# Stuff and Things > HISTORY, veterans & science >  No Big Bang? Quantum Equation Predicts Universe Has No Begining.

## Fall River

> The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.


The big bang theory is seen by some scientists as problematic "because the math can explain only what happened immediately after - not at or before - the singularity."


This is not new.  I read a book by an astrophysicist about 15 years ago who explained in detail why he thought the universe always existed and always will exist.  Unfortunately, I don't remember the title of the book or the authors name.  But I remember being very impressed by his careful and thoughtful explanation.  Conversely, I was never impressed by the big bang theory.

To me it makes sense that the universe always existed.  

How about you, which theory are you impressed by?

On line source: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-qu...-universe.html

----------

Big Bird (07-08-2020),Oceander (07-06-2020),Ragot the Gerbil (07-08-2020),Swedgin (07-09-2020),UKSmartypants (07-07-2020)

----------


## Oceander

> The big bang theory is seen by some scientists as problematic "because the math can explain only what happened immediately after - not at or before - the singularity."
> 
> 
> This is not new.  I read a book by an astrophysicist about 15 years ago who explained in detail why he thought the universe always existed and always will exist.  Unfortunately, I don't remember the title of the book or the authors name.  But I remember being very impressed by his careful and thoughtful explanation.  Conversely, I was never impressed by the big bang theory.
> 
> To me it makes sense that the universe always existed.  
> 
> How about you, which theory are you impressed by?


If you remember the book you referred to, I'd love to know the title, if you get a chance to post it.

----------

Fall River (07-06-2020),UKSmartypants (07-07-2020)

----------


## UKSmartypants

Source? Then ill tell you if its credible and if not why.


There was definiutely a 'big bang', the problem is the exact sequence oif events in first 10^-44 of a second.

The answer probably lies in M theory.  This is the theory I go for as most credible,

The knotty problem is the original variants on big bang assumed that before the Inflationary period ther must have been a singularity, but thats not a well supported idea these days.

M Theory suggests there was a compactified Brane intially existing in the 11 dimensional multiverse.  The brane itself was constrained by closed strings as per Nambus Closed Heterotic String Theory. The tension in the strings is collosal - aout 10^44 tonnes per square inch. At this point ther is no universe, no spatial dimensions, no time (and thats another entire subject).

The brane takes the form called a Calabi- Yau manifold. This stuff is extremely hard to explain or visualise simply. (I cant upload images atm due to the SSL failure on this site)  These manifolds can be up to 26D and internally rotate at huge speeds, and thus have collosal angular momentum and internal pressure. 

AT some point, a quantum fluctuation pumped energy into the manifold. This had the effect that the net energy density at a planck level exceeded the energy density required by the manifold to break the constraining strings. So one dimension of the manifold decompactifies, expands out and creates Plank scale a 1 dimensional Spinor Network, immediately ther is still enough energy for the send dimension to decompactify, forming a 2 D  Network. Ther is, according to Nambus equations, just enough energy left to decompactify the 3rd Dimension. This creates a 3D Twistor Space as described in Roger Penroses Twistor Theory. There is now insuffecient energy to decompactify any further, so the remainign energy now does into 'reheating' the expnading twistor network, which once it exceeds the plank scale creates a Eucliudean 3D space, leaving a 6D or 7D manifold behind (time is a different issue im not mentioning here, itll derail the  discussion) and  then enters the Inflationary phase.

Theres a huge amount of detail to this, and i cant post any pics to help, but it gets past the singularity problem. It also allows for a Big Bounce since as the universe collpases back to plank scale wher it essentially recompactifies back to a 11D calabi-yau manifold

----------

Oceander (07-06-2020)

----------


## Fall River

> If you remember the book you referred to, I'd love to know the title, if you get a chance to post it.


I doubt I will remember it because it was too long ago and it wasn't my book, it was a library book.  I waited too long and when I tried to find it again, the library no longer had it, as far as I could tell.

----------

Oceander (07-06-2020),UKSmartypants (07-07-2020)

----------


## Fall River

> Source? Then ill tell you if its credible and if not why.


Sorry I forgot to post the online source.  I posted it above as soon as I realized I forgot.  Here it is again:  https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-qu...-universe.html

Here's another: https://www.richarddawkins.net/2016/...-no-beginning/

I would like to find a more recent book on this if possible.

----------

Oceander (07-06-2020),UKSmartypants (07-07-2020)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Sorry I forgot to post the online source.  I posted it above as soon as I realized I forgot.  Here it is again:  https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-qu...-universe.html
> 
> Here's another: https://www.richarddawkins.net/2016/...-no-beginning/
> 
> I would like to find a more recent book on this if possible.


Unconvinced.

Theres no proof  Raychaudhuri equations (corrected or not) have any validity before 10-44  secs, and their idea theres a quantum fluid comprising gravitrons is nothingthing more then wishful thinking, we dont even know if they exist, but id like to point  out in quantum theory gravitrons correspond to massless rotating closed strings.  But as i posted above, they are just trying to get round the singularity problem by another means.


Theres no provably right or wrong  atm, you just have to read the theories and make your own mind up.However the jounalists who wrote those two articles are conflating 'was there a singularity' with 'was there a beginnning'  which are two different issues.

----------


## Fall River

Here's another article: *There Was No Big Bang Singularity:* https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw.../#4559af607d81




> One thing we can mathematically demonstrate, in fact, is that it's impossible for an inflating state to arise from a singularity.


You would have to scroll way down to where there's a diagram that says: "History of the Universe"  Right underneath that he tells, in two paragraphs, why the picture in the diagram is wrong.

----------

Oceander (07-07-2020),UKSmartypants (07-07-2020)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Here's another article: *There Was No Big Bang Singularity:* https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw.../#4559af607d81
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to scroll way down to where there's a diagram that says: "History of the Universe"  Right underneath that he tells, in two paragraphs, why the picture in the diagram is wrong.


well if there was a singularity, it would expand, because of the energy in it. Now there ARE mechanisms for inflation to occur that are credible.  The flaw in his argument, even though i agree, is that he doesnt account for Dark matter, Dark Energy , or several other things such as Axion, Monpoles, and Gravitons. another issue that spikes his argument is the matter antimatter imbalance. On a cosmic scale the universe is homogenoius and isotropic to 39 orders of magnitude.

except i agree , there wasnt a singlularity, What there was, was an expanding 4D twistor matrix of unfolding euclidian spacetime. once the calabi-yau manifold finished decompactifying the residual energy was more than enough to cause the inflationary era.

----------

Fall River (07-08-2020)

----------


## Oceander

> well if there was a singularity, it would expand, because of the energy in it. Now there ARE mechanisms for inflation to occur that are credible.
> 
> except i agree , there wasnt a singlularity, What there was, was an expanding 4D twistor matrix of unfolding euclidian spacetime. once the calabi-yau manifold finished decompactifying the residual energy was more than enough to cause the inflationary era.


Anything like this:

----------

Fall River (07-08-2020),UKSmartypants (07-07-2020)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Anything like this:



thats one of them. theres 10^514 possible types, so most of them are impossible to visualise.


Essentially, every single planck sized grain of spacetime has one. The same one.

----------

Oceander (07-07-2020)

----------


## Oceander

> thats one of them. theres 10^514 possible types.


Not sure if the admins - or the epiphenomenon of "time" - would permit me to find and post all 10^514 separate gifs!

 :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------

UKSmartypants (07-07-2020)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Not sure if the admins - or the epiphenomenon of "time" - would permit me to find and post all 10^514 separate gifs!



Quitter. if you cant be bothered to make an effort.........



 :Sofa:

----------

Oceander (07-07-2020)

----------


## Oceander

> Quitter. if you cant be bothered to make an effort.........


I'm not sure @Trinnity is in the mood for my shenanigans!

----------


## UKSmartypants

> I'm not sure @Trinnity is in the mood for my shenanigans!



ok so the thread might get a bit big.....

----------

Oceander (07-07-2020)

----------


## Northern Rivers

I've expounded upon this...here...a couple of times. There is no Big Bang. My ideas on Quantum Realities simplify my considerations.

We are temporal beings...time matters to us. We are ephemeral. We see Light Years as a long time. Any photon travels that distance without coming to terms with how long it takes. As temporal beings...it is easy to rationalise a "bang". It isn't. It's a continuous blast...which never began and will never end. When this "cosmic cornucopia" reached our plane of existence...and "plane" is entirely accurate...it appeared to us as a "bang".  :Smiley20:

----------

Big Bird (07-08-2020),Fall River (07-08-2020)

----------


## Hillofbeans

Man will never conquer space, or understand it completely. How can anyone understand something that has lasted for billions of years, has no  boundary, and is not constrained by time?

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Man will never conquer space, or understand it completely. How can anyone understand something that has lasted for billions of years, has no  boundary, and is not constrained by time?


SO, first of all you have no idea what new knowledge we are going to discover in the future. On that basis, you cannot predict that something is 'impossible'. I'll  make you a list of Learned Men in the past who all made predictions of impossiblity , only to be proven wriong, some very quickly:

IN 1830 it was asserted with much confidence no human could travel faster than 60 MPH, since you wouldnt be able to breath at that speed.

Heres a few more:

"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer at home" - Ken Olsen, Chairman and Founder of DEC, 1977

"I think theres a world market for maybe five computers", - Thomas Watson , Founder of IBM, 1943

"A rocket will never be able to leave the earths atmosphere" - New York Times, 1936

"The wireless music box has no commercial value whatsoever" - 1921

"Television wont last because people will get tired of staring at a wooden box" - Daryl F Zanuck, 1943 (prolific TV producer in the 50's and 60's)

"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. It is of no inherent value to us" - Western Union Internal Memo, 1876


"X-Rays will prove to be a Hoax" - Lord Kelvin, 1883

"The idea Cavalry will be replaced by thesae iron coaches is absurd" - Aid-de-Camp to Field Marshall Sir Douglas Haig at a tank demonstration  in 1916 

"No one will pay good money to ride from Berlin to Potsdam when you can ride a horse for free" (about the railway) King Wilhelm, 1883

"When the [Paris] Exhibition [of 1878] closes, the  electric light will close with it, and no more  will be heard of it" - Oxford Prof. Erasmus Wilson

"THere will never be a bigger plane built" - Boeing engineer after the first flight of the Boeing 247, a twin engine plane that carried ten people

All these people were wrong, and I can list another 50 such errors. 

Do you know why theywere wrong, hillofbeans?

Because they made two errors. They assumed that human knowledge woudl progress no further beyond  what they knew, and they had no knowledge of wmight be possible in the future.

In 1830 you COULD NOT have possibly predicted MOST of the everyday thinsg that are currently around you, because ALL the technolofy, science and knowhow did not exist. And similarly, you cannot pridct what is impossible for the same reason. In 1830 you coudl not have predicted:

Photography
Movies
Video
High speed trains
The Tank
The atom bimb
The Nuclear Bomb
The Fuel Air Bomb
Electricity
Wireless
TV
The radio valve
The Transistor
The Integrated Circuit
The Internet
The Personal  Computer
The Smart Phone
Penicillin
Organ Transplants
Blood Transfusions
Antiibiotics
Genetic engineering
DNA sequencing
Nanotechnology
Thousands of different new alloys
The Nuclear Reactor
The Solar Panel
Passenger jets
Military jets
The Aircraft Carrier
The ICBM
The Sattelite
Fax machines
Photocopiers
Moon landings
to mention  just a few, the whoel list is endless

The fact is all these were achieved with technologies unkown and unimaginable in 1830. And the same still applies - you have no knowledge of what we will discover, devise or invent in the future, what branches of science we havent yet uncovered which will become available to us and what new advancements and abilities those new sceinces will bring us.  . What IS a FACT is that human knowledge never ceases to increase, and the collusion of ever more powerful Artifical Intelligence with human  thought will reap knowledge on a scale we cant imagine. AI can already perforn taksks we cant, and devise thinsg we cant.


The arrival of true AI will herald  the 'Technological Singularity' an event that will turn humans into what we would regard as gods, technology wise. At the current rate of increase of knowledge as plotted by Moores Law, we will achive TS around 2070. It is inevitablw, because the march forward of, sciences and technologies, can be plotted as the frequency of occurence of 'Paradign Shifts'(point where fields of science make great, revolutionary leaps forward), and these are occuring at an exponential rate. 


Man will expand out into the planets and stars, its inevitable, unless we wipe ourselves out on this planet first.  Historically, mankind has beaten EVERY technical obstacle placed in front of him. There is no problem we either havent already solved or are currently working on. Some problems take longer than others - for example it took 275 years to crack Fermats Last Theorum, a mathematiical problem, which was ultimately solved in an entirely unexpected way.  All you need is imagination and desire. But some peopel dont have that, i guess.

----------

Big Bird (07-08-2020),Fall River (07-08-2020),Oceander (07-08-2020)

----------


## Fall River

I read an interesting book about 60 years ago by Norman O. Brown. The title: Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History (1959 edition).  

I couldn't remember the title of a book I read 15 years ago but this one I remember. Go figure!  I was interested in psychology at the time.

I believe his central thesis was that man, in the modern world, is neurotic and therefore compelled to keep making history.  We keep trying to make things better because we are never satisfied with what we have.


Things keep getting better but better is never good enough.  


 :Smiley20:

----------


## UKSmartypants

> I read an interesting book about 60 years ago by Norman O. Brown. The title: Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History (1959 edition).  
> 
> I couldn't remember the title of a book I read 15 years ago but this one I remember. Go figure!  I was interested in psychology at the time.
> 
> I believe his central thesis was that man, in the modern world, is neurotic and therefore compelled to keep making history.  We keep trying to make things better because we are never satisfied with what we have.
> 
> 
> Things keep getting better but better is never good enough.


Well it more to do with knowledge.  We are smart because we are curious about the world. its probably what gave us the edge over all the other hominids. People never stop asking 'Why?' and every 'why' we answer creates 10 more 'whys'.  Humans will never stop asking why. And the longer it goes on, the deeper and more complex the answer become.


Either we have got thru Kardashevs Last Great Filter to Level 1 and we are going to make  it to the stars, or the Filter is still ahead of us and then jury  is out if we going to  make it through or not

----------


## nonsqtr

> Well it more to do with knowledge.  We are smart because we are curious about the world. its probably what gave us the edge over all the other hominids. People never stop asking 'Why?' and every 'why' we answer creates 10 more 'whys'.  Humans will never stop asking why. And the longer it goes on, the deeper and more complex the answer become.Either we have got thru Kardashevs Last Great Filter to Level 1 and we are going to make  it to the stars, or the Filter is still ahead of us and then jury  is out if we going to  make it through or not


The psychology and neuroscience of curiosity

----------


## UKSmartypants

> The psychology and neuroscience of curiosity


see Neanderthals probably thought 'we can cook meat on fire'  wheras we thought' how do i make fire'.

----------


## Jen

> The big bang theory is seen by some scientists as problematic "because the math can explain only what happened immediately after - not at or before - the singularity."
> 
> 
> This is not new.  I read a book by an astrophysicist about 15 years ago who explained in detail why he thought the universe always existed and always will exist.  Unfortunately, I don't remember the title of the book or the authors name.  But I remember being very impressed by his careful and thoughtful explanation.  Conversely, I was never impressed by the big bang theory.
> 
> To me it makes sense that the universe always existed.  
> 
> How about you, which theory are you impressed by?
> 
> On line source: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-qu...-universe.html


Any theory is worthy of consideration as long as we remember they are just theories.

----------


## Oceander

> Any theory is worthy of consideration as long as we remember they are just theories.


Some theories are better than other theories and, as Dr. Pauli is reputed to have said about some unfortunate grad student's paper, some theories are so bad they're not even wrong.

----------

Jen (07-08-2020)

----------


## Hillofbeans

> SO, first of all you have no idea what new knowledge we are going to discover in the future. On that basis, you cannot predict that something is 'impossible'. I'll  make you a list of Learned Men in the past who all made predictions of impossiblity , only to be proven wriong, some very quickly:
> 
> IN 1830 it was asserted with much confidence no human could travel faster than 60 MPH, since you wouldnt be able to breath at that speed.
> 
> Heres a few more:
> 
> "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer at home" - Ken Olsen, Chairman and Founder of DEC, 1977
> 
> "I think theres a world market for maybe five computers", - Thomas Watson , Founder of IBM, 1943
> ...


Your post is entertaining in man's stupidity. Thinking we can explore just one universe is also stupid, and I love this stuff.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Your post is entertaining in man's stupidity. Thinking we can explore just one universe is also stupid, and I love this stuff.



And your inability to post a ration reply is the only validation we need. You are unable to construct a defence for you point of view. You are unable to justify your argument.  You are unable to demolish or disprove my position. You lose, but then as weve just seen Im engaged in  a battle of wits with an unarmed man


Oh and giving me a one line reply to such a well constructed, reasoned argument is , quite frankly, a fucking insult. You are an imbecile, an intellectual dwarf.  I wont bother engagaing with you and wasting my time again if your replies are less than 1000 words.

----------


## Jen

> Some theories are better than other theories and, as Dr. Pauli is reputed to have said about some unfortunate grad student's paper, some theories are so bad they're not even wrong.


Arrrrghhh........I have seen papers like that.   :Geez:

----------

nonsqtr (07-08-2020),Oceander (07-08-2020)

----------


## nonsqtr

> see Neanderthals probably thought 'we can cook meat on fire'  wheras we thought' how do i make fire'.


"Children play to address causal uncertainty".That's a pretty big statement. "Causal uncertainty".

----------


## Northern Rivers

> Man will never conquer space, or understand it completely. How can anyone understand something that has lasted for _billions of years_, has no  boundary, and is not constrained by time?


It's timeless...and...when we shuffle off...we'll all be part of some Quantum Reality we can't judge this side of the dirt.

----------

Oceander (07-08-2020)

----------


## Northern Rivers

> And _your inability to post a ration reply_ is the only validation we need. You are unable to construct a defence for you point of view. You are unable to justify your argument.  You are unable to demolish or disprove my position. You lose, but then as weve just seen Im engaged in  a battle of wits with an unarmed man
> 
> 
> Oh and giving me a one line reply to such a well constructed, reasoned argument is , quite frankly, a fucking insult. You are an imbecile, an intellectual dwarf.  I wont bother engagaing with you and wasting my time again if your replies are less than 1000 words.


He limited his response...so, how didn't he ration it?

----------


## nonsqtr

> It's timeless...and...when we shuffle off...we'll all be part of some Quantum Reality we can't judge this side of the dirt.


"Time" is not the issue - causality is the issue.

Why can you not run "every" process backwards?

----------


## nonsqtr

> It's timeless...and...when we shuffle off...we'll all be part of some Quantum Reality we can't judge this side of the dirt.


See, look - if you consider relativity you'll understand that the concepts of "before" and "after" are relative, but causality is always preserved. The math is such that the differences in perception are compensated by the "time" it takes for the information to arrive.

----------

Oceander (07-09-2020)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> He limited his response...so, how didn't he ration it?


well his 1 line response to my multi point 1000 word argument amounted to 'Ya boo you suck, you're stupid'.


Which the average 7 year old could have formulated. And i dont debate cosmology with 7 year olds, its pointless.


SO now the gif file size limit has been reduced? i cant upload a 3.7Mb gif!!!!  I just reduced it, before it was 5,7Mb and uploaded fine!!!!!! WTF?


https://external-preview.redd.it/jd1...t=mp4&ed1ac4de


nope no matter what i do, i cant post a even medium sized gif, or hotlink to it,, or upload it as a video...nothing....

----------


## Fall River

> SO, first of all you have no idea what new knowledge we are going to discover in the future. On that basis, you cannot predict that something is 'impossible'. I'll  make you a list of Learned Men in the past who all made predictions of impossiblity , only to be proven wriong, some very quickly:
> 
> IN 1830 it was asserted with much confidence no human could travel faster than 60 MPH, since you wouldnt be able to breath at that speed.
> 
> Heres a few more:
> 
> "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer at home" - Ken Olsen, Chairman and Founder of DEC, 1977
> 
> "I think theres a world market for maybe five computers", - Thomas Watson , Founder of IBM, 1943
> ...


I'm going to predict something to be impossible even though some astrophysicists seem to be excited about it:  *Time travel.*

Even though, in a sense, I went back in time yesterday to start rereading a book I bought many years ago that was first published in 2001.

The title: Time Travel in Einstein's Universe: The Physical Possibilities of Travel Through Time.  The author: J. Richard Gott - astrophysicist

----------

Oceander (07-09-2020)

----------


## Oceander

> I'm going to predict something to be impossible even though some astrophysicists seem to be excited about it:  *Time travel.*
> 
> Even though, in a sense, I went back in time yesterday to start rereading a book I bought many years ago that was first published in 2001.
> 
> The title: Time Travel in Einstein's Universe: The Physical Possibilities of Travel Through Time.  The author: J. Richard Gott - astrophysicist



Both forward and backward time travel, or just backward time travel?

----------

UKSmartypants (07-09-2020)

----------


## nonsqtr

> Both forward and backward time travel, or just backward time travel?


 :Smile: 

Time 'travel" is a difficult concept, because we are embedded in time in a fundamentally different way.

You brain can do it - that is to say, you can travel in time "in your own mind", but that's because the brain is fundamentally a quantum computer.

Again, I suggest starting with causality. A big clue comes from quantum mechanics, where situations with "indefinite causality" are possible.

For example -

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/d...0180328a/full/

But we never see this at the macroscopic level. At the macroscopic level, space is "around" you but time is "inside" you.

In relativity the difference is a minus sign in the metric - but more generally the form of the metric is derived from symmetries in the topology.

----------

UKSmartypants (07-09-2020)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Both forward and backward time travel, or just backward time travel?



See heres where me and Nonsqtr diverge.  He tries to turn time into some sort of psychedelic mind trip.

There is no time. All 11 dimensions are spatial dimensions. There is nothing in the Standard Model or Quantum Physics that requires time - i n fact time is immaterial, and some quantum processes are time reversible.

There's other evidence time is an illusion.  The entire concept revolves round entropy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.  entropy is, supposedly the 'arrow of time' because The 2nd Law demands entropy  can decrease. 

Entropy was devised as a way to measure the amount of energy in a system that is turned into useless heat . Its been plagarised, added to and modified to fit all sorts of physics ever since. The flaw in entropy as a measure of time is that parameters required are unprovable for the universe. It requires that the universe be a closed system (unknown and unprovable) and the total amount of energy in the universe is fixed (unknown and unprovable). Thus there is no proof the 2nd law works on a large scale, and thus that entropy is true.

There is more evidence to suggest time is an illusion, All dimensions have two directions, the ones we can detect personally are left/right forward/back up/down  it follows the next dimension up has two direction, we can call them whatever you like such as bib and bab, on ebb and flow, or past and future. the names are irrelevant. We are 3D creatures, we can only perceive the next dimension up in oine direction, and only on planck frame at a time (ie a slice of  'the dimension 10^-44 of a cm thick)  

There's also the possibility that time is a local phenomena - created by quantum wave  function collapses that cascade upwards into macro  sized collapse, creating a burst of 'time'. Einstein acknowledged that time was not universal.  Its also becoming clear that observation isnt necessary for wave function collapses, and they occur spontaneously.

Nothing in physics suggest time is a fundamental property of the universe.  It might be we only perceive time because we cant perceive at a quantum level.  Also time flows  relative to the speed of the observer, which is bizzarre, and indicates  further that its in reality a spatial vector in D4, and experienced time is the product of the 4 vectors in space (x,y,z and t)


you can debate this for hours....

----------

Oceander (07-09-2020)

----------


## nonsqtr

> See heres where me and Nonsqtr diverge.  He tries to turn time into some sort of psychedelic mind trip.
> 
> There is no time. All 11 dimensions are spatial dimensions. There is nothing in the Standard Model or Quantum Physics that requires time - i n fact time is immaterial, and some quantum processes are time reversible.
> 
> There's other evidence time is an illusion.  The entire concept revolves round entropy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.  entropy is, supposedly the 'arrow of time' because The 2nd Law demands entropy  can decrease. 
> 
> Entropy was devised as a way to measure the amount of energy in a system that is turned into useless heat . Its been plagarised, added to and modified to fit all sorts of physics ever since. The flaw in entropy as a measure of time is that parameters required are unprovable for the universe. It requires that the universe be a closed system (unknown and unprovable) and the total amount of energy in the universe is fixed (unknown and unprovable). Thus there is no proof the 2nd law works on a large scale, and thus that entropy is true.
> 
> There is more evidence to suggest time is an illusion, All dimensions have two directions, the ones we can detect personally are left/right forward/back up/down  it follows the next dimension up has two direction, we can call them whatever you like such as bib and bab, on ebb and flow, or past and future. the names are irrelevant. We are 3D creatures, we can only perceive the next dimension up in oine direction, and only on planck frame at a time (ie a slice of  'the dimension 10^-44 of a cm thick)  
> ...


Entropy is not "useless heat". Entropy measures a peculiar property of INFORMATION. It measures the complexity of its organization, relative to complete randomness. So for example, if all your gas particles are on one side of the cloud, you have more structure and less randomness.

It's good to understand Shannon & Weaver, the "information theoretic" aspects of any dataset.

----------

Oceander (07-09-2020)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Entropy is not "useless heat". Entropy measures a peculiar property of INFORMATION. It measures the complexity of its organization, relative to complete randomness. So for example, if all your gas particles are on one side of the cloud, you have more structure and less randomness.
> 
> It's good to understand Shannon & Weaver, the "information theoretic" aspects of any dataset.


no you havent read my post properly.

the *ORIGINA*L function of entropy was to quantify the waste heat in mechanical systems.  Rudolph Clausius  in 1850 described entropy as the transformation-content, i.e. dissipative energy use, of a thermodynamic system or working body of chemical species during a change of state, ie the creation of 'useless heat'

only *LATER* did it start to be used to quantify other things, and only in the last 50 years has it been used to quantify information. Shannon Entropy was only devised in 2003, 153 years after Clausius.

----------

Oceander (07-09-2020)

----------


## nonsqtr

> no you havent read my post properly.
> 
> the *ORIGINA*L function of entropy was to quantify the waste heat in mechanical systems.  Rudolph Clausius  in 1850 described entropy as the transformation-content, i.e. dissipative energy use, of a thermodynamic system or working body of chemical species during a change of state, ie the creation of 'useless heat'
> 
> only *LATER* did it start to be used to quantify other things, and only in the last 50 years has it been used to quantify information. Shannon Entropy was only devised in 2003, 153 years after Clausius.


Shannon entropy goes back to 1948.

See, this is what I've been trying to bring to your attention.

There is NOTHING you can do to information, that doesn't involve a cost.

When you take a quantum superposition and disentangle it, it's the same as moving two particles to opposite sides of the box.

And, when the universe "selects a random number" for you, where does the rest of the distribution go? It's information, it must go somewhere.

In this case, I can perhaps propose something novel - instead of moving to one side of the box, the size of the box contracts.

If you have the same number of particles in a smaller space, is that equivalent to reducing the number of microstates?

Well it sure is, in a quantum world. It is, for anything involving geometric "exclusions", right? Like, for instance, Pauli exclusions. If you get those particles close enough together they'll start excluding each other, and the same is true for superimpositions in quantum-land.

----------

Oceander (07-09-2020)

----------


## nonsqtr

btw - do you know how a Hopfield network works?

Check it out. It makes use of the Shannon entropy - there is a very unique equation related to "temperature". Also check out the "boltzmann machine".

----------

Oceander (07-09-2020)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> btw - do you know how a Hopfield network works?
> 
> Check it out. It makes use of the Shannon entropy - there is a very unique equation related to "temperature". Also check out the "boltzmann machine".


nooo there much more fun things to get your head round, have you seen the Banach-Tarski paradox? that'll  blow your mind   :Headbang:

----------

Oceander (07-09-2020)

----------


## nonsqtr

> nooo there much more fun things to get your head round, have you seen the Banach-Tarski paradox? that'll  blow your mind


But you, you're totally guessing. 11 dimensions, timelessness, .... ???

Answer the simple questions first.

----------


## Oceander

> nooo there much more fun things to get your head round, have you seen the Banach-Tarski paradox? that'll  blow your mind


I've seen that before, and it is TOTALLY awesome.

----------

UKSmartypants (07-09-2020)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> I've seen that before, and it is TOTALLY awesome.


its insane.  There has to be something wrong somewhere , but i cant  put my finger on it......

----------

Oceander (07-09-2020)

----------


## nonsqtr

Look - you know what compactification is and how it works - "all points at infinity are equal". But... "infinity" is abitrary, because what you're really saying is "sufficiently far away".

That word "sufficiently" can mean anything you want it to mean. A meter or a micron.

So, if it's a micron, you get a little circle, and if it's a meter, you get a big circle. The size of the box has changed.

The size of the box has changed based on the 'interval" that you used for your basis. So then, if you repeat this process with all possible intervals, you get "coverage" of what is essentially a synthetic dimension.

----------


## nonsqtr

Do you understand what I'm showing you here? (for the third time)?

How to SYNTHESIZE a "dimension" that doesn't really "exist".

How you do it is, you use an external stochastic "process".

Think about it. It's deep stuff.

----------


## Oceander

I'm loving this discussion, btw!

----------


## Fall River

> Both forward and backward time travel, or just backward time travel?


I believe backward will not be possible.  Perhaps forward has been demonstrated to be possible in theory.  But I seem to remember someone saying, years ago, that traveling into the future isn't possible because the future hasn't happened yet.  

I just reached page 33 in my Time Travel book and I see that Einstein showed how to do it.  You have to board a space ship and travel at 99.995 percent of the speed of light, about 500 light-years away and then return to earth. You would be only 10 years older but the earth would be 1,000 years older.  


Aside from the fact that the future hasn't happened yet, I don't understand how such great speed will slow down the human aging process.  Earth ages 1,000 years / spaceman 10 years?  All because of speed?

----------


## Oceander

> I believe backward will not be possible.  Perhaps forward has been demonstrated to be possible in theory.  But I seem to remember someone saying, years ago, that traveling into the future isn't possible because the future hasn't happened yet.  
> 
> I just reached page 33 in my Time Travel book and I see that Einstein showed how to do it.  You have to board a space ship and travel at 99.995 percent of the speed of light, about 500 light-years away and then return to earth. You would be only 10 years older but the earth would be 1,000 years older.  
> 
> 
> Aside from the fact that the future hasn't happened yet, I don't understand how such great speed will slow down the human aging process.


That's what my feeble little mind was thinking about, in terms of time travel:  go fast enough, long enough, and eventually you'll show up in someone else's future.

----------

Fall River (07-10-2020)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> I believe backward will not be possible.  Perhaps forward has been demonstrated to be possible in theory.  But I seem to remember someone saying, years ago, that traveling into the future isn't possible because the future hasn't happened yet.  
> 
> I just reached page 33 in my Time Travel book and I see that Einstein showed how to do it.  You have to board a space ship and travel at 99.995 percent of the speed of light, about 500 light-years away and then return to earth. You would be only 10 years older but the earth would be 1,000 years older.  
> 
> 
> Aside from the fact that the future hasn't happened yet, I don't understand how such great speed will slow down the human aging process.  Earth ages 1,000 years / spaceman 10 years?  All because of speed?


Backwards is possible as long as you are  four dimensional entity, because, as i posited, there ar eno time dimensions. its an illusion created by us being 3D creatures observing D4 in planck sized slices

The impossibility of reverse time travel is not down to the speed of light but due to limitations of travelling in higher dimensions.


Also you are missing the point about time dilation an relativity. (Lets asume ther is sucha thing as time for this argument). Not only does time run more slowly according to the field equatiions, but your MASS increases at an exponential rate. 

at 66%c a 1000Kg mass (including rocket fuel)  has a rest mass energy of about 90 million million MJ,   the Relativistic Mass Energy is about 10^14  MJ, and time is running at 75%. at 99.5%, you weigh as much as the entire solar system and time is still running at 9%     Trying to achieve time travel by going faster is never going to happen. Theres other ways, such as warping spacetime round you (which is what an Alcubierre drive will do) 

However, its still the wrong solution.  Time is an illusion. Nothing in Quantum Theory or Classical Physics requires time. At best its a local phenomena, an emergent consequence of entanglement which occurs in a higher dimension, which explains a lot of the wierd stuff about time.

It occurs in planck length slices which merge into a smooth analogue because we cant observe or experience at a quantum level.


You might find this intersting
https://medium.com/predict/is-time-a...n-2ee143dd653a


but the real answers are in M theory.

----------

Fall River (07-10-2020)

----------


## nonsqtr

> Backwards is possible as long as you are  four dimensional entity, because, as i posited, there ar eno time dimensions. its an illusion created by us being 3D creatures observing D4 in planck sized slices
> 
> The impossibility of reverse time travel is not down to the speed of light but due to limitations of travelling in higher dimensions.
> 
> 
> Also you are missing the point about time dilation an relativity. (Lets asume ther is sucha thing as time for this argument). Not only does time run more slowly according to the field equatiions, but your MASS increases at an exponential rate. 
> 
> at 66%c a 1000Kg mass (including rocket fuel)  has a rest mass energy of about 90 million million MJ,   the Relativistic Mass Energy is about 10^14  MJ, and time is running at 75%. at 99.5%, you weigh as much as the entire solar system and time is still running at 9%     Trying to achieve time travel by going faster is never going to happen. Theres other ways, such as warping spacetime round you (which is what an Alcubierre drive will do) 
> 
> ...


Meh... all conjecture.

There is not even one shred of evidence for what you're saying.

----------

Fall River (07-11-2020)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Meh... all conjecture.
> 
> There is not even one shred of evidence for what you're saying.


Theres a fair bit of evidence and work on this, but you are into some psychobabble nonsense about time with even less proof,  ive ploughed my way thru in the past,  which is why I dont argue about it with you, its a waste of entropy 

 :Sofa:

----------


## nonsqtr

> Theres a fair bit of evidence and work on this, but you are into some psychobabble nonsense about time with even less proof,  ive ploughed my way thru in the past,  which is why I dont argue about it with you, its a waste of entropy


Nope. You need a mechanism. You don't have one. I do.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Nope. You need a mechanism. You don't have one. I do.


nonsense

https://www.newscientist.com/article...antum-physics/

https://www.newscientist.com/article...e-an-illusion/

https://www.newscientist.com/article...-go-both-ways/

https://www.newscientist.com/article...rth-dimension/

https://www.newscientist.com/article...pace-and-time/

----------


## Fall River

> Backwards is possible as long as you are  four dimensional entity, because, as i posited, there ar eno time dimensions. its an illusion created by us being 3D creatures observing D4 in planck sized slices
> 
> The impossibility of reverse time travel is not down to the speed of light but due to limitations of travelling in higher dimensions.
> 
> 
> Also you are missing the point about time dilation an relativity. (Lets asume ther is sucha thing as time for this argument). Not only does time run more slowly according to the field equatiions, but your MASS increases at an exponential rate. 
> 
> at 66%c a 1000Kg mass (including rocket fuel)  has a rest mass energy of about 90 million million MJ,   the Relativistic Mass Energy is about 10^14  MJ, and time is running at 75%. at 99.5%, you weigh as much as the entire solar system and time is still running at 9%     Trying to achieve time travel by going faster is never going to happen. Theres other ways, such as warping spacetime round you (which is what an Alcubierre drive will do) 
> 
> ...


The article about time was interesting: "Time Might Be Nothing But An Illusion." I pretty much agree with all of it.  

Dean Buonomano's book, "Your Brain Is A Time Machine" sounds interesting, especially regarding free will,  but it's probably too advanced for me.  My library doesn't have it or else I would take a look at it.

----------

Oceander (07-10-2020)

----------


## UKSmartypants

Bigger than the Higgs, bigger even than gravitational waves...


We could be on the verge of a whole new set of particles starting at 750 GeV.  Thers a blip at 750GeV in the LHC.

There are some things we can already say about the putative particle. It has no electrical charge, for a start, and its spin – a quantum mechanical property – is constrained. The mathematics of spin mean that any particle that decays into two photons, which have a spin of 1, cannot itself have a spin of 1. It must also have whole-number spin. So the particle might have a spin of 2, exciting the idea among some theorists that it is a type of graviton – a hypothetical spin-2 particle that transmits gravity. That would be the first herald of a long-awaited theory beyond the standard model that unifies gravity with the other known forces of nature.

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article...#ixzz6RpFbQV3W

----------

Oceander (07-10-2020)

----------


## Oceander

> Bigger than the Higgs, bigger even than gravitational waves...
> 
> 
> We could be on the verge of a whole new set of particles starting at 750 GeV.  Thers a blip at 750GeV in the LHC.
> 
> There are some things we can already say about the putative particle. It has no electrical charge, for a start, and its spin – a quantum mechanical property – is constrained. The mathematics of spin mean that any particle that decays into two photons, which have a spin of 1, cannot itself have a spin of 1. It must also have whole-number spin. So the particle might have a spin of 2, exciting the idea among some theorists that it is a type of graviton – a hypothetical spin-2 particle that transmits gravity. That would be the first herald of a long-awaited theory beyond the standard model that unifies gravity with the other known forces of nature.
> 
> Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article...#ixzz6RpFbQV3W


Cool!!

----------


## nonsqtr

> nonsense
> 
> https://www.newscientist.com/article...antum-physics/
> 
> https://www.newscientist.com/article...e-an-illusion/
> 
> https://www.newscientist.com/article...-go-both-ways/
> 
> https://www.newscientist.com/article...rth-dimension/
> ...


I asked for EVIDENCE, not more conjecture.  :Geez: 

Look here, doofi (that's the plural of doofus) need to understand the simple things first, before they jump off into 12 dimensions.

It's like the kids today that think they know "electronics", they can build a circuit from a schematic but they can't wind a pickup or a transformer. Because they don't know the basics.

Understand: there is information in a distribution. It must be accounted for. It's almost like "potential energy" in a way, because the distribution has structure, it has shape.

The amount of information in a distribution can be quantified, and it's shape can be quantified too.

The most interesting distributions are those in which the shape is under direct control of the dataset. And, the part of greatest significance at the moment, is that discrete distributions behave quite differently from continuous distributions, topologically speaking.

Study "stochastic manifolds", then you'll understand.

The concept of "dimension" is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from what you think it is. Dimensionality has to do with the embedding of one dataset into another, there are fractional dimensions and there are dimensional systems that have multiple infinities.

----------


## nonsqtr

PS

I'm not here to argue with you.

I just want you to check it out.

It will ASSIST you when you're talking with your peers.

Help you ask intelligent and thought provoking questions.

----------


## nonsqtr

> I'm loving this discussion, btw!


This is kinda how it works.

Let's look at something called a "Cantor Dust".

Let's begin with a line. The X axis. Extends to infinity in both directions.

We agree that the dimension of this line is 1. Yes?

Now - documenting three very essential steps -

1. Pick an origin. (It's arbitrary, put it wherever you want).
2. Assign a coordinate system. Usually, in a Euclidean setting, the points will be equidistant. So, pick an interval, measure from the origin, call it "1" distance unit, and repeat. The distance unit is your metric, it's your yardstick when you measure stuff.
3. Assign an algebra. This determines what + and * mean, and + and -. Let's keep it simple and say it's the usual commutative and associative linear algebra. So when we measure distance from A to B we simply say B "minus" A.

Now do this procedure:

1. For each line segment of unit length, take out (remove) the middle third.
2. Repeat repeatedly for all remaining line segments, no matter how small.

What's left, is called a Cantor Dust.

Now, locate the points 0, and 1. (These points should remain if you've done it correctly).

The first question is, what is the distance between 0 and 1?

The correct answer is now: we don't know. It is indeterminate. Because, there are now points missing in between. We don't know what's in the middle anymore.

The second question is, what is the dimension of the remaining set of points?

The obvious and intuitive answer is: LESS THAN ONE.

The dimension of the dust can be determined using the methods of fractional geometry. It turns out to be about .63

And the dimension of a Cantor Dust "square" is about 1.26

Cantor set - Wikipedia

So with this information, maybe we could reconsider the idea of Planck-like quanta of time?

----------


## UKSmartypants

> PS
> 
> I'm not here to argue with you.
> 
> I just want you to check it out.
> 
> It will ASSIST you when you're talking with your peers.
> 
> Help you ask intelligent and thought provoking questions.




Have you any idea how arrogant and patronising you can be?  Another reason I dont engage in debate with you.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Have you any idea how arrogant and patronising you can be?  Another reason I dont engage in debate with you.


Fuck. Another snowflake? Can't even navigate a simple engineering discussion?

And YOU claim to be a physicist?

I scoff at your sensitivities.

Wake me up when you have some evidence.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> This is kinda how it works.


It doesnt actually, ignore this diisnformation. The links provided show real research, not some looney psychbabble.

Nonsqrt is  conflating 'Fractal Dimensions' - *a fractal dimension (in fractal geometry) is a ratio providing a statistical index of complexity comparing how detail in a pattern (strictly speaking, a fractal pattern) changes with the scale at which it is measured*

with a physical dimension  - the *dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it


And the two are absolutely fuck all to do with each other, and fractals are nothing to do with time!!



*D4, being a spatial dimension, is indeed quantised - by the planck distance.  Time is an analogue illusion because we cant think at  a quantum level. It all fits together nicely, as explained in the links. And no time dimension, something entirely unecessary in any physics.

----------


## nonsqtr

> It doesnt actually, ignore this diisnformation
> 
> Nonsqrt is  conflating 'Fractal Dimensions' - *a fractal dimension (in fractal geometry) is a ratio providing a statistical index of complexity comparing how detail in a pattern (strictly speaking, a fractal pattern) changes with the scale at which it is measured*
> 
> with a physical dimension  - the *dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it
> 
> 
> And the two are absolutely fuck all to do with each other, and fractals are nothing to do with time!!*


Apparently you have no idea what's beind discussed here.

It's okay, I don't have time to argue and I don't have time to educate you.

I gave you a starting point, you can either check it out or continue being ignorant.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Apparently you have no idea what's beind discussed here.
> 
> It's okay, I don't have time to argue and I don't have time to educate you.
> 
> I gave you a starting point, you can either check it out or continue being ignorant.


We were talking about time. I have no idea what tangent you think you have gone off at. however.  You're the one that brought fractals into it.   But rest assured, i wouldnt presume to 'educate' you. Horses and water and all that.

----------


## nonsqtr

Sigh.

Here, look - you were the one talking about Planck times, right?

It doesn't work. Here's why:

Let's say the ruler in my Cantor example, is one Planck distance long. Nothing smaller exists, correct?

Now, if you do one of Einstein's general relativity thought experiments you'll realize the length of the ruler will change with velocity! So people traveling at different speeds, will arrive at DIFFERENT "elementary distances".

No, I'm afraid, the situation is much more sophisticated than that. And also much simpler.

First, the more sophisticated part -

Are you aware of the Toeplitz quantization?

BEREZINâTOEPLITZ QUANTIZATION, HYPERKÃHLER MANIFOLDS, AND MULTISYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS | Glasgow Mathematical Journal | Cambridge Core

How about deformation quantizations?

Deformation quantization of a dimensionally reduced Seiberg-Witten moduli space - ScienceDirect

To understand "quantization", fractional geometry is almost as important as Hamilton's quaternions.

Of COURSE it's complexity. Duh. What are we doing when we build a Cantor Dust? We are essentially "quantizing" the dataset, are we not?

You can approach this a different way. What is the dimension of the set of (quantized) integers relative to the set of (continuous) real numbers?

Well, imagine a procedure like the one used to build the Cantor set, but where "only" the integers are left. What is the dimensionality of that set?

When you start talking hyperkahler you are ASSUMING certain things about the composition of the manifold that may or may not be true. One such assumption is that the Hausdorff dimension equals the topological dimension. Bad assumption! The above example proves it.

In my Cantor example, you or I can still measure with the ruler, "as if" the missing points were still there. The distance between 0 and 1 is still 1, right? But where is the topology now? It's in the RULER, not the manifold! And therefore the whole model becomes useless on the spot. Because you have to make a whole slew of assumptions about the missing stuff in the middle.

Try to disprove what I'm saying.

Distributions have information and geometry. 

If you look at this in exactly the right way, you can have your cake and eat it too. You can have Planck times at the microscopic level and continuity at the macroscopic level. But so far the MINIMUM number of dimensions of time required to accomplish this is THREE. Unless, you use the trick I've suggested, which is accounting for the cost of selection.

I mean, "random numbers" are still an external phenomenon in M theory. "External stochastic process", right?

----------


## Oceander

Still lovin' this discussion.  Afraid I barely understand a lick of it, but I'm enjoyin' it!

----------

Fall River (07-11-2020)

----------


## Fall River

Search question: Did Einstein say that time is an illusion?  https://www.bing.com/search?q=Did+Ei...d30add1dfc8b79

According to the link above, yes, time is an illusion because.."it is relative; it can vary for different observers depending on your speed through space." 


When I brought up the subject of "time travel" it was meant to be from the perspective of how an individual would perceive it. 

Let's say your wife just got pregnant and you took off into space at near the speed of light (to avoid child support?) When you return many years later, you are still middle age but you find you have a 95 year old son.  According to Einstein's theory, that would be an example of time travel.

From the perspective of the "time traveler" it would not be an illusion.

----------

