• Trees, Meaning and Consciousness March 19 - 01:35 pm
• Big bang, Steady state and Sentience May 18 - 01:12 am

PLEASE NOTE

At Claude's personal request, I am removing this thread on "Theory of All Things", and thus all entries by Claude are here erased.

However, as thread has continued in the spirit with which it was started, and to which many had contributed, I am leaving it open under the title of "Theory of Everything".

Sorry for inconvenience, but I hope this satisfies all parties involved.

Ivan

Dear Claude,

RE Theory of All Things.

Thank you! For your insights and comprehensive theory of Existence. So much food for thought, since it is the product of grueling thinking 'over time'. Especially impressed with: "Gravity travels faster than light; therefore, gravity bends light and extends the distance of travel..." Wow! Ever wonder why when looking at Hubble telescope pictures of 13 billion light years away (13 billion years ago, see link below), the galaxies are already fully formed? I suspect the 'Big Bang' theory will yet prove to be a big bust, and only the fancy of imaginative astronomers.

Or think of it this way: If those distant galaxies are 13 billion light years away, and we are here at ground zero, then there are 13 billion years of space between us. What's wrong with this picture? How can a universe that is reputed to be only 13 to 15 billion years old have expanded so quickly that both we here, and the galaxies most distant we know of, both exist already fully formed, at the same time? Surely, then the Big Bang would have expanded at a velocity much greater than the speed of light C. Either that, or we did not exist as a galaxy 13 billion years ago. But if that is so, then as we look 13 billion light years distance in all directions of space, then they all happened before we did, which does not make sense. So the Big Bang, to be consistent with a universe where C is the greatest coefficient of velocity, and where the Doppler light red shift is the root of this theory, would mean that the original universe expanded at a velocity we cannot imagine, which may be no more than pure fancy, and thus untenable.

13 billion light years away
http://www.seds.org/hst/97-25.html

Or is the 13 billion light years really here, and what we perceive as a universe expanding over time merely an illusion? Or is the Doppler red shift an illusion?

Will study your ideas more, as deserves.

One in the All,

Ivan

Hi Claude,

I would say that another 'essential ingredient' of my existence today is that I was blessed with having parents whose religion didn't include a belief in infanticide.

I guess you disagree with Aristotle's claim that 'Existence does not belong to the essence of a thing'.

That claim comes from Schopenhauer's 'On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason', which I am currently reading. I have to say that without Schopenhauer's existence, the essence of Philosophy would be such that I would likely not want to have anything to do with it.

Here's the passage from which Aristotle's notion was extracted (p21):

[quote]
With Descartes the existence of God lies in the concept of God, and thus becomes the argument for his actual being; with Spinoza God himself is in the world. Accordingly, what was mere reason of knowledge with Descartes is made into reason of fact by Spinoza. If in his ontological proof Descartes had taught that God's existentia follows from his essentia, Spinoza makes of this his causa sui, and boldly opens his ethics with: "By cause of itself I understand that whose essence (concept) involves existence"; - deaf to Aristotle who exclaims to him: "Existence does not belong to the essence of a thing." Now here we have the most palpable confusion of reason of knowledge with cause. And if Neo-Spinozists (Schellingites, Hegelians, and others), with whom words are usually regarded as ideas, often indulge in pompous and solemn admiration of this causa sui, then I for my part see in this causa sui only a contradictio in adjecto, a before that is after, a bold and preemptory order to cut off the endless causal chain...The proper emblem for causa sui is Baron Munchausen on horseback and sinking into the water, gripping his horse with his thighs and lifting himself and the animal up by means of his own pigtail, with the words causa sui underneath.

What say you? Should I throw the book away?

How does your definition of our existence (father's sperm and mother's ovum) account for the endless causal chain before and after the events of the arising of the sperm and ovum.

What about human development? The zygote, the stem cells, embryo, the fetus, the newborn, the infant, the child, the adolescent, the adult (who then produces the sperm or ovum) all have their 'essences' don't they? What about the sociological, anthropological, ethical, biological, medical, political, aesthetic, social, vocational, at home essences of our being?
Are their not endless causal chains which give rise to the essences to which these categories relate?

Is there a case for asking why one's 'academic philosophy' should differ from one's everyday speech, actions, and relations in life?

Dave.

WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY (1860 Edition)

Hi Dave, Claude,


RE: ESSENCE: n. (Lat. essentia)...

1. That which constitutes the particular nature of
a being or substance, or of a genus, and which
distinguishes it from all others. Mr. Locke makes
a distinction between nominal essence and
real essence. The nominal essence, for
example, of gold, is that complex idea expressed
by gold; the real essence is the constitution of
its insensible parts, on which its properties
depend, which is unknown to us.

2. Formal existence; that which makes any thing to
be what it is; or rather, the peculiar nature of a
thing; the very substance; as, the essence of
Christianity.

3. Existence, the quality of being.

4. A being; an existent person; as, heavenly
essences.

5. Species of being.

6. Constituent substance; as, the pure essence of
a spirit. [Locke's real essence, supra.]

etc.

Now, fast forward to 2002, and what have we got?

"The quality or qualities of a thing that gives it
its identity." --The American Heritage
Dictionary of the English Language.

So there we have it, ESSENCE is now equated
with IDENTITY. Why didn't they say this in
the first place? Now, fast forward again, and we
have IDENTITY = FUNCTION OF CONTEXTUAL
WHOLE = ESSENCE. Finally beginning to make
sense! So now we can interrelate all the forces
of existence, of being, of bioforce, of essential
force, of universal totality contextual force, and
we come up with BEING, defined as its IDENTITY, in
its totality ESSENCE.

Thank you Mr. Webster!

Ivan

Hi All: I just checked in here. Thanks for the
invite, Claude. I'll need a few days to cogitate
all I've read thus far. But...my initial take is:
I like it! I've had many brain fart journal
entries of my own over the years (i.e. "It is
because the universe never achieves its constant
that it is without beginning or end.") However,
proving such elusive insights is the real
challenge. The great thing here is...we have a
group of folks that are using their gray material
in expansionary ways. I do believe that a TOE is
possible. (Yet its discovery may lead to psychotic
episodes, due to analog distortions...:) G-man
This is..

Hi G-man,

Welcome! Yeah, this place can get full of beans,
but we have fun, no one to tell you "no, no, no".
The operating motto is "all ideas are welcome".
So brain calisthenicss are always way cool!

Ciao, ciao, Ivan

WHAT TIME IS IT?

Hi Dave, Claude, G-man, All,

A Theory of All Things should be able to incorporate the event that ties together existence as an interrelated totality, especially one that is in constant motion. So Time is not a substance within it, any more than a point or line is a substance, though we use these concepts to understand our reality; rather, they are relationships that comprise the whole. If I were to give Time an essence, I would say that time is the interval of space that opens and closes with each new relationship formed, so that when two things touch and separate, in that event an element of time was created. So, by this definition of Time as an event of interrelation, where there is not activity, or motion, where the relations are fixed, static, time ceases to exist. However, since we live in a dynamic universe, one that is in a perpetual state of motion, then Time exists all the time. And from this flow of Time comes change, evolution, a past and present and future, and the ideas in our minds that form to identify what the universe is doing with itself. So, no activity equals no time; activity equals time; how we choose to measure this time then becomes a matter of our choice.

Whooosh, much of this flies over my head too. But there is a fundamental reason for defining things like Time, Big Bang, Essence, etc., it is because they form the basic premises from which we are able to construct philosophy of Being. We are, that we can well ascertain; we are who we are, that is innate to our knowledge of ourselves; we are who we are in relation to all the other things and whos, that requires philosophy, for then we are either interacting with everything one way or another, as is our choice. What that choice will be is then the product of our philosophical thoughts, even when we are unawares that they are (as for most people, I fear). But if I wish to make a conscious choice, then I must have some philosophical construction based on valid premises, so that the whole thing holds together, with PNC if possible.

As it applies to: [Px0)(x0)(x0)(x0] that

The potential of nothing, is nothing; therefore, of nothing, nothing can possibly manifest,
I would think can be restated as:

[Px(1)(x1)(x2)(x3)...] =1 , which then restates as:

"The potential of one is One; therefore of one all numbers can manifest, to become One." ??

Thanks for the link on "Time", I will take a look when I have the _______!

Later, Ivan

Claude,

Wouldn't you say that 'humanity', indeed 'life' is an accidental feature of Earth which Earth need not have. If we start to strip everything away merely to satisfy Ockham (who's dead anyway), what will we have?

I think we do need Ockham to be able to distinguish precise facts. But the reverse is true when we need to distinguish 'living conditions'. We could call that 'Ockham's blunt razor of plenitude'. Earth has already set the standard on beauty and plenitude in living conditions. Why change the rules of plenitude and diversity? Especially when we are ideally evolved to appreciate it.

Regards,

Dave.

Claude,

Your opinions on Einstein's motivations are very interesting... and give a rather elegant example of arbitrary judgements.

About the only 'new evidence' I could find at the site was that 'it's good to have a competing theory', and that he feels a bit sorry for Fred Hoyle. As the gentleman writes in one of his essays 'it wouldn't be much fun if there weren't some controversy'.

Anyway I’m sure the players will be able to convince the funding bodies to provide a few zillion so they can develop the equipment to observe the cosmological constant in all its glory. Who knows there will probably be some good military applications that will come out of the research.

On the other side of the controversy, apparently, the Big Bang never disappeared and the seeming Steady State is explained by the possibility that the Universe is currently ‘middle aged’. There’s something called ‘vacuum energy density’ that they’d like to confirm by some additional funding and research as well.

The following quote is from Astronomy Research at UCLA

[quote]
This term acts to counteract the gravitational pull of matter, and so it has been described as an anti-gravity effect.
Why does the cosmological constant behave this way?
This term acts like a vacuum energy density, an idea which has become quite fashionable in high energy particle physics models since a vacuum energy density of a specific kind is used in the Higgs mechanism for spontaneous symmetry breaking. Indeed, the inflationary scenario for the first picosecond after the Big Bang proposes that a fairly large vacuum energy density existed during the inflationary epoch. The vacuum energy density must be associated with a negative pressure because:

• The vacuum energy density must be constant because there is nothing for it to depend on.
• If a piston capping a cylinder of vacuum is pulled out, producing more vacuum, the vacuum within the cylinder then has more energy which must have been supplied by a force pulling on the piston.
• If the vacuum is trying to pull the piston back into the cylinder, it must have a negative pressure, since a positive pressure would tend to push the piston out.

Hey Guys!

..Thought I'd come by wave the banner a bit. Kant was wrong, plain and simple. Kant's God (his own consciousness) is dead.

In this unexplained physical (and mental) world, existence precedes essence. Beyond that, essences, such as the essence of consciousness, would be quite metaphysical. And absolute knowledge of that would require something more than Kantian metaphysics.

Don't fear the truth, it won't bit you! Until we can create a mind and a universe (out of nothing)as we know it, existence preceeds essence.

Walrus

All!

"But what is time? Is it an existence in the same sense as the existence of other objective things? Time is not such an existence: Time does not appear until we measure it by some equipments, i.e., by clocks. Time is just a movement of the hands of clocks, and time is not an a priori existence which measures motion. Quite contrarily, just the motion of hands of analogue clocks, or just the change of figures of digital clocks measures time."

Unless I'm missing something, which is entirely possible, he seems to be saying two things. Time does not appear before we actually measure it, and time is not an apriori existence.

Back to Claude's intitial thought about conception/procreation, we would obviously need time to exist. So in that sense time appears before we measure it because if I look at a Being, you correctly assume that time was involved in his/her existence.

Would this not be one in the same as aposterior? Or, is it time itself that comprises the essence of existence? If so, what is time? Human life? Consciousness?

If the answer is then yes that existence is dependent on time, what is the actual essence of consciousness and life?

Perhaps Claude would know?

Walrus

TIRED LIGHT Syndrome? Or, is the velocity of light really C?

It may seem odd to ask these questions in a philosophy context, since it should fall into the domain of science. But these are questions of cosmology, and how we construct an image of existence within a universe, that may or may not be what it appears to be, is then critical for an understanding of Existence.

So, is the Red Shift at very great cosmic distances due to an expanding universe, a curved space universe, a flat Euclidean universe, or due to the nature of light itself? Most of current physics and astronomy, ala Einstein's Special Theory, supports the expanding universe theory, though the science due to the use of constants is questionable, and the debate over whether or not the universe is flat and infinite, or curved and self enclosed remains. The links below offer some insight into the matter. However, all these studies are based on the speed of light as a constant of C, which in itself may be open to doubt, so that much of what we are measuring at very great distances may be faulty from the start. Then again, this is the best we have to work with, and unless it can be shown that light behaves differently in space at great distances, then the science as it is now accepted is judged to be good. So the question becomes: Is the cosmological science clustered around a speed of light constant of C good science?... Not a 'win or lose' proposition, merely one of philosophic understanding. Or, is it really all about Time?

Big Bang, or big bust, or a universe alive with a mystery 'whose' essence is not so easy to dissect? What happens to the Cesium atomic clock over great distances at great velocities? Is there a cosmological 'constant' of Time? In the end, as Walrus and others have suggested, are we really talking about a universe alive with God?

Time will tell.

CMB (Cosmic Background Model) radiation redshift? No!
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stars_vs_cmb.html

Errors in Stolmar Cosmic Background Model
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Stolmar_Errors.html

Other Possible Cause of Red Shift
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm

Or, as per "Other Possible Cause", light photons experience a half-life; and if so, where does the 'lost' energy go? I would think that this may be crucial to an understanding of a fundamental property of how the universe is built, what happens to light over distance and time, and one which is critical for a cosmoligical Theory of Everything. Another possible cause of distance related Doppler red shift may be that the photon energy 'leaks' into another dimension, another universe, and one which is 'accessible' only at very great velocities, or at great cosmic distances.

All the best, Ivan

In a nutshell, here's my own personal TOE: Both
light velocity (c) and absolute gravity (G)=
simultaneous alpha/omega time. Both c and G are
equivalent to each other, and represent the
universal constant. All values less than c or
greater than G have only potential time. Hence,
Time has not yet begun, yet 'Now'= alpha/omega t.
I also think that if Matter=Potential Energy, then
a current function of Matter=E. Suggesting further
that all values less than c also have c (or G) as
their ultimate constant. Strange ideas, I know.
Just thought I'd float them:) G-man

Since time does not seem to subsist without motion or even rest, if motion is abolished, and likewise rest, time is abolished. Nonetheless, some makes the following objections against time. If time exists, it is either limited or unlimited. But if it is limited, it began at a certain time and will end at a certain time. Consequently, there was once a time when time was not (before it began), and there will once be a time when time will not be (after it has ended); which is absurd. So then time is not limited. But if it is unlimited, since part of it is said to be past, part present, and part future, the future and past are either existent or non-existent. But if they are non-existent, and there remains only the present, which is momentary, time will be limited and the original difficulties will follow. And if the past exists and the future exists, each of these will be present. But it is absurd to call past and future time present; neither, then, is time unlimited. But if it is neither unlimited nor limited, time does not exist at all.

Further, if time exists it is either divisible or indivisible. Now it is not indivisible, for it is divided, as they themselves declare, into present, past, and future. Yet it is not divisible either. For each divisible thing is measured by some part of itself, the measure coinciding with each part of the measured, as when we measure a cubit with a finger. But time cannot be measured by any part of itself. If, for instance, the present measures the past, it will coincide with the past and will therefore be past, and similarly it will be future in the case of the future. And if the future should measure the rest, it will be present and past, and so likewise the past will be future and present; which is nonsense. Neither, then, is time divisible. But if it is neither indivisible nor divisible, it does not exist.

Time, too, is said to be tripartite, partly past, partly present, and partly future. Of these the past and the future are non-existent, for if past and future time exist now, each of them will be present. Neither is the present existent; for if present time exists it is either indivisible or divisible. Now it is not indivisible, for what changes is said to change in the present time, but nothing changes in indivisible time - iron, for instance, into softness, and so on. Hence present time is not indivisible. Neither is it divisible; for it could not be divided into a plurality of presents, since time present is said to change into time past imperceptibly owing to the rapid flux of the things in the Universe. Nor yet into past and future, for so it will be unreal, having one part of itself no longer existent and the other part not yet existent.

Hence, too, the present cannot be the end of the past and the beginning of the future, since then it will both be and not be existent, for it will exist as present, but will not exist because its parts are non-existent. Therefore it is not divisible either. But if the present is neither indivisible nor divisible, it does not exist. And when neither the present nor the past nor the future exists, time too is non-existent; for what is compounded of things unreal is unreal.

This argument, too, is alleged against time: If time exists it is either generable and perishable or ingenerable and imperishable. Time is not ingenerable and imperishable, since part of it is said to be past and no longer in existence, and part to be future and not yet in existence. Neither is it generable and perishable. For things generated must be generated from something existent, and things which perish must perish into something existent, according to the postulates of the Dogmatists themselves. If, then, time perishes into the past, it perishes into a non-existent; and if it is generated out of the future, it is generated out of a non-existent, for neither of these is in existence. But it is absurd to say that anything is generated from a non-existent or perishes into the non-existent. Therefore time is not generable and perishable. But if it is neither ingenerable and imperishable nor generable and perishable, it does not exist at all.

Further, since everything, which becomes seems to become in time, time if it becomes, becomes in time. Either, then, it becomes itself in itself or as one time in another. But if it becomes itself, it will be at once both existent and non-existent. For since that within which a thing becomes must exist before the thing, which becomes within it, the time, which becomes in itself does not yet exist in so far as it becomes in itself. Consequently it does not become in itself, nor yet in another. For if the present becomes in the future, the present will be future, and if in the past, it will be past. And the same may be said of all the other times, so that one time does not become in another. But if time neither becomes in itself nor as one time in another it is not generable. And it has been shown that it is not ingenerable either. Being, then, neither generable nor ingenerable, it is wholly non-existent, for each existing thing is bound to be either generable or ingenerable.

--Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism, Chapter XIX. --- Concerning Time

As a residence, I prepare a Euclidean quantum space, and within that space I define a quantum-mechanical clock, which measures the common parameter of quantum-mechanical motions of particles in a (local) system consisting of a finite number of particles. Since clocks thus defined are proper to each local system, and local systems are mutually independent as concerns the relation among the coordinates of these systems, we can impose relativistic change of coordinates among them. And the change of coordinates gives a relation among those local systems, which yields relativistic quantum-mechanical Hamiltonians, explaining the actual observations.

These are technical explanations. Behind these, I have an image of the universe as a whole within which is all and which cannot be grasped. As such an existence we cannot impose any global time on the universe by nature. The universe inasmuch as it is the universe it is nonsense to assume any global time-coordinates for the total universe. I thus take a universe without time. Hitoshi Kitada –

Every important philosopher, from Parmenides, Plato and Aristotle, through
Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz and Kant, has recognized that time cannot be a
thing, something that exists in the world. The most prevalent view --
certainly that of Spinoza, but largely shared by others -- is that time is a
measure of duration, while duration is the contingent mode of existence
proper to finite things.

Lance Fletcher- President The Free Lance Academy Foundation

Space and Time, "Considered logically, they are free creations of the human intelligence, tools of thought, which are to serve the purpose of bringing experiences into relation with each other, so that in this way they can be better surveyed."
A. Einstein- The special and the General Theory of Relativity

Does time exist?
Good philosophical commentary in that most physicists will say: "it exists because we believe it exists". This is a truism only in our understanding of time/space time. There could be a very different reality where time is simply a manifestation of our perception.
With all of that said, you must realize that all of physics that we know of today is simply based upon our perception of what we observe. All of the physical theories (even back to Newton) are STILL theories. None have been unequivocally proven. Effects of various theories have been observed. These theories are simply our attempt to place some science into what we observe.
So, does time exist? In our perception it does. But who is to say that our perception has been proven yet?

WT Johnson

Time is a man made concept. Time (i.e. one revolution of the earth, one orbit of the earth around the sun) allows the comparison of one process (including organic processes) to another. The earth does not orbit around the sun because of time.

If the earth took 400 days to orbit the sun in the year 2000, we would all expect that something had changed. The earth's mass, the sun's mass, the so called universal gravitational constant and so on.

Special Relativity

It is expected your question was asked because in S.R. time is presented as a variable.

Einstein's derived equations are the same as other equations which were earlier known to correctly model observed physical processes. It was known from Thompson's experiments with the electron that as the electron's velocity approaches the speed of light, the electron's inertial mass increases. It was also known that as radioactive particles' velocity approaches the speed of light, that their half life increases.
With these equations in hand, Einstein made assumptions and then proceeded to attempt to derive the equations (Einstein's derivation includes fudges) which theoretically modelled matter as its velocity approaches the speed of light. (The equations modelling the change in matter as it approaches the speed of light were developed separately by others. It is believed by many that Einstein copied and combined the derivations of others. Einstein stated that he was unaware of the work of others and said he had come up with S.R. while working in a Patent Office based on first principals.) Einstein had three objectives for his derivations:

1.) Prove by derivation that space was empty.

2.) Prove by derivation that although space is assumed to be empty and have no properties, that the space co-ordinate system does have properties and changes in the area of the moving matter as matter moves through the empty space.

3.) Prove by derivation that time slows down in the vicinity of matter, as matter moves through the empty space. Prove by derivation that inertial mass is velocity dependent.

If Einstein's equations are viewed only as equations separate from his derivations (S.R.) no harm is done. Einstein's equations are like Maxwell's equations. They are both theoretical models, that model processes in a limited way. (see for example Astley: Maxwell's Fields & Charge or Newton's Model: Applications & Limitations in this forum for a discussion of theoretical models.)

A more thorough explanation of the phenomena which Einstein's derivation is based on will be presented later. The following is a general challenge to the S.R. objectives using fundamental principals.

If space is empty (SR) all properties of matter must be carried by particles. If particles travel through empty space there is no reason or cause to initiate the observed change in the particles' properties.

Conversely, if space is full and there are no particles only states in a single field, it is expected as the states move through the field that they will change. The change in the field state slows down the process, which causes the radioactive "particles" to decay. If space is full and there are no particles, there is no space wind.

Paul Astley

New Scientist

Does time really exist?

TIME seems to be the most powerful force, an irresistible river
carrying us from birth to death. To most people it is an
inescapable part of life, a fundamental element of the Universe.

But I think that time is an illusion. Physicists struggling to
unify quantum mechanics and Einstein's general theory of
relativity have found hints that the Universe is timeless. I
believe that this idea should be taken seriously. Paradoxically,
we might be able to explain the mysterious "arrow of time"-the
difference between past and future-by abandoning time. But to
understand how, we need to change radically our ideas of how the
Universe works.

Let's start with Newton's picture of absolute time. He argued that
objects exist in an immense immobile space, stretching like a
block of glass from infinity to infinity. His time is an invisible
river that "flows equably without relation to anything external".
Newton's absolute space and time form a framework that exists at a
deeper level than the objects in it.

To see how it works, imagine a universe containing only three
particles. To describe its history in Newton's terms, you specify
a succession of sets of 10 numbers: one for time and three for the
spatial coordinates of each of the three particles. But this
picture is suspect. As the space-time framework is invisible, how
can you determine all the numbers? As far back as 1872, the
Austrian physicist Ernst Mach argued that the Universe should be
described solely in terms of observable things, the separations
between its objects.

With that in mind, we can use a very different framework for the
three-particle Universe-a strange, abstract realm called Triangle
Land. Think of the three particles as the corners of a triangle.
This triangle is completely defined by the lengths of its three
sides-just three numbers. You can take these three numbers and use
them as coordinates, to mark a point in an abstract "configuration
space" (see Diagram, p 30).

Each possible arrangement of three particles corresponds to a
point in this space. There are geometrical restrictions-no
triangle has one side longer than the other two put together-so it
turns out that all the points lie in or on a pyramid. At the apex
of Triangle Land, where all three coordinates are zero, is a point
that I call Alpha. It represents the triangle that has sides all
of zero length (in other words, all three particles are in the
same place).

In the same way, the configurations of a four-particle universe
form Tetrahedron Land. It has six dimensions, corresponding to the
six separations between pairs of particles-hard to conceive, but
it exists as a mathematical entity. And even for the stupendous
number of particles that make up our own Universe, we can envisage
a vast multidimensional structure representing its configurations.
In collaboration with Bruno Bertotti of Pavia University in Italy,
I have shown that conventional physics still works in this strange
world. As Plato taught that reality exists as perfect forms, I
think of the patterns of particles as Platonic forms, and call
their totality Platonia.

Platonia is an image of eternity. It is all the arrangements of
matter that can be. Looking at it as a whole, there seems to be no
more river of time. But could time be hiding? Perhaps there is
some sort of local time that makes sense to inhabitants of
Platonia.

In classical physics, something like time can indeed creep back
in. If you were to lay out all the instants of an evolving
Newtonian universe, it would look like a path drawn in Platonia.
As a godlike being, outside Platonia, you could run your finger
along the path, touching points that correspond to each different
arrangement of matter, and see a universe that continuously
changes from one state to another. Any point on this path still
has something that looks like a definite past and future.

Now's the place

But we know that classical physics is wrong. The world is
described by quantum mechanics-and in the arena of Platonia,
quantum mechanics kills time.

In the quantum wave theory created by Schrodinger, a particle has
no definite position, instead it has a fuzzy probability of being
at each possible position. And for three particles, say, there is
a certain probability of their forming a triangle in a particular
orientation with its centre of mass at some absolute position. The
deepest quantum mysteries arise because of holistic statements of
this kind. The probabilities are for the whole, not the parts.

What probabilities could quantum mechanics specify for the
complete Universe that has Platonia as its arena? There cannot be
probabilities at different times because Platonia itself is
timeless. There can only be once-and-for-all probabilities for
each possible configuration.

In this picture, there are no definite paths. We are not beings
progressing from one instant to another. Rather, there are many
"Nows" in which a version of us exists-not in any past or future,
but scattered in our region of Platonia.

This may sound like the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum
mechanics, published in 1957 by Hugh Everett of Princeton
University. But in that scheme time still exists: history is a
path that branches whenever some quantum decision has to be made.
In my picture there are no paths. Each point of Platonia has a
probability, and that's the end of the story.

A similar position was reached by much more sophisticated
arguments more than 30 years ago. Americans Bryce DeWitt and John
Wheeler combined quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of
general relativity to produce an equation that describes the whole
Universe. Put into the equation a configuration of the Universe,
and out comes a probability for that configuration. There is no
mention of time. Admittedly, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is
controversial and fraught with mathematical difficulties, but if
quantum cosmology is anything like it-if it is about
probabilities-the timeless picture is plausible.

So let's take seriously the idea of a "probability mist" that
covers the timeless Platonic landscape. The density of the mist is
just the relative probability of the corresponding configuration
being realised, or experienced, as an instantaneous state of the
Universe-as a Now. If some Nows in Platonia have much higher
probabilities than others, they are the ones that are actually
experienced. This is like ordinary statistical physics: a glass of
water could boil spontaneously, but the probability is so low that
we never see it happen.

All this seems a far cry from the reality of our lives. Where is
the history we read about? Where are our memories? Where is the
bustling, changing world of our experience? Those configurations
of the Universe for which the probability mist has a high density,
and so are likely to be experienced, must have within them an
appearance of history-a set of mutually consistent records that
suggests we have a past. I call these configurations "time
capsules".

Present past

An arbitrary matter distribution, like dots distributed at random,
will not have any meaning. It will not tell a story. Almost all
imaginable matter distributions are of this kind; only the tiniest
fraction seem to carry meaningful information.

One of the most remarkable facts about our Universe is that it
does have a meaningful structure. All the matter we can observe in
any way is found to contain records of a past.

The first scientists to realise this were geologists. Examining
the structure of rocks and fossils, they constructed a long
history of the Earth. Modern cosmology has extended this to a
history of the Universe right back to the big bang.

What is more, we are somehow directly aware of the passing of
time, and we see motion-a change of position over time. You may
feel these are such powerful sensations that any attempt to deny
them is ridiculous. But imagine yourself frozen in time. You are
simply a static arrangement of matter, yet all your memories and
experience are still there, represented by physical patterns
within your brain-probably as the strengths of the synapse
connections between neurons. Just as the structure of geological
strata and fossils seem to be evidence of a past, our brains
contain physical structures consistent with the appearance of
recent and distant events. These structures could surely lead to
the impression of time passing. Even the direct perception of
motion could arise through the presence in the brain of
information about several different positions of the objects we
see in motion.

And that is the essence of my proposal. There is no history laid
out along a path, there are only records contained within Nows.
This timeless vision may seem perverse. But it turns out to have
one great potential strength: it could explain the arrow of time.

We are so accustomed to history that we forget how peculiar it is.
According to conventional cosmology, our Universe must have
started out in an extraordinarily special state to give rise to
the highly ordered Universe we find around us, with its arrow of
time and records of a past. All matter and energy must have
originated at a single point, and had an almost perfectly uniform
distribution immediately after the big bang.

Hitherto, the only explanation that science has provided is the
anthropic argument: we experience configurations of the Universe
that seem to have a history because only these configurations have
the characteristics to produce beings who can experience anything.
I believe that timeless quantum cosmology provides a far more
satisfying explanation.

In Platonia, there are no initial conditions. Only two factors
determine where the probability mist is dense: the form of some
equation (like the Wheeler-DeWitt equation) and the shape of
Platonia. And by sheer logical necessity, Platonia is profoundly
asymmetric. Like Triangle Land, it is a lopsided continent with a
special point Alpha corresponding to the configuration in which
every particle is at the same place.

From this singular point, the timeless landscape opens out,
flower-like, to points that represent configurations of the
Universe of arbitrary size and complexity. My conjecture is that
the shape of Platonia cannot fail to influence the distribution of
the quantum probability mist. It could funnel the mist onto time
capsules, those meaningful arrangements that seem to contain
records of a past that began at Alpha.

This is, of course, only speculation, but quantum mechanics
supports it. In 1929, the British physicist Nevill Mott and Werner
Heisenberg from Germany explained how alpha particles, emitted by
radioactive nuclei, form straight tracks in cloud chambers. Mott
pointed out that, quantum mechanically, the emitted alpha particle
is a spherical wave which slowly leaks out of the nucleus. It is
difficult to picture how it is that an outgoing spherical wave can
produce a straight line," he argued. We think intuitively that it
should ionise atoms at random throughout space.

Mott noted that we think this way because we imagine that quantum
processes take place in ordinary three-dimensional space. In fact,
the possible configurations of the alpha particle and the
particles in the detecting chamber must be regarded as the points
of a hugely multidimensional configuration space, a miniature
Platonia, with the position of the radioactive nucleus playing the
role of Alpha.

Ageless creation

When Mott viewed the chamber from this perspective, his equations
predicted the existence of the tracks. The basic fact that quantum
mechanics treats configurations as whole entities leads to track
formation. And a track is just a point in configuration space-but
one that creates the appearance of a past, just like our own
memories.

There is one more reason to embrace the timeless view. Many
theoretical physicists now recognise that the usual notions of
time and space must break down near the big bang. They find
themselves forced to seek a timeless description of the
"beginning" of the Universe, even though they use time elsewhere.
It seems more consistent and economical to use an entirely
timeless description. But for these ideas to be more than
speculation, they should have concrete, measurable results.
Fortunately, Stephen Hawking and other theorists have shown that
the Wheeler-DeWitt equation can lead to verifiable predictions.
For example, established physical theories cannot predict a value
for the cosmological constant, which measures the gravitational
repulsion of empty space. But calculations based on the
Wheeler-DeWitt equation suggest that it should have a very small
value. It should soon be possible to measure the cosmological
constant, either by taking the brightness of far-off supernovae
and using that to track the expansion of the Universe, or by
analysing the shape of humps and bumps in the cosmic microwave
background. And a definitive equation of quantum cosmology should
give us a precise prediction for the value of the constant. It is
a distant prospect, but the nonexistence of time could be
confirmed by experiment.

The notion of time as an invisible framework that contains and
constrains the Universe is not unlike the crystal spheres invented
centuries ago to carry the planets. After the spheres had been
shattered by Tycho Brahe's observations, Kepler said: "We must
philosophise about these things differently." Much of modern
physics stems from this insight. We need a new notion of time.

###

PLEASE MENTION NEW SCIENTIST AS THE SOURCE OF THIS STORY AND, IF
PUBLISHING ONLINE, PLEASE CARRY A HYPERLINK TO :
New Scientist

All!

I still don't understand. In spite of the cosmological arguments setforth, on a micro human level, if time was an illusion (not real) then we would not exist. It requires time to give birth.

Or, if time is an illusion, we are in fact timeless spiritual Beings living a physical life that is relative to time. How bout that for a leap of faith!

What do the physicists think of spiritual essence and existence? Probably the way physicist Paul Davies considers the 'Mystery at the end of the Universe'!

;)

Walrus

I find I am with you WJ.

I have a book titled the world Treasury of Physics and Maths. It's a series of essays by prominent Mathematicians and Physicists. In one essay a mathematician makes the observation that he and his colleagues must admit that mathematics (in the research sense) has hit something of a wall. He says that mathematics will become something of a hobby for those inclined that way.

There is a branch called 'Concrete Mathematics' which is very much alive, that used in computers and engineering etc.

For me, and I suppose for 98% of people who don't understand even the first few lines of a Maths book, there is just that 'mystery at the beginning' and the 'mystery at the end'. There is also that 'something in the middle' which is less mysterious, and which we can live with and relate to.

Dave.

Did the earth, moon, sun, stars, and the universe exist before you were born?

For a thing to exist, it must have definable properties.

To prove time exists you must define the properties of it.

Define the properties of time.

“The growth of science, military and space requirements, and the explosion in communications traffic demanded ever more accurate time standards, beyond that provided by NIST’s original 1949 atomic clock. In 1960, a clock called NBS II, based on the natural frequency of the cesium atom, became the national standard of frequency, supplanting a set of quartz crystal oscillators. It measured frequency and time intervals to an accuracy of one second in 3,000 years. Since then, six even more accurate cesium-based clocks—the latest is accurate to one second in nearly 20 million years—have taken over as keepers of official national time, which is determined through a coordinated effort with the U.S. Naval Observatory. NIST shifted from an astronomical to an atomic definition of the second in 1967, when the international community defined the second as 9,192,631,770 oscillations of a particular type of cesium atom. To reconcile differences between the atomic time scale and the Earth’s rotation, “leap seconds” are added from time to time.”

As can be discerned, the basic unit of measurement for time was an arbitrary decision at the onset. The concept of time is flawed because it is based solely on the earth rotating about the sun as it spins on its axis. That proves time is a measurement of motion, not a measurement of the concept of time. The basic flaw with the concept of time can be put this way: Time is circular, and as such, time allows for infinite regress, which is contrary to the law of motion. Motion is always forward, it is not possible to reverse momentum of motion.

To understand why time is a measurement of motion, not time,

Click Here

Sextus

Dear Sextus,

Welcome! You speak volumes!

Or, as it may also pertain to Time, I wrote in The Examined Life Journal, Vol. 2, Issue 8: "The Rule of Interconnectivity: Logic", The Rule of Interconnectivity: Logic :

Reality is a phenomenon of energy converted into matter that connects with itself at all levels of contact. This may be at the contact of gravitational force, or through electrical and electromagnetic forces, or spatially where two things cannot occupy the same space in time, of through the force of physical contact.

Re: Time. see
http://www.ju
lianbarbour.com. Also,
McTaggert wrote some interesting ideas on this as
well. For a theologic perspective, see William
Lane Craig:) G-man This

Motion is; time is a measure of it, motion. Reality is, time is not. Reality is motion, but does not include time. Motion imparts reality through consciousness. Consciousness sees motion, and knows reality, but time is not a part of reality or motion. Time is outside of motion, and outside of reality, thus it does not exist.

Sextus

Sextus: You're suggesting the 'time-as-duration' idea. Yes, indeed, 'time' is the meaure of motion/change/transpositioning/etc. Yet, even more fundamental to motion is...dimensionality itself, as extention, differentiation...the space through which motion can occur. Also, measure is an observer-observed function/event. And, all measure is in effect a memorialization, a remembrance...a live show taped. Time is all the motions that happen, yes. Yet when x has moved from point A, and arrives at point B, does point A, as a past aspect of all that is x...does point A vanish forever? And, how to explain time's arrow? G-man

When x leaves A, A continues to exist but changes still occur with A the same as if x was present. Think of it this way . . . Time’s arrow is located within your brain, when brain shoots the arrow of time at an object, it, the object, immediately becomes history stored within your memory. Time’s arrow emerged of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but it is a useless idea without substance. Time collapses into itself, and it does not exist.

Sextus

Hi Sextus!

I don't want at all to interupt the thread topic because there is much information to digest. Respectfully, I must point out a small flaw in your thesis though.

"For a thing to exist, it must have definable properties."

Of course you are probably familiar with the mind-body problem. How do you define emotion?

Thanks

Walrus

The subject of this thread does not concern emotion.

Sextus

Hey Sextus,

A Theory of Everthing is of everything! Would you agree?

Cheers! Ivan

A TOE could simply be a single coherent
explanation of how Everything works and recycles.
But it would have to successfully tie together
disparities between Quantum, Alternative, and
General Physics approaches:) G-man This i

G-man is right, and the hard part will be tying things together. A guess is, the TOE will disprove 98% of conventional physics, 99% of quantum mechanics, and 99.5% of alternative physics as the disciplines stand. Is the world ready for such a theory? The world is ready, but the world of science is not.

Sextus

Hi G-man, Sextus, All,

Here is something I wrote in response to Dave's thread (Humancafe at Humancafe), as it applies to TOE, which I think addresses your posts above:

I suspect that we are headed towards an all encompassing Theory of Everything. Maybe this will take more time than we care, but an idea that can interrelate all the knowledge of our physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology, spirituality and philosophy; it might yet yield something that may be closer to the organic whole of what is our universe, a One that is endowed with Life. I'd like to give it a name in advance, if I may: I'd call this 'Theory of Everything' a new 'Bio-Physics'. I envision our understanding rising to a point where we are able to incorporate reality as it incorporates itself, which means that it is not merely an 'inert' reality of universal physics, as is our present understanding, but rather envisioned as an 'organic' understanding of how the universe works, how it creates Life within the Cosmos. We live in a physical universe that is biologically active, and our physics needs to reflect this living reality. We will need some powerful brain power to get to that new level of Truth, but I believe it is on the path of our human evolution as conscious beings.

And yet, given the various limitations we find in terms of Cantor (i.e. Actual vs. Potential Infinity), Godel (Incompleteness/ Indeterminacy...), et al., it may be that a TOE (as theorem) can serve only as a description of how things behave, as in say, some vast, intelligent, supercomputer-like convection system. Yet it may be unable, due to an inherent physical limitation of getting 'outside,' to explain 'why,' just simply the 'how.' (Imagine if...the entire universe, and its countless galaxies, were all rolled up into what amounts to but a subatomic spec...belonging to some strange larger scheme. And how could such ever be more than mere speculation, however poetic its inspiration might be??:) G-man

If those limitations as expressed by G-man are true, logic, knowledge, empirical methods, and astrophysics of science in general are wasted efforts. A case can be built that refutes Cantor’s notions rather soundly, and such arguments are available concerning a potential of infinity since Cantor’s medium is numbers, which do not exist in the realms of nature, and the universe, specific. Numbers are human conceived, but numbers are well known for their propensity to confuse instead of solving problems. In fact, numbers can cause a person to go insane which is precisely what happened to Georg Cantor; thus we must ask the subtle question: If numbers can cause insanity in human beings, are numbers insane?

The answer is yes; numbers are insane unless properly used. Logically, there is only one number, 1, and all other numbers 2, 3, 4, 5 6, 7, 8, and 9 are mere representations of more than 1, or ||, |||, ||||, |||||, ||||||, |||||||, ||||||||, and |||||||||. That is the fallacy of numbers, and flawed answers result from it. It is written C = the speed that light can travel in 1 second if when in a vacuum; however, the speed that light actually travels cannot be measured since time is an arbitrary method of measuring the duration of motion, but time cannot measure time since time does not exist; therefore, any measurement that uses time is at best, speculative when it comes to nature, the nature of anything.

Concerning Gödels ’ Incompleteness theory, please read the following.

“In 1931, the Czech-born mathematician Kurt Gödel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms ... of that mathematical branch itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules an axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements. The implication is that all logical system of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules.

Gödel's Theorem has been used to argue that a computer can never be as smart as a human being because the extent of its knowledge is limited by a fixed set of axioms, whereas people can discover unexpected truths ... It plays a part in modern linguistic theories, which emphasize the power of language to come up with new ways to express ideas. And it has been taken to imply that you'll never entirely understand yourself, since your mind, like any other closed system, can only be sure of what it knows about itself by relying on what it knows about itself.”

Please note, Gödels’s theory again deals with numbers, in much the same manner as that of Georg Cantor. It is in the application of numbers that the Incompleteness Theory was contrived; however, if numbers are properly used, the Incompleteness Theory is bullshit (sorry, but I know of no other way to put this message across), in exactly the same way as Cantors’ dealing with Infinity.

Sextus

Hey Ivan, (Sextus)!

Of course, as always, I agree with you Ivan. If Sextus proclaims that;

"For a thing to exist, it must have definable properties."

Obviously, Sextus does not have a comprehensive understanding of the word 'exists'. And since I'm a staunch opponent of analytical thinking, I just wanted to point out that major 'deficiency' in the use of that approach and/or the [Sextus'] aforementioned propostitional statement about existence viz. definable propertes.

Walrus
----------
Does consciousness exist, and if so, how should it be defined?

Sextus: Take yer chill pill:) No one has ever said that the ideational realm of Logic/Math is absolutely correspondingly REAL, as in the kind of Physical Reality that happens during a head-on collision. The point is...to...EXPLORE & EDIFY. Like po folk grazing at a fancy salad bar:) G-man

To edify is to enlighten or inform, instruct or build, but when that built is not correct, or flawed what is the purpose of doing so? Is it possible to enlighten or inform, instruct or build, when that information presented is flawed?

Sextus

All!

"Is it possible to enlighten or inform, instruct or build, when that information presented is flawed?"

Absolutely yes. Of course, this assumes certain methods or means of testing are axiomatically correct to begin with. But then again, why can't we create a universe?

Walrus

Hi WJ, G-man, Sextus, and all,

RE "For a thing to exist, it must have definable properties."

This is a tricky area for me, since usually things that 'exist' have definable or identifiable properties, but from whose point to view? For example, can things exist we don't know exist, such as spiritual worlds, black matter, or paraconsistent events? Or can they exist as definable by a state of contextual interconnectivity and defined by the totality rather than by any known observer? In other words, can existence go beyond the world of known perception? I suspect this is so, that we live in a mystery filled universe, and we, with our imperfect minds, are merely imperfect observers of a sublimely perfect reality.

What about Love? How do we give love 'definable' properties? Yet, I am quite certain it exists.

Just thinkin' out loud,
Ivan

Does love exist?

What is love?

I love music. I love fresh corn. I love a beautiful day. I love clear nights with a bright moon shining. I love my pet. I love my children.

Love is an emotional attachment to a concept, person, place, or thing.

What is so difficult about that?

Sextus

Hi Sextus,

Most deffinitely I agree, love exists! What I am
puzzled by is how do we give this feeling of love
'definable properties'? What is an 'emotional
attachment' as a property? This is one of those
things I have difficulty explaining (to myself)
though I fully agree they exist.

Ciao, later, Ivan

An emotional attachment occurs through the experience of a relationship with the person, place, thing, or idea. Such experiences that move us to love something is the result of a personally pleasing or pleasurable interaction that enhances our lives, and makes our own life more meaningful.

Sextus

Form, as spatio-temporal dimensionality. Should we approach it from a Physics (aka, Optics, etc.) standpoint, or from that of Aesthetics? Afterall, can't we achieve the same wisdom conclusion by reading Ovid and Plato in the same lesson?:) I mean, it all in the end somehow ties together, doesn't it...even if its confusion of precise networked connections escapes our exact recollection? And yet, I was hoping that one us here, somewheres, had the foresight and wherewithal to be keeping a record, so as to perhaps plot some retraceable map...:) G-man

I think we must first approach this from the Aesthetics standpoint. Once established, we should be able to theoretically tie it together with physics, and bridge gaps with common sense and strong evidence via observation. By observation I mean, using available data from the sciences to enhance empirical credibility, when such information is verified by more than one source. That information available concerning the background radiation gives us an excellent starting point, and there are several knowledgeable people that are seemingly ready to buck the present institutionalized versions of the Big Bang.

Sextus

Yellow!

Love is an enigma beyond all human understanding. Yet, it is something most human's encounter as an experience from living life, in one form or another.
Gee, does that capture the essence of Love?

NOT

Walrus

Ain't Love one helluva a Phantasm!:) G-man This
is..

Good one G! Perhaps a new thread is in order: Platonic illusions? What are they and why should you care!

Fact is, illusions are illusions; mysteries are mysteries. In this case, no amount of thinking will change love to a purely objective true concept or phenomena. It's like an [emotional] wave. One can only choose to ride with it, and see where it leads! And other's choose not to ride at all [believe in it]. Those folks would be considered existing in a mild state of denial!

yikes!

Walrus
----------
All you need is Love, yha, yhadada, dah

Personally, Love is the Greatest, most Mysterious
thing of all! It's huge! But how does it tie into
a TOE? (I suspect that on a Self-Realization
level, One is All, and All (you need) is
Love...Because the World is Round...and in the
end, the Love you take is equal toooo...the Love
you make...:) Still, what's the algorithmic code
that ties it all into a TOE? G-man Thi

Getting back to a TOE, I suspect that such theory will at least be able to answer somewhat the necessity for spatial dimensionality. Research into k-besons tends to be examining why particles assume the forms of matter that they do. Would such TOE be able to answer Uncle Albert's lingering Q: Why is there something, not nothing? G-man

Would TOE include something like this?

Theory

Dear 1st,

Cool! Way cool.

I will study 'Theory'. Am working on my own, but
not there yet.

Ivan

After the 3rd stanza, much inferential speculation begins. As I've noted before, a TOE need not account for a 'God' (according to some cosmologic argument). It also wouldn't require a definition of 'Consciousness,' per se (especially if it demanded a unification of science and metaphysics). I believe a TOE in its advanced technical description must account for what amounts to a limitation that was noted long ago by the ancients: if the eye that sees cannot see itself, it can only know sight through the experience of seeing. As I sit across a negotiating table from my opponent, I try hard to imagine myself walking in his shoes, and how he sees/knows me, from his seat. Still, I can never achieve absolute certainty. How to see all angles, all perspectives...given the limits of my viewing proximity? I see a face, but not the back of the head. I can hear a voice, read expressions, sense tonalities...I can empathize. But I can't read thoughts, for sure. If only mine eyes could be in two...an all places at once:) G-man

Dear G-man, 1st, All,

I must also agree that for TOE, we should not invoke a 'God', and rather keep it philosophically secular, otherwise, God becomes an easy out, and answers get thrown back into religion, not science.

***

I was at a party last night with a group of scientists, mostly computer geeks, but also a few physicists, and one patent attorney. So we turned to the question of TOE, and some interesting points came out.

1. There are many more cosmic constants in operating algorithms of TOE than we are presently aware of, possibly as many as 17. (About 4 are used currently.)

2. The 'steady state' universe has been totally and unquestionably dis-proven, so that the idea of red shift over distance 'must' account for an expanding universe. This is an almost 'religious' belief by physicists. (I'm not sure I buy this one.)

3. Gravity travels either at C, or faster. There were several opinions on this, and some believed gravity is instantaneous, in that it is outside time. I asked if geometric relations over great distance are instantaneous (yes), but how do they communicate these relations over space (didn't know)?

4. There are good books written about TOE, but I can't recall titles...

Otherwise, lots of good food and drink, and party broke up around midnight, well talked out and mentally challenged, no check points, so made it home the wiser.

Cheers! Ivan

TOE official page

Realistic realism really realizes real reality — certain uncertainty certainly ascertains certainty.

also:

Fluid Dynamics = experimental Mathematics = experimental Theory of Everything.

Complex Big Bang??

Dear All,

In reading through "Gravity's Lens" by Nathan
Cohen, Phd. (1988 J. Wiley & Sons, NY), I came
across some interesting points regarding cosmic
expansion. pp. 170-179

The text alludes to a 'complex Big Bang' which
cannot be explained simply through Hubble's steady
expansion model. In particular, the universe is
far from uniform in its expansion and rather lumpy
at that. Cohen says:

"The expansion, in general, is not debated, but
the streaming adds an intriguing point -- what is
its cause? Is something, perhaps unseen, pulling
at clusters, lining them up, and forcing them to
move? What could cause streaming in the context
of the expanding universe -- or is the universe
not the result of a Big Bang? In failing to
account for this motion, how flawed is the Big
Bang model? What crucial factor does it lack?"
--pp. 177-178.

This to me is telling, that either some dark
matter is acting on the universe's alleged
expansion in some mysterious and incomprehensible
way, or that the steady expansion of the universe
as evidenced by the redshift of distant objects is
due to some other cause, or that the redshift is
giving us an erroneous reading, and that there is
no expansion at all, only movement. Furthermore,
there is a large mystery as to how gravity acts
over great distances, and what we may be
calculating within the dimensions of our
observations may not act the same over very great
distances. Gravitons may not be like photons, but
rather like a web that stretches simultaneously
over infinite distances instantaneously.
Regardless, until further research, it is only
speculations, same as the fantastic tale of the
Big Bang may be a fantasy of near infinite
proportions.

We need more research, but I do suspect that a
Theory of Everything may be possible, one that
encompasses not only the laws of physics and
chemistry, but also biology and psychology, and
even... this is a stretch... cosmic spirituality.

Keep looking!

Ivan

Ps: Thanks for the "TOE official page".

Ivan!

I haven't read all of this, but has Davie's concluded that God was/is an electrician, as opposed to say a mathematician?

Walrus

It was ironic today when out of nowhere a co-worker was explaining how the heart beats without a brain, (as in transplants) while explaining an auto accident, etc.. . Then I was thinking about electrical impulses that energize (the 'genesis' of) the heart function as well as electromagnetic fields from ghosts/spirits and other phenomenon... .

Perhaps one can reasonably infer that God is an electrician(?)

The essence of Matter and solipsism! (See the discussion between mitch and... .)

Walrus

Hi WJ,

Haven't gotten into Davies yet far enough to know if God is an electrician, mathematician, or some biblical magician...!! But will keep at it.

Still reading J. Gribbin's "The Search for Superstrings, Symmetry, and the Theory of Everything", though I'm slow at it, trying to finish "The Secret Agent" by J. Conrad at same time. But I'll get there yet. Will look for clues as to God's secret metier. Of course, I have to bed, or my 'metier' tomorrow won't be worth a damn.

Ciao, later, Ivan

FAST CLOCKS

Imagine two atomic clocks on the same bar, of some great length, which is placed on a pivot very near one end of the rod, and then set to spin at great speeds. Hence, on end of the rod, further from the pivot, is traveling at much greater velocity than the other end of the rod, which is close to the pivot point, traveling at much slower velocity. Keep this motion experiment in action for let's say two or three years. Then measure the time display on both atomic clocks.

Question: Will the two clocks show the same time? Or will they reflect Einsteinian time, where one clock, the greater velocity end of the rod, displays a slower time?

...Just a mind game...

Ha! Fast Clocks-Anonymous!

Good joke. So, if the clocks show different
times, as per Einstein, then we have a conundrum?
How could we have different times on the same rod?

Very good! Ha, ha! I love it.

Ivan

POSSIBLE PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATION FOR A 'THEORY OF EVERYTHING'?

(work in progress)

On reading Quantum physics, on a possible Theory of Everything; i.e., Paul Davies "The New Physics" (Cambridge Univ. 1989), and John Gribbin "The Search for Superstrings, Symmetry, and the Theory of Everything" (Little Brown 1998); I am struck by a common problem to which there seems to be no solution. Though best minds have studied this for over a century, from Faraday and Planck to Einstein and Fermi to Salam and Weinberg to Gell-Mann and Nambu and Wu and scores others, there is a lack of conceptual coordination, as expressed by the mathematics, of being able to relate the strong and weak forces, electromagnetic forces, and the weakest force of gravity, into a general theory. I suspect that it may be possible to re-coordinate the mathematical expressions where there is a 'basic common denominator' into which all functions have to fall, and from which all Quantum interactions of the higher levels would then find expression. Though mathematics is a language, one of how interactions relate, with its own grammar and structure, it is nevertheless only a language, much like ordinary spoken languages, and thus may lend itself to expressions of both truth and fiction. I will try to express below, in ordinary language, what I think can be translated into mathematical expressions, and from which I think we may find models that express reality closer to the truth than understood hitherto. And if so, then we may have found an expression, which can later be translated into mathematics, which may be the possible foundation for a Theory of Everything, not only as a theory tying together the forces of physical reality, but ultimately as the supranatural forces that tie together all living things that exist within it. We would know we had achieved this goal, perhaps albeit an unachievably lofty one, when we can translate the mathematical language into observable and measurable phenomena in the natural world.

If we take into account that much empirical data on Quantum Electrodynamics and gravity has been gathered, and that this data generally bears out General Relativity as posited by Einstein and successors, then we should assume that the data is good, as it is being measured, and that only a way to fit the data into a more generalized theory is lacking. The math is at times tricky, requiring canceling out infinities in order to renormalize the equations as Gibbin writes (pp. 65-67): "Mathematically, the infinite mass of the cloud around the electron is compensated for by assuming that a 'bare' electron would have infinite negative mass. With careful mathematical juggling, the two infinities can be made to cancel out...); which leads one to think that infinities in calculations need to be removed, since it is improper to divide or multiply by them. However, what if infinities were the desired results for which we were looking, and from which we could draw a common denominator? Would measurements of quarks, leptons, muons, nucleons, electrons and nutrinos then fall into place? This would be the goal of a Theory of Everything, I would think.

UNITY IN OPPOSITES
Let us make a basic assumption about how is structured the universe: "Unity is found in opposites." There is ample demonstration of this, that positive and negatives attract to form a unity, much as the two poles of a magnet cancel out in between to remain one complete force. So the pluses and minuses of the universe seem to cancel out, whether in a state of stability, where all things rest in balance, or dynamically, in a state of becoming. This principle applies as well to atomic and subatomic existence, implying that there is a kind of balance in existence that normalizes the opposites into unity, or what we then perceive as a kind of existential-reality stability.

If this is so, that opposites normalize into unity, then it would seem that a logical place to search for a basic assumption for a Theory of Everything would be in the two extreme universal forces that are opposed to each other. I would recommend that from the observable universe there are two such very great forces: Quasars and Black Holes. One is the brightest object in the universe, the Quasar; the other is the darkest, the Black Hole. Now, this is not a starting point, but rather an observation from which a starting point can be established. So the next step would be to identify from our known observations of physics the two opposing forces that influence matter and its creation or destruction. For this I would suggest "Photons", as light, as representative of all electromagnetic waves of all magnitudes, in all spectrums; and an "unknown" as the opposite to photons, as that which represents the 'dark' force. It is this 'dark' force that I think is missing in Quantum physics as it now stands. There are measurements and theories of Strong Forces, gluons, that bind the proton and neutron together. However, these are little understood, and if one were to theorize instead that such a force, being the 'glue' Strong Force that holds together the nucleus, then it may approach forces of 'infinite magnitudes' similar to what we observe in Black Holes, a kind of Total Force. Or perhaps it could be best described by the measurable force of the 'unknown' X particle, or 10 (to 15th) GeV, i.e., 10 million million times the electromagnetic weak force; then we would be seeing it as equivalent to a force at the time, theoretically, of the Universe being only 10 (to minus 37) seconds old, or at the very beginning of the so called Big Bang. (I am skeptical that the Universe started this way, and think that instead this may be happening on a continuous basis throughout the cosmos as tiny 'mini-bangs', but this is not important for this purpose here.) So we are then looking, from this deduction, for a dark 'strong force' to be opposite electromagnetic 'light photons' that approximates the binding force of the universe at its 'creation', in effect, with near infinite gravity cohesion. This is not to be equated in any way with 'gravity' as we understand it, what is keeping me in my chair as I write this, but rather as a force so powerful that in theory it contains all of existence within it at the 'birth' of the Universe.

Much of physics, it appears to me, is fancy, as the Big Bang is a fanciful account imagined because of how the math works out; same as measuring the colorful eightfold path of interquark forces leads to mathematical expressions for which our minds are not equipped to imagine; to imagining photons as being both particles and waves. In this case, the fancy as deduced here is that there is a force that approximates a compressed universe into its singularity, which is so powerful that even photons cannot escape it, except at close quarter as within the atom. This is why I alluded to earlier to the Black Holes, because they are evidence of such a force. So, to give this 'unknown' force a name, one that has not been used in the colorful description of Quantum physics, and one which approximates the nature of this force, being gravitationally near infinitely powerful, I would give it the name of a gravity "infiniton". This is not to be compared to a 'graviton' which measures a very weak force, that of gravity, but rather the very strong force of the 'infiniton', which is inside the atom.

PHOTONS AND INFINITONS
Now, by default, because we do not know this force other than through its various manifestations as evidenced by how it interacts with photonic electromagnetic energy, we are then forced to treat it as an unknown, yet one of near infinite, or even infinite, properties. One can look at the universe's Black Holes for evidence of how these infinitons work, that they are able to absorb all light and matter into themselves, to go... where? The answer is Nowhere, for they simply reabsorb into what the Universe is made of, nothingness. On the other side of the polarity is what the universe radiates with, the electromagnetic energy of light, or photons, in all its spectrums from X-ray to infra-reds. Then, how these various energies interact with the infinitons is what manifests as created matter. These interactions are then measurable in Quantum physics, from which we can gain an understanding of how light interacts with the properties of the infiniton 'dark matter'. Thus, if so, then Quantum physics should become greatly simplified. On the other hand, the Big Bang would come into question because this theory would point that, over great distances of space, light is being gradually absorbed by the resulting 'dark force'. So in cosmic space, over those distances, light would red-shift with time, not because of space expanding, but because the dark matter left over from the interaction of photons and infinitons acts like a drag on it. In the same manner could be measured how photons knock out electrons from metals, or how the wave-particle nature of electromagnetic energy interacts at different levels of the nucleus to measure at what state is the energy within the atom, away from the all collapsing force of the infiniton. All these would be measurable evidence of the interaction between photons and infinitons. The rest would then be arithmetic, to design a periodic table of how various levels of energy between the photons and infinitons interact within the atom. And when this is done, we then are close to arriving at a Theory of Everything, because then we can incorporate gravity and dark matter into the equation.

GRAVITY AND DARK MATTER
How photon energy and infiniton energy interact explains the mechanics of atomic structures as they exist in our observable reality. However, the offsets between these two powerful opposing forces are not total, in that there is a leakage that then 'renormalizes' with what happens in the universe. That leakage, I suspect, is what is left over from the attractive force of the infiniton as it is modified into atomic existence by the electromagnetic forces of photons; the resulting byproduct force, which is a rather weak force, is Gravity. In the equation of TOE (still unwritten), the universal constant would then work out to be what is left over as gravity, as the force that then unites all of existence into a comprehensive whole everywhere throughout the cosmos. Gravity, as a left over force of infiniton attraction, is then spread out evenly to affect all objects, and even the photons themselves, over great distances. This is evidenced by successfully using 'gravitational lenses' in space astronomy, where the gravity of distant galaxies act as a lens on the light coming from behind those galaxies, and magnify it to be picked up by orbiting space telescopes. So photons and gravity do interact, but because this interaction is rather weak, it is observable only over very great distances, unlike the strong interactions between photons and infinitons within the atom, where they interact directly. Because this weak interaction is happening all over the existing cosmic space, it creates a kind of 'shadow' through which light must struggle, which we then think of as 'dark matter'. I do not think this dark matter actually exists, but it is only a manifestation of how light interacts with gravity over great distances. So, like gravity, dark matter is then a waste product of the photon-infiniton interaction, and is measurable only by how light interacts with it over great distances. Therefore, in the final equation of TOE, Gravity is only a left over constant from the subatomic interactions of photon electromagnetic energy and the very dark glue of infinitons as the near infinite common denominators of the universe, of nothingness.

INTERRELATIONS AND BEING
It should be understood that this Theory of Everything is being sought after in a philosophical sense, fanciful or not, rather than strictly in a Quantum physics sense, though the mathematics developed from it could lend itself to physical observation. This would be the test, that the math measures against observable reality, whether in a better understanding of Quasars and Black Holes (which may in fact not be collapsed stars at all, but rather 'infiniton stars'), or how energy is exchanged both within and without the atoms. It may yet prove that Gravity as a force is duplicatable, perhaps at levels far in excess of those exhibited by natural bodies in space; same as it may prove that the velocity of light is not the greatest speed in the universe, that there are things much faster. Though I could envision this only as a theoretical philosophical idea, that the infinitons mentioned above have instantaneous force, that they attract outside the values of time, and thus their 'leakage' of gravity is likewise instantaneous in its potential attraction; but if so, then gravity is 'felt' over immense cosmic distances instantly also, though only as a byproduct weak force. This could mean then that gravity is a faster 'communicator' within the universe than light, and if so, the 'interrelationships' that span the universe are intercommunicating instantly all the time, which could lead into a whole new way of seeing how the Universe interacts with itself.

In the end all things come back to us, for we are the seekers with our being, and we are the storytellers. We have to find meaning which will give us a sense of understanding of how things are, of how existence affects us in our minds and bodies. It is for this reason that we have posited a concept of 'being', to which we belong and within which we feel our inner existence. That this 'being' can then be connected to outer existence in some unified way becomes the goal of the Theory of Everything, and either we find our consciousness connected to all existence within this being, or we do not. If reality is a vast interrelated phenomenon of itself, of how it interplays between the universe spanning electromagnetic energy of photons and the universe crushing infinite gravity force of infinitons, then how this drama creates both matter and life within its existence becomes a potentially unifiable theory, of everything. Life and mass, consciousness and light, all become interrelatable as one, canceling out unnecessary opposites, one vast interrelationship that is able to coordinate itself from the largest dimensions, and to identify itself into the smallest parts. And, to be true to itself in a principle of mutually canceling opposites, both Consciousness, the byproduct of Life, and Existence, the 'isness' of Itself, combine into Being, the Who we Are. And thus, what had been seen as an existence of the duality of Mind and Reality now becomes combined, the Theory of Everything, as One. But... One what?

(This is work in progress; math based on [(O x infinity) = 1], to be developed, where the 'photon' and 'infiniton' are alternately both set to equal 'zero' or 'infinity', depending on from which direction it is approached, either as GeV mass or E energy, whereby 'mass' values are always equal to 'one' whole intergers, as evidenced by atomic compositions.)

Ivan Alexander

Question: do positive/negative polarities ever cease to repel, given say acceleration to a plasmic state?:) G-man

Possible TOE continued:

ALGORITHMS
Using the basic (0 x infinity) = 1 , model for TOE, let us apply known quantities to this general formula, and let us further assume that "m" is equivalent to "1", and that the photon "p" is set as a function of the speed of light, at "1/c2". The infiniton "I" is still unknown.

This would translate (0 x infinity) = 1 into the basic model [ p x I = m ].

Now, if we take photon energy to be set here at the "zero", and thus "1/c2" [or the inverse of the speed of light squared], and the "infinity" value set at "E", to represent the infiniton, which is as yet undefined, then we can easily see that this coincides with the famous E=mc2. Or, to put it differently: 1/c2 x E = m, which is how we structured the algorithm above.

Now, the "E" value is what needs to be determined to satisfy this equation, not as only an equation of "electromagnetic energy", which E=mc2 describes, but also as an equation that incorporates the gravity energies of G, the universal gravity constant, and of the still unknown "inifiniton" strong force. So this is where it stands thus far, to convert what is essentially a formula of energy-only into a formula that incorporates the Strong Force of nuclear gravity as the infiniton, or "I".

However, to satisfy the condition stated above that gravity, the G constant, is a left over product of the p x I interaction, then I would subtract it from the result of m. Therefore, I would restate the basic formula above as follows:

1/c2 x E = m-g

where "-g" takes the place of "G" since it is not a primary force but merely "left over" from the interaction within the atom (which is shown as negative because it is what is "missing" from the atom). Now, we could be further illustrated by showing that "E" within the equation is replaced with "mc2", so that we have [1/c2 x mc2 = m (-g)], which then (by bringing 1/c2 over to m) breaks down to mc2=mc2, which is =E.

But that is not the point, for what is important here is that if we remove the "m" from both sides, and I take liberties here to do so to illustrate (remember, m=1), we are left with "-g" or [1/c2 x c2 = 1-g], which is the gravity we are seeking, or better yet as [(1/c2 x c2) + g = 1], which brings "m" back to = 1, on the right side of the equation. This is another way to approach the value of "mass equal to one", so that the value of gravity, which is the left over from the photon x infiniton interaction, is now on the same side of the equation as 1/c2 x I, to which is then added force of "g" to complete it; on the other side is mass equals one. Finally, when this algorithm is found, it will translate into the gravity formula [F=GMm/r2] as formulated by Newton. Please note the small "g" will turn into the "G" when the TOE solution is found, but is now best expressed as a gravitation constant = cm3/g/s2 (?).

But how...? Is there a value for "E" that works better as an expression of "I", that is not electromagnetic in nature but its inverse as an "infinitely" strong force instead, and a value which also retains "m"? I suspect that there is some way to see this as E = nuclear Strong Force, but don't know yet.

So we are thus left with the formula: 1/c2 x I = m-g, for now... and we are looking for a value of "E" which expresses and approximates the Strong Force of "I".


Ivan


Ps: G-man, postivie/negative plasma state? .. don't know. You? Any ideas? ...anyone?

Ivan: Excellent & challenging. I will respond after deeper analysis. But a few inserted thoughts. In this week's "Economist" magazine (April 6-12, 2002) there's an article in the Science section, entitled, "The inconstant constant." I realized that so many scientists are focused on the precise exactitudes of all the various formal constants, as listed in physics text books. (Similar to the literal vs. metaphoric/figurative debates in theology and Biblical scholarship.) Missing, it seems, is an even more fundamental (and perhaps too obviously evident fact) inquiry. Given: All 'constancies' have been determined as such according to various means of measure/measurement/measuring. Also, all constancies are measurable only in relation to inconstancies. Which suggests two critically important points: (1) Relational Perspectivism as determinant (preconditional/prerequisite)measurement function; and (2) Ratiocination as cognitive measuring tool/means. Indeed, algorithmic precisions are vital to any potential TOE. But we must also remain ever-vigillant in our tireless reductive inquiries, i.e., beyond mere identifying of nominal (always/nearly always)constants, if said constants to be knowable/known occur within a context of variables...we must address the two-sided question of: what makes relationality a necessary condition for positive knowledge, as ratio?; and, is it possible that because constancies only occur in relation to inconstancies...that the impossibility of their mergence is a perpetuative factor? G-man

Hi G-man, thanks for The Economist/Science article referenced, which I found at http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1066862 .

I too find puzzling that algorithms generate these 'constants', which must be some function of how the mathematics ratios relate to the real world of astrophysics. As the article suggests, these so-called constants are not always so constant. Could it be that if we were to develop TOE using a new kind of universal math that some of the constants, like Planck's constant, or the alpha constant, for example, be eliminated? Even the speed of light is suspect, since the electromagnetic wave energy may in fact prove to not be so constant through the great distance dimensions of space, as was suggested in this article by Barry Setterfield: http://www.ldolphin.org/constc.shtml .

Still thinking of how to interrelate E into the infiniton value of the equation, which may yet necessitate another constant, or not. We'll keep looking.

Take care, Ivan

PHOTONIC LIGHT

Ps: On further reading "The inconstant constant" in the Economist, I think the alpha constant is: a = e2/ch x 2pi = 137.036, (where 'c' is speed of light, 'e' the electron energy, and 'h' Planck's constant) , which may turn out to be an important number to reconcile the photon, which is also expressed as 1/c2. This may show in the end that for TOE, the photon is the best constant (which means that 'alpha' is somehow relative to [p=1/c2] in the final solution? Or would 'e', as an expression of 'p', also be relative to 'a'?) It's all part of finding the pieces that fit the equation, I would think. For example, is 137.036 a divisor for E, or multiplier for p?

I think of the photon as being the basic energy unit that is used not only in how space is structured, but also how life is incorporated, since photosynthesis is the basic interaction between living things and universal light energy. ( I.e., all living things feed off of the life energy of light as it is transformed first by plant life, and then converted into a food source that travels all the way through the food chain, even to us!) If so, then photonic light is the key that ties together physics and life energy, which further interrelates the material world with the animate. If a Theory of Everything is truly to be of 'everything', it would need to incorporate these interactions, as well as the mind-body connection.

For more info on TOE see: http://www.unifiedtoe.com/index.html

The electron and its properties: The electron as a bullet

It has a mass of 9*10-31 kg or 1 two thousandth of the mass of a proton (or one million millionth of the mass of a speck of dust).

Electron tracks
(Source: CERN)
"When the electron is shot out of the muzzle of an electron gun it emerges with a particular velocity and travels along a well defined trajectory. The electron carries a precise charge of 1.6*10-19 coulombs. By careful design, an electron gun can make the electrons spin - like the rifling inside the barrel of a gun can make bullets spin.
All attempts to measure the radius of the electron have failed! All we know is that the radius is less than 10-18 m; that is, its radius is one hundred million times smaller than that of the atom. All the known properties of the electron are consistent with the assumption that its radius is zero. As far as we know, the electron has no structure."

http://www.ioppublishing.com/Physics/Electron/Exhibition/section1/properties.html

Question: Does the electron have a meaningful mass, as it applies to "TOE"? Or is it only the "messenger" of photonic force on the strong force within the nucleus?

Clearly these messengers help hold the world together to enable atoms to join together into groups, even in living things. What is their relationship to the Strong Force as a function of photon energy?

(eVisitor)

Everyone,

I decided to revisit this thread, and now it appears everyone is lost.

Until each of you removes all numbers from your thinking, no place is where you are headed, and the futility of finding or learning, nothing new. The "digital" human mind cannot cope without numbers, but in the real world of our (your, my) existence, numbers do not exist, neither thinking minds for that matter.

What exists is a perpetual motion machine that is totally analogous in function - You call it reality. It consists of a multitude of entities in pure analog perpetual motion, with each entity wholly dependent on all other entities. There is no such thing as constants, neither inconsistency. Everything is perpetuity based, and biased accordingly. Thus, perpetuity of motion is analogous; therefore, cannot be stopped – meaning, it never began, it simply is.

Claude