in a freeflowing form of an unknonwn plasma of 'freewill' and only make the observations described by the physicists, cosmologits and theorists. That we exist in a singularity (timelessness) and in a heretofore unknown dimension.

Read my thread, Polarity of time, for my thoughts on the subject. Reality is a dynamic, rather than dimensional. Dimensions are static, reality isn't. Space as three dimensions is reductionistic. I think we will come to view it as effectively infinitely dimensional.

Also I do believe that all of things are found in a real blueprint of everything (not just our universe). This blueprint is made up of over 300,000 letters in which the answers are multilayered. The total number of 26 individual letters in multilayered rows. In this blueprint a total of somewhat over 340,000 letter combinations of these basic 26 letters make up that blue print laid down by the 'unseen hand' that is responsible for all things. Something like a strand of what we know as the DNA genetic molecule.

You have to believe in something, otherwise your mind has no structure.

But that too is my perspective and probably has nothing to do with the reality we all strive to know.

You are assuming an absolute state, but absolute state is a contradiction. Like absolute zero, it doesn't exist.

regards,

brodix

 

[elas]

Why do you say that "nothingness" must have a force or carrier?

It is observed that 'nothing' has its own force and also that in all observable cases every known force has its own force carrier; it is therefore reasonable to assume that vacuum (the force of 'nothing')has a force carrier indicating that there is no such thing as absolute empty space. This is born out by Quantum theory which predicts a minimum energy level for space.

As force carrier is 'something' it cannot be reduced to a dimensionless point. But vacuum force is related to 'nothing' and can therefore be reduced to a dimensionless point, but only in as far as the force carrier allows the reduction.
Both Newton's and Einstein's veiws of gravity together with the belief that all particles are fields can be interpreted to claim that space consists of Zero Points surrounded by Zero Point Energy in various density states. Where energy equals mass and mass is the force carrier.

Where I differ from Newton and Einstein is at the Zero Point where Newton and Einstein claim the force has zero strength; whereas I suggest it is a dimensionless force well that stores any vacuum force not being used to compress the force carrier. That is to mean that the greater the compression, the greater is the quantity of vacuum force that has withdrawn into the Zero Point. My graphs constructed using nothing more than a Table of Elements (i.e. known atomic quantities), demonstrate how this simple concept works in reality.

Composite fields (i.e. all fields that are not (single field) fundamental particles), consist of a parent field containing smaller fields. The smaller fields are squeezed towards the centre where there is the least dense parent field force carrier, and the greater parent field vacuum force. This is what gives composite particles and all larger natural bodies such as atoms, planets, stars, galaxies and black holes; their individual nuclei.
No other theory (including yours?) offers any explanation of the cause or creation of nuclei.

 

[onycho]

Absolutes

Brodix

These functions are either observation from one's perspective or theory.
Is there a problem with that?

No, there is no problem with your statement. But in fact are we not speaking of a theoretical 'unifying field theory'? Can we not agree that we experience quantum physics, ourselves, our thoughts, and feelings as something separate from the rest -- a kind of optical delusion of consciousness?

Can our universe be flat and infinite or both?

Yes. One is equilibrium and the other is boundlessness. If it was bounded, it wouldn't be in equilibrium because of the implied pressure. I can understand why you might ask this, given that definition is limitation and vice versa, but a final definition/limitation would be a contradiction, because it is subjective. It is its own limitation.

With the presumption that the universe is bounded, why could it not be somewhat in equilibrium because of Einstein's predicted cosmological constant (CC) irrelevant of any other pressure? As to infinity the following quotation was credited to Dr. Einstein.

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.

Present company excepted.

Lenses also magnify light by focusing it. If the wave is unaffected, how is this possible?

In the same way that the photon acts as a particle as well as a wave in experimentation around the world. As I have stated before, my belief is that all matter and space is nothing more or less than some form of WISDOM. You must assume that what you observe as light being affected by lenses is a reality when it might also be much more.

What makes our complex neuronal observations valid?

Why would they be invalid? Reality is not a matter of absolutes.

What makes you believe that reality cannot be an absolute? It may not be our absolute reality but it is absolutely real or there would be no awareness or even a delusion of human consciousness.

I've had reality pop at the seams, so I'm not going to be judgmental.

I am not certain of your meaning¡_

What you have described above can also be described as an illusion on a much grander scale. I personally believe that 'we' actually exist in a freeflowing form of an unknonwn plasma of 'freewill' and only make the observations described by the physicists, cosmologits and theorists. That we exist in a singularity (timelessness) and in a heretofore unknown dimension.

Read my thread, Polarity of time, for my thoughts on the subject. Reality is a dynamic, rather than dimensional. Dimensions are static, reality isn't. Space as three dimensions is reductionistic. I think we will come to view it as effectively infinitely dimensional.

Interesting observation. If time itself is a dimension, then you feel that it also is in a static state. What if a dimension was not a fixed entity but open and nonreductionistic while constantly changing in all aspects. This would allow for a dimensional flow and ebb.

Premise:

Within the framework of a model Universe with variable space dimension, a chaotic inflation with the potential $m^2\phi^2/2$, and calculate the dynamical solutions of the inflation field, variable space dimension, scale factor, and their interdependence during the inflationary epoch. The characteristic of the variability of the space dimension could cause an inflationary epoch in the variable space dimension to last longer than the inflationary epoch in a non-constant open dynamic field.

You are assuming an absolute state, but absolute state is a contradiction. Like absolute zero, it doesn't exist.

Assumptions of absolutes do exist. Like the words never, always, forever and doesn't related to absolutes are relative to only one constant. That word of course is change.

"Change alone is unchanging."

ATTRIBUTION: Heraclitus (c. 535¨Cc. 475 B.C.), Greek philosopher

But even change needs an ulitimate source or blueprint to lay out fixed parameters.

Yours fondly,

 

[brodix]

onycho,

No, there is no problem with your statement. But in fact are we not speaking of a theoretical 'unifying field theory'? Can we not agree that we experience quantum physics, ourselves, our thoughts, and feelings as something separate from the rest -- a kind of optical delusion of consciousness?

---Why is it a delusion? I communicate with you. This communication is in my past and your future. Even if we are in the same room. The parts of our bodies are in the same situation. That which defines us, also limits us. catch22.

With the presumption that the universe is bounded, why could it not be somewhat in equilibrium because of Einstein's predicted cosmological constant (CC) irrelevant of any other pressure? As to infinity the following quotation was credited to Dr. Einstein.

---I presume the universe is in equilibrium. I do not presume it's bounded. If it was bounded, it would be shedding energy against/across this boundary; ergo, Big Bang/expanding universe. The Big Bang Theory presumes the universe is winding down, ie. is not in equilibrium.

In the same way that the photon acts as a particle as well as a wave in experimentation around the world. As I have stated before, my belief is that all matter and space is nothing more or less than some form of WISDOM. You must assume that what you observe as light being affected by lenses is a reality when it might also be much more.

--- Even as particles, the lense concentrates the light.

What makes you believe that reality cannot be an absolute? It may not be our absolute reality but it is absolutely real or there would be no awareness or even a delusion of human consciousness.

---It may be objectively absolute, but any potential distinction/comprehension/observation, etc. is subjective, therefore not absolute.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've had reality pop at the seams, so I'm not going to be judgmental.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not certain of your meaning¡_

---Circumstances that defied comprehension.

What you have described above can also be described as an illusion on a much grander scale. I personally believe that 'we' actually exist in a freeflowing form of an unknonwn plasma of 'freewill' and only make the observations described by the physicists, cosmologits and theorists. That we exist in a singularity (timelessness) and in a heretofore unknown dimension.

Free-will is a contradiction of terms. Will implies an extension of purpose, motivation, etc. Free implies lack of connection to prior motivation.

"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." KK

Consider studying complexity theory and the relationship between top down hierarchy and bottom up growth. The basis of the first is order and that of the second is chaos.


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read my thread, Polarity of time, for my thoughts on the subject. Reality is a dynamic, rather than dimensional. Dimensions are static, reality isn't. Space as three dimensions is reductionistic. I think we will come to view it as effectively infinitely dimensional.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting observation. If time itself is a dimension, then you feel that it also is in a static state.

---I don't consider time to be a dimension and if it were static, it wouldn't be time.

What if a dimension was not a fixed entity but open and nonreductionistic while constantly changing in all aspects. This would allow for a dimensional flow and ebb.

--- That is what I mean by space not being fully explained by three dimensions. Any reference is subjective and three dimensions are a reference.


Premise:

Within the framework of a model Universe with variable space dimension, a chaotic inflation with the potential $m^2\phi^2/2$, and calculate the dynamical solutions of the inflation field, variable space dimension, scale factor, and their interdependence during the inflationary epoch. The characteristic of the variability of the space dimension could cause an inflationary epoch in the variable space dimension to last longer than the inflationary epoch in a non-constant open dynamic field.

---=?

Assumptions of absolutes do exist. Like the words never, always, forever and doesn't related to absolutes are relative to only one constant. That word of course is change.

"Change alone is unchanging."

ATTRIBUTION: Heraclitus (c. 535¨Cc. 475 B.C.), Greek philosopher

---Change, as potential, is a function of the infinite, not the absolute. Yes, the absolute is unchanging.

But even change needs an ulitimate source or blueprint to lay out fixed parameters.

---The absolute is zero. It is a reference, not a state. You could say that the present is the absolute. The reference point between the order we think of as the past and the chaos we think of as the future. All that physically exists, not what potentially exists. But we only know it in terms of what is emerging, not from this reference point, but from what ever subjective equilibrium is required

--- Which is to say that matter doesn't emerge from the void, but from anti-matter.

regards,

brodix

 

[onycho]

Sorry About Delay in Reply

Brodix,

Sorry but last night when I was attempting to reply to your last post, my computer froze after I had completed most of my reply.

The computer is now in for repair and I will attempt to reply to you today on my office computer.

Fondly,

Onycho

 

[onycho]

onycho,

Why is it a delusion? I communicate with you. This communication is in my past and your future. Even if we are in the same room. The parts of our bodies are in the same situation. That which defines us, also limits us. catch22.

***How certain are you that you and your solid body are now communicating with me through the world-wide-web? How certain are you that in your past you communicated with me and that I am now communicating with you in your future? Is our time relative to us here and now or are we experiencing time from a quantum perspective? I feel that if we sometimes look outside of our catch 22 box, we can see a completely different reality now redefined by many of our theoretical physicist friends. There seems to be no dichotomy when we see our existence in world of quantum mechanics

I presume the universe is in equilibrium. I do not presume it's bounded. If it was bounded, it would be shedding energy against/across this boundary; ergo, Big Bang/expanding universe. The Big Bang Theory presumes the universe is winding down, ie. is not in equilibrium.

***If you presume the universe is not bounded but in equilibrium, then what would prevent the shedding of energy and matter out of the universe? The Big Bang presumes nothing about winding down or being in equilibrium or continually expanding as expressed by conflicting cosmologist opinions. The doppler, ‘red shift’ cosmological constant and Big Bang background radiation events are affected by so many variables that no certainty is viable. But all this is based on a reality that the human mind perceives your catch 22 quandary.


Even as particles, the lense concentrates the light.

****In our reality how can photon particles be concentrated by a lens? The lens appears to either break the photon down into its basic color constituents or direct the photons into a powerful laser beam which increases the effects of the photon beam exponentially.

What makes you believe that reality cannot be an absolute? It may not be our absolute reality but it is absolutely real or there would be no awareness or even a delusion of human consciousness.

It may be objectively absolute, but any potential distinction/comprehension/observation, etc. is subjective, therefore not absolute.

****If reality is truly nothing more than an illusion from the perspective of our ingenious construction of subatomic particles, then both our objective and subjective comprehension would neither unconditional nor absolute.

Circumstances that defied comprehension.

**** Excellent…. Until and unless the reality of existence is known to our cognitive awareness all of nature is beyond our comprehension.


Free-will is a contradiction of terms. Will implies an extension of purpose, motivation, etc. Free implies lack of connection to prior motivation. "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." KK

****Not so. Many persons have argued that physical determinism poses a threat to the existence of free will are, I believe, still operating with the remnants of the theory that laws of nature are akin to inviolable prescriptions. They have dropped the Prescriber (i.e. God) out of their view of natural laws, but they still persevere with the view that laws of nature 'act like' prescriptions.

If, however, one adopts a thoroughgoing descriptive view of natural laws, the problem of free will does not even arise. On the view I am proposing, there simply is no problem of free will. We make choices -- some trivial, such as to buy a newspaper; others, rather more consequential, such as to buy a home, or to get married, or to go to university, etc. -- but these choices are not forced upon us by the laws of nature. Indeed, it is the other way round. Laws of nature are (a subclass of the) true descriptions of the world. Whatever happens in the world, there are true descriptions of those events. It's true that you cannot 'violate' a law of nature, but that's not because the laws of nature 'force' you to behave in some certain way. It is rather that whatever you do, there is a true description of what you have done. You certainly don't get to choose the laws that describe the charge on an electron or the properties of hydrogen and oxygen that explain their combining to form water. But you do get to choose a great many other laws. How do you do that? Simply by doing whatever you do in fact do.

For example, if you were to choose(!) to raise your arm, then there would be a timelessly true universal description of what you have done. If, however, you were to choose not to raise your arm, then there would be a (different) timelessly true universal description of what you did and the former would be timelessly false).

Contrary to the earlier claim -- that the laws of nature are not of our choosing -- I am here suggesting that a very great many laws of nature are of our choosing. But it's not that we reflect on choosing the laws. I don't wake up in the morning and ask myself "Which laws of nature will I create today?" No, it's rather that I ask myself, "What will I do today?", and in choosing to do some things rather than others, my actions -- i.e. my choices -- make certain propositions (including some universal statements containing no proper names) true and other propositions false.

A good example of the view I am advocating can be found in the proposition, attributed to Sir Thomas Gresham (1519?-1579) but already known earlier, called -- not surprisingly -- "Gresham's Law": [Gresham's Law is] the theory holding that if two kinds of money in circulation have the same denominational value but different intrinsic values, the money with higher intrinsic value will be hoarded and eventually driven out of circulation by the money with lesser intrinsic value.
(In effect what this 'law' states is that 'bad money drives out good'. For example, in countries where the governments begin issuing vast amounts of paper money, that money becomes next-to-worthless and people hoard 'good' money, e.g. gold and silver coins, and that 'good' money ceases to circulate.)

Why, when paper money becomes virtually worthless, do people hoard gold? Because gold retains its economic value -- it can be used in emergencies to purchase food, clothing, flight (if need be), medicine, etc., even when 'bad' paper money will likely not be able to be so used. People do not hoard gold under such circumstances because Gresham's 'Law' forces them to do so. Gresham's 'Law' is purely descriptive (not prescriptive) and illustrates well the point I am making: descriptive laws are not causal agents -- they do not force the world to be some particular way rather than another.

The manner in which we regard Gresham's 'Law' ought, I suggest, to be the way we regard all laws of nature. The laws of physics and chemistry are no different than the laws of economics: all laws of nature -- of physics, of chemistry, of biology, of economics, of psychology, of sociology, etc. -- are nothing more, nor anything less, than (a certain subclass of) true propositions.

Perhaps you are beginning to see that I am offering the same sort of solution to the presumed problem of causal determinism that I offered above for the problems of logical and of epistemic determinism. The truth of propositions, whether singular (containing proper names) or universal/statistical (and free of proper names), does not force the world to be one way rather than another. The world unfolds, including our actions and choices. And whichever way it does unfold, propositions 'look after themselves'. They take their truth from the way the world is. They don't 'force' the world to be any particular way at all.

Consider studying complexity theory and the relationship between top down hierarchy and bottom up growth. The basis of the first is order and that of the second is chaos.


I don't consider time to be a dimension and if it were static, it wouldn't be time.

****As I understand special relativity Einstein postulates that time should be thought of as another dimension. He noted that traditionally we thought of motion being divided amongst the 3 traditional axes. For example (from The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene) the time it takes a car going at a constant velocity to go from a start to finish line will be one value if he travels perpendicular to the start/finish lines, and the time interval will increase if he begins to travel in a diagonal line through the start/finish lines. Similarly Einstein thought an objects motion can also have a vector portion in the "time" axis.

He noted that the limit of velocity is light speed. If you are at rest (relatively), all of your motion is used in the time dimension. Therefore, you don't move, but you age. If you begin to move, the motion in the time dimension decreases (time slows for you, as has been proven experimentally), but motion increases in the spatial dimensions. If you are going light speed all of your possible velocity is going through space, with no motion through the time dimension. In this last case, isn't this where time is frozen at one instant? Photons do not age. They travel the speed of light throughout the universe, and exist infinitely unless they are absorbed.

Because the photons “clock” freezes and they exist while at one instant in their time doesn’t this refute the fact that time is a dimension and at least not static?

That is what I mean by space not being fully explained by three dimensions. Any reference is subjective and three dimensions are a reference.

****How about space not being fully explained by ANY real dimensions as our point of reference is totally subjective. Ergo no reference of perceived dimensions can be valid.

continued because of word limitation...

 

[onycho]

continued Brodix

Change, as potential, is a function of the infinite, not the absolute. Yes, the absolute is unchanging.

**** agreed

But even change needs an ultimate source or blueprint to lay out fixed parameters.

The absolute is zero. It is a reference, not a state. You could say that the present is the absolute. The reference point between the order we think of as the past and the chaos we think of as the future. All that physically exists, not what potentially exists. But we only know it in terms of what is emerging, not from this reference point, but from what ever subjective equilibrium is required. Which is to say that matter doesn't emerge from the void, but from anti-matter.

**** A state of CHANGE is measurable and not absolute zero.

Change means movement. Movement means friction. Only in the frictionless vacuum of a nonexistent abstract world can movement or change occur without that abrasive friction of conflict.

Fondly

 

[Rybo]

Originally posted by onycho
Change, as potential, is a function of the infinite, not the absolute. Yes, the absolute is unchanging.

**** agreed

But even change needs an ultimate source or blueprint to lay out fixed parameters.

The absolute is zero. It is a reference, not a state. You could say that the present is the absolute. The reference point between the order we think of as the past and the chaos we think of as the future. All that physically exists, not what potentially exists. But we only know it in terms of what is emerging, not from this reference point, but from what ever subjective equilibrium is required. Which is to say that matter doesn't emerge from the void, but from anti-matter.

**** A state of CHANGE is measurable and not absolute zero.

Change means movement. Movement means friction. Only in the frictionless vacuum of a nonexistent abstract world can movement or change occur without that abrasive friction of conflict.

Fondly

Wow!, that was well said Onchyo.
My hats too you. i agree with all that you said.

--physical-- "Universe Is Transformation,
--metaphysical-- life is oppinion."

Please elaborate and extrapolate if possible Onchyo.

Rybo

Rybo

 

[brodix]

onycho,

Why is it a delusion? I communicate with you. This communication is in my past and your future. Even if we are in the same room. The parts of our bodies are in the same situation. That which defines us, also limits us. catch22.

***How certain are you that you and your solid body are now communicating with me through the world-wide-web? How certain are you that in your past you communicated with me and that I am now communicating with you in your future?

----Contextually certain.

Is our time relative to us here and now or are we experiencing time from a quantum perspective? I feel that if we sometimes look outside of our catch 22 box, we can see a completely different reality now redefined by many of our theoretical physicist friends. There seems to be no dichotomy when we see our existence in world of quantum mechanics

=Quantum understanding must still be filtered through the biological calculus.

***If you presume the universe is not bounded but in equilibrium, then what would prevent the shedding of energy and matter out of the universe?

=There is no outside. It is infinite. The only limit is the horizon line of how far light can travel. All region are exchanging energy with where ever they can.

The Big Bang presumes nothing about winding down or being in equilibrium or continually expanding as expressed by conflicting cosmologist opinions.

=It only presumes a beginning. Where was that energy borrowed from?

The doppler, ‘red shift’ cosmological constant and Big Bang background radiation events are affected by so many variables that no certainty is viable. But all this is based on a reality that the human mind perceives your catch 22 quandary.

=My getting out of bed this morning was affected by a lot of variables, but, in sum, it was easier to get out than stay in. Logic follows the path of least resistance.

****In our reality how can photon particles be concentrated by a lens? The lens appears to either break the photon down into its basic color constituents or direct the photons into a powerful laser beam which increases the effects of the photon beam exponentially.

=I'm referring to a magnification lense, not a prism.

What makes you believe that reality cannot be an absolute? It may not be our absolute reality but it is absolutely real or there would be no awareness or even a delusion of human consciousness.

=The absolute lacks all distinguishing features. Earlier you asked the question as to how I know I exist, now you state existence as an axiom.

It may be objectively absolute, but any potential distinction/comprehension/observation, etc. is subjective, therefore not absolute.

****If reality is truly nothing more than an illusion from the perspective of our ingenious construction of subatomic particles, then both our objective and subjective comprehension would neither unconditional nor absolute.

=Agreed.

Circumstances that defied comprehension.

**** Excellent…. Until and unless the reality of existence is known to our cognitive awareness all of nature is beyond our comprehension.

=Mortality is like being in a well lit room and looking out a dark window. All you see are reflections of what's inside. As the room darknens, you start to see shadows flitting by outside. then when you die, the glass breaks.

Free-will is a contradiction of terms. Will implies an extension of purpose, motivation, etc. Free implies lack of connection to prior motivation. "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." KK

****Not so.

=I'm simply pointing out that it's an oxymoron.

Many persons have argued that physical determinism poses a threat to the existence of free will are, I believe, still operating with the remnants of the theory that laws of nature are akin to inviolable prescriptions. They have dropped the Prescriber (i.e. God) out of their view of natural laws, but they still persevere with the view that laws of nature 'act like' prescriptions. ... They take their truth from the way the world is. They don't 'force' the world to be any particular way at all.

=I agree with you. Order is a subjective construct. Without perspective, which is the definition of subjective, there is no standard to determine what is order and what is chaos. The problem is that once you have that standard(will), than you need to stick by it, or lose it. So if you have the freedom to choose any standard, than you have no standard.

=As you say, laws and principles are like the forms they help define, constructs of ever more basic ones and without the territory of reality, there is no map of laws.

****As I understand special relativity Einstein postulates that time should be thought of as another dimension. He noted that traditionally we thought of motion being divided amongst the 3 traditional axes. For example (from The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene) the time it takes a car going at a constant velocity to go from a start to finish line will be one value if he travels perpendicular to the start/finish lines, and the time interval will increase if he begins to travel in a diagonal line through the start/finish lines. Similarly Einstein thought an objects motion can also have a vector portion in the "time" axis.

=Motion is relative, not absolute. Since any object is moving against relative context. Just as the Earth falls toward a dropped rock, proportionally, context moves toward the object. So, if you consider an objects motion as a dimension of time, than the context necessarily constitutes an opposing direction of time.

He noted that the limit of velocity is light speed. If you are at rest (relatively), all of your motion is used in the time dimension. Therefore, you don't move, but you age. If you begin to move, the motion in the time dimension decreases (time slows for you, as has been proven experimentally), but motion increases in the spatial dimensions. If you are going light speed all of your possible velocity is going through space, with no motion through the time dimension. In this last case, isn't this where time is frozen at one instant? Photons do not age. They travel the speed of light throughout the universe, and exist infinitely unless they are absorbed.

Because the photons “clock” freezes and they exist while at one instant in their time doesn’t this refute the fact that time is a dimension and at least not static?

=Time slows at velocity because the combined speed of the electron and the motion can't exceed the speed of light, which means that at the speed of light there is no structure. The photon's clock doesn't freeze because it is unchanging in the first place. It's the atom's clock that slows.

That is what I mean by space not being fully explained by three dimensions. Any reference is subjective and three dimensions are a reference.

****How about space not being fully explained by ANY real dimensions as our point of reference is totally subjective. Ergo no reference of perceived dimensions can be valid.

=It doesn't have to be absolute to be valid.

**** A state of CHANGE is measurable and not absolute zero.

=Therefore change cannot be described as "unchanging".

Change means movement. Movement means friction. Only in the frictionless vacuum of a nonexistent abstract world can movement or change occur without that abrasive friction of conflict.

=If there is nothing against which it is weighed, there is no motion.

regards,

brodix

 

[elas]

Time slows at velocity because the combined speed of the electron and the motion can't exceed the speed of light, which means that at the speed of light there is no structure

Surely 'The Fractional Quantum Hall Experiment' (TFQHE) is conducted at the speed of light and yet produces an observable structure.
Surely a photon registers as either a particle or wave proving it had one of two possible structures at the point of arrival. Does not the aurora borealis operate at the speed of light?
Movement within a field decreases with field velocity for obvious reasons, but the field itself retains its structure.

 

[brodix]

elas,

I guess I should have referred to material structure, as opposed to energy.

To be observable, anything must have form.

regards,

brodix

 

[brodix]

Which raises another thought;

We refer to light quanta as particles, like little balls of matter. We do this because energy shifts in quanta, ie. steps of specific quantity and because these steps strike at points, like a bullet.

Maybe another description might be to compare the strikes like lightning, in that the energy gets transferred at a point of initial, or primary contact, rather than being diffuse, like a wave on a beach.
And it shifts as quanta because of a phase transition process, like water dripping, where various attractive forces and retentative tensions cause it to move in units, rather then smoothly.
Not that this is a good explanation, but I think the little BB concept might not be completely accurate.

regards,

brodix