Creation of the universe and other stories

[spacecowboy342]

Stretched was a bad analogy, it just appears stretched in the diagram. What's actually happening is that the path is elongated because it had to travel through more space. It's as if the it were stretched. Ill try and keep the visualizations and the realities seperate. The path of the photon is longer because it has to travel through more space and the light clock ticks slower.

I believe relative motion is different than acceleration and gravitation. On its own relative motion, both clocks if viewed by the other should look slower. Much like looking at someone down a football field looks small but you also look small to them. If there is no acceleration ever involve then the clocks in the end if compared will agree. ( keep in mind this is hypothetical, indeed at some point one has to be accelerated relative to the other otherwise they could not be moveing, conversely to turn around one has to decelerate, making the other now passing through more space, so the clocks can no longer match but will continue to keep pace after that). Gravitational dilation and accelerated refrence dilation is different and clocks will now display different times . It's no longer reciprocal. Special relative time dilation creates the twin paradox. Accelerated/gravitational time dilation does not. ..... I'm pretty sure that's right.

Either way. In the end, you need no dimension of time. I know that's what they call it, but its simply the allowance space gives to movieing objects. The faster you accelerate to the slower your clock runs. Your new speed is makeing your light clock run slower because it has the same allowance but has used all of its allowance so it has to give some of it to you.

I did not say space is not expanding, I was questioning and giving a suggestion of what space might really be. It might not be space, it may simply be virtual particles. Dark energy and gravity apear to be two sides of the ame coin and we don't have the slightest clue what it is. I think the COBR observations then calculations for flattnes might be just wrong. Just as space is curved in a black hole causing things to accelerate, so.can a universe be vastly curved so we experience things as galaxies accelerating away from us until they Also disappear. Essentially the universe may be falling apart if curvature manifests itself as acceleration.

Time dilation due to relative motion is covered by special relativity while that due to gravitation/acceleration is covered by general relativity, It has been verified experimentally in both cases. It isn't just a case where the bouncing photon in a rocket has to travel farther. Time actually dilates. Muons traveling at 98% of c take 5 times longer to decay than those at rest. There was an experiment with cesium clocks where they set them next to each other with one sitting 1 foot higher than the other. The higher one ran faster due to gravitational effects being less. I think space-time must be something in order to bend. Dark energy may be the flip side of gravity as you suggest, but it still isn't clear to me what exactly that means. It seems that at the BB space inflated rapidly, then slowed and was decelerating due to gravity until about 6 billion years ago when expansion started accelerating. This just mystifies me.

[White Crane Feather]

Time dilation due to relative motion is covered by special relativity while that due to gravitation/acceleration is covered by general relativity, It has been verified experimentally in both cases. It isn't just a case where the bouncing photon in a rocket has to travel farther. Time actually dilates. Muons traveling at 98% of c take 5 times longer to decay than those at rest. There was an experiment with cesium clocks where they set them next to each other with one sitting 1 foot higher than the other. The higher one ran faster due to gravitational effects being less. I think space-time must be something in order to bend. Dark energy may be the flip side of gravity as you suggest, but it still isn't clear to me what exactly that means. It seems that at the BB space inflated rapidly, then slowed and was decelerating due to gravity until about 6 billion years ago when expansion started accelerating. This just mystifies me.

Yes because of the equivalence principle. It's identical to acceleration.

I know those are all deductions from the COBR and other observations. But I always take that stuff with a grain of salt. In the next 5- 10 years the consensus will probably be different.

Yes mystifies... Me to. The deep reality of why and how we are here is a terribly deep well. We are only blowing the dust off of a book shelf in the library of congress.

[Frank Merton]

Time dilation due to relative motion is covered by special relativity while that due to gravitation/acceleration is covered by general relativity, It has been verified experimentally in both cases. It isn't just a case where the bouncing photon in a rocket has to travel farther. Time actually dilates. Muons traveling at 98% of c take 5 times longer to decay than those at rest. There was an experiment with cesium clocks where they set them next to each other with one sitting 1 foot higher than the other. The higher one ran faster due to gravitational effects being less. I think space-time must be something in order to bend. Dark energy may be the flip side of gravity as you suggest, but it still isn't clear to me what exactly that means. It seems that at the BB space inflated rapidly, then slowed and was decelerating due to gravity until about 6 billion years ago when expansion started accelerating. This just mystifies me.

Time dilation is also space shrinking (in the direction of acceleration). If space/time is quantized, which I think it is, then I perceive these little four-dimensional Plank balls shrinking one way and expanding another.

[White Crane Feather]

Time dilation is also space shrinking (in the direction of acceleration). If space/time is quantized, which I think it is, then I perceive these little four-dimensional Plank balls shrinking one way and expanding another.

Leonardo made a very good argument one day that I have not been able to get out of my head. Haveing kept up on some of this stuff. If there is such thing as 'space', we have no reason to think its quantisized. Our measurements come from what we can preceive. We can perceive things but not non things, therefore the quanta is our measurement. It's been a while since I dove into that, but I will re read things with this in mind. There just might be the possibility of the infinite small and the infinite large. Thanks Leo.

[spacecowboy342]

Yes because of the equivalence principle. It's identical to acceleration.

I know those are all deductions from the COBR and other observations. But I always take that stuff with a grain of salt. In the next 5- 10 years the consensus will probably be different.

Yes mystifies... Me to. The deep reality of why and how we are here is a terribly deep well. We are only blowing the dust off of a book shelf in the library of congress.

I've been thinking about your earlier post, which at first I didn't want to accept because of the bending of space-time by gravity making me think it must be something. But, I think, you may be on to something there. I was thinking of sort of a thought experiment. Suppose you remove everything we know exists from the universe. All matter, energy, dark matter, dark energy, everything. What are you left with? If time and space are real things they should remain. But it seems to me with everything else removed the concept of time and spatial dimensions would have no meaning and you would just have an infinite amount of nothing, which sounds like the pre-big bang universe. This apparent contradiction between space-time being nothing on it's own and it appearing to warp due to gravity made me wonder if space-time could actually somehow be some emergent property of matter and energy. That led me back to this :

http://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/d5d3dc850933

Edited February 5, 2014 by spacecowboy342

[spacecowboy342]

Leonardo made a very good argument one day that I have not been able to get out of my head. Haveing kept up on some of this stuff. If there is such thing as 'space', we have no reason to think its quantisized. Our measurements come from what we can preceive. We can perceive things but not non things, therefore the quanta is our measurement. It's been a while since I dove into that, but I will re read things with this in mind. There just might be the possibility of the infinite small and the infinite large. Thanks Leo.

I think some have made arguments for quantization of space-time. I'm not qualified to know which might be more likely but, I wonder, given the wave particle duality of photons and electrons etc,, if there could be such a duality with space-time with it having both a quantized and continuous nature? It seems that there is no way to determine the difference in position at lengths under 1 planck length.

http://www.weburbia.com/pg/discrete.htm

I saw something a while back about an astronomer observing a galaxy several billion light years away who claimed to observe ultra-violet and infra-red light arriving about 5 seconds apart which he claimed could be evidence for graininess of space but I never heard anything else about it so it may have been inaccurate

[spacecowboy342]

According to physicist Don Larson, using Poincarre's recurrence theorem, 10^10^10^10^10^1.1 years after the universe reaches it's state of maximum entropy it will reset to it's initial state and repeat the BB. But he says it is likely to tunnel to a completely different state before that happens.

[andy4]

I think it's pretty simple actually. No you, no universe. Without a sentient being(s) observing the universe, there is no need for it. I believe consciousness is the creator of the universe, not the other way around.

Edited February 6, 2014 by andy4

[spacecowboy342]

I think it's pretty simple actually. No you, no universe. Without a sentient being(s) observing the universe, there is no need for it. I believe consciousness is the creator of the universe, not the other way around.

The problem with that is for the first 300,000 years the universe was so hot there was nothing but plasma. No possibility for consciousness. How did the universe exist then?

[andy4]

The problem with that is for the first 300,000 years the universe was so hot there was nothing but plasma. No possibility for consciousness. How did the universe exist then?

True, but we know nothing definitively on what was occurring at that time. How do we know another consciousness didn't create our universe? Not using the term "God" per se.

It had to have come from somewhere, and I don't believe it came from nothing.

Also, if we weren't sitting here talking about it right now, assuming humans are the only intelligent life forms in the universe, would it really matter if the universe were nothing more than hot gases soon after creation? There wouldn't be anybody talking about what happened at the creation of the universe, because it wouldn't exist to anyone or anything. Anything sentient enough to question it's existence that is.

Edited February 6, 2014 by andy4

[spacecowboy342]

True, but we know nothing definitively on what was occurring at that time. How do we know another consciousness didn't create our universe? Not using the term "God" per se.

It had to have come from somewhere, and I don't believe it came from nothing.

Also, if we weren't sitting here talking about it right now, assuming humans are the only intelligent life forms in the universe, would it really matter if the universe were nothing more than hot gases soon after creation? There wouldn't be anybody talking about what happened at the creation of the universe, because it wouldn't exist to anyone or anything. Anything sentient enough to question it's existence that is.

No it wouldn't and didn't matter but the universe did exist. Of course, as you say God or some all powerful being could have been there to make it so

[White Crane Feather]

The problem with that is for the first 300,000 years the universe was so hot there was nothing but plasma. No possibility for consciousness. How did the universe exist then?

It dosnt matter manifestation of something from a super position state, which the universe must have been at some point, does not require for the measurement to happen in a liner fashion. Retro causality is a fact of QM. We being the universe could very well observe ourselves to collapse the quantum conditions of the earliest universe.

Edited February 6, 2014 by White Crane Feather

[White Crane Feather]

No it wouldn't and didn't matter but the universe did exist. Of course, as you say God or some all powerful being could have been there to make it so

You don't have to be. This is back to the time issue. There was no there only a here. When we drop this notion that a place in time is a place and we loose this tendency to think of it as something to traverse, then possibilities change drastically.

[White Crane Feather]

According to physicist Don Larson, using Poincarre's recurrence theorem, 10^10^10^10^10^1.1 years after the universe reaches it's state of maximum entropy it will reset to it's initial state and repeat the BB. But he says it is likely to tunnel to a completely different state before that happens.

Yes... I have been saying this for years. In a purely causal universe, you will eventually read this sentence again. It pretty humbling to think that this life will repeat itself over and over again. Better get it right heaven or hell is at your finger tips.

[White Crane Feather]

I've been thinking about your earlier post, which at first I didn't want to accept because of the bending of space-time by gravity making me think it must be something. But, I think, you may be on to something there. I was thinking of sort of a thought experiment. Suppose you remove everything we know exists from the universe. All matter, energy, dark matter, dark energy, everything. What are you left with? If time and space are real things they should remain. But it seems to me with everything else removed the concept of time and spatial dimensions would have no meaning and you would just have an infinite amount of nothing, which sounds like the pre-big bang universe. This apparent contradiction between space-time being nothing on it's own and it appearing to warp due to gravity made me wonder if space-time could actually somehow be some emergent property of matter and energy. That led me back to this :

http://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/d5d3dc850933

It's an interesting idea. But I still think we are giving time to much credit. Relativity suggests there is no time for a photon however we know it can move. What is a photon? A probability spike in a quantum field? The peak of a wave in a certain type of super string? A tiny vibrating string in 10 dimensions? We just don't need time. Everything can happen without some mystical force. The vibration and spin of each string is movement. Everything we call time is just interaction. The laws of physics is all way need. This is why time is completely unnecessary in QM. Only in the macro universe does relativity become and issue. Dare I say realativly is time... Hence time is relative. There you go I just solved the greatest problem in physics QM and relativity don't mesh simply as a matter perspective. Nobel prize anyone

[andy4]

It dosnt matter manifestation of something from a super position state, which the universe must have been at some point, does not require for the measurement to happen in a liner fashion. Retro causality is a fact of QM. We being the universe could very well observe ourselves to collapse the quantum conditions of the earliest universe.

That's what I was thinking, if I understand you correctly. The only reason we think the universe was a hot dense gas at one time, is only because we perceive it to have been that way, hence that's what it becomes, or so we think.

[andy4]

It's an interesting idea. But I still think we are giving time to much credit. Relativity suggests there is no time for a photon however we know it can move. What is a photon? A probability spike in a quantum field? The peak of a wave in a certain type of super string? A tiny vibrating string in 10 dimensions? We just don't need time. Everything can happen without some mystical force. The vibration and spin of each string is movement. Everything we call time is just interaction. The laws of physics is all way need. This is why time is completely unnecessary in QM. Only in the macro universe does relativity become and issue. Dare I say realativly is time... Hence time is relative. There you go I just solved the greatest problem in physics QM and relativity don't mesh simply as a matter perspective. Nobel prize anyone

I agree with you on this one for sure. A while back I put forth a thought experiment in which if you are asleep, you go into a superposition, relative to yourself, because time is relative, and that is why sleep occurs so rapidly. It doesn't matter if you are being observed because once again, time is relative only to the observer, which is always you, no matter what. If you're not observing anything, than time ceases to exist for you, and the observer effect would not be taking place in a state such as sleep or unconsciousness. No observation=a cessation of relative time with no observer effect in QM taking place.

Or I'm missing something here, and you can correct me on it. Lol

[Rlyeh]

I think it's pretty simple actually. No you, no universe. Without a sentient being(s) observing the universe, there is no need for it. I believe consciousness is the creator of the universe, not the other way around.

And some people believe the earth is flat.

[Rlyeh]

I agree with you on this one for sure. A while back I put forth a thought experiment in which if you are asleep, you go into a superposition, relative to yourself, because time is relative, and that is why sleep occurs so rapidly. It doesn't matter if you are being observed because once again, time is relative only to the observer, which is always you, no matter what. If you're not observing anything, than time ceases to exist for you, and the observer effect would not be taking place in a state such as sleep or unconsciousness. No observation=a cessation of relative time with no observer effect in QM taking place.

Or I'm missing something here, and you can correct me on it. Lol

Relativity has everything to do with reference frames. I think you're confusing "observer" for conscious perception.

[White Crane Feather]

That's what I was thinking, if I understand you correctly. The only reason we think the universe was a hot dense gas at one time, is only because we perceive it to have been that way, hence that's what it becomes, or so we think.

Well..... It's more like we extrapolate the laws of physics backwards. I know what you are saying, but I think that the universe was actually in that state, but it was the collapse of the original quantum fluctuation that started the universe off. This would need some sort of measurement and experiments show is that the collapse of a quantum state can indeed come from the future. The original quantum state that probably initiated the Big Bang would not collapse it's wave function unless it needed to which would come from some sort of measurement. Of course there was nothing there, so the measurement had to come from the future. It's sounds crazy but the delayed choice quantum eraser shows us that this is indeed how things work. After the initial collapse of he quantum potential physics can take over and we end up with our current universe. But yes. We know subatomic things do not manifest as particles until they are measured. We also know that the universe at one time was probably a subatomic sized singularity.

[andy4]

And some people believe the earth is flat.

So relative to only you, when you're dead the world will still exist? I think not.

Relativity has everything to do with reference frames. I think you're confusing "observer" for conscious perception.

What is the definition of the observer than?

[White Crane Feather]

I agree with you on this one for sure. A while back I put forth a thought experiment in which if you are asleep, you go into a superposition, relative to yourself, because time is relative, and that is why sleep occurs so rapidly. It doesn't matter if you are being observed because once again, time is relative only to the observer, which is always you, no matter what. If you're not observing anything, than time ceases to exist for you, and the observer effect would not be taking place in a state such as sleep or unconsciousness. No observation=a cessation of relative time with no observer effect in QM taking place.

Or I'm missing something here, and you can correct me on it. Lol

I have considered that our consciousness might be in a superposition state when asleep. I don't know though.

[spacecowboy342]

It dosnt matter manifestation of something from a super position state, which the universe must have been at some point, does not require for the measurement to happen in a liner fashion. Retro causality is a fact of QM. We being the universe could very well observe ourselves to collapse the quantum conditions of the earliest universe.

I wouldn't call retro causality a fact. I know it has been proposed, but I don't think it has been confirmed.

[spacecowboy342]

It's an interesting idea. But I still think we are giving time to much credit. Relativity suggests there is no time for a photon however we know it can move. What is a photon? A probability spike in a quantum field? The peak of a wave in a certain type of super string? A tiny vibrating string in 10 dimensions? We just don't need time. Everything can happen without some mystical force. The vibration and spin of each string is movement. Everything we call time is just interaction. The laws of physics is all way need. This is why time is completely unnecessary in QM. Only in the macro universe does relativity become and issue. Dare I say realativly is time... Hence time is relative. There you go I just solved the greatest problem in physics QM and relativity don't mesh simply as a matter perspective. Nobel prize anyone

The photon doesn't experience time. But our reference frame is equally valid as we see it move through space-time. It's back to geometry. The photon moves at c through space and is motionless in time Edited February 7, 2014 by spacecowboy342

[spacecowboy342]

That's what I was thinking, if I understand you correctly. The only reason we think the universe was a hot dense gas at one time, is only because we perceive it to have been that way, hence that's what it becomes, or so we think.

I can see no basis for supposing our observation ha anything to do with it. Photons from the last scattering surface were traveling through space for billions of years before the solar system even formed to get to us to observe them now. It is inconceivable to me they had no existence all that time