Time reversal: A simple particle could reveal new physics

Oct 11, 2011 By Shelley Littin
Time Reversal: A Simple Particle Could Reveal New Physics
UA theoretical physicist Bira van Kolck has found that experimenting with a deuteron, a simple atomic nucleus, could lead to understanding a mysterious phenomenon of subatomic physics known as time reversal violation. (Photo by Daniel Stolte/UANews)

(PhysOrg.com) -- A simple atomic nucleus could reveal properties associated with the mysterious phenomenon known as time reversal and lead to an explanation for one of the greatest mysteries of physics: the imbalance of matter and antimatter in the universe.

The physics world was rocked recently by the news that a class of subatomic particles known as neutrinos may have broken the speed of light.

Adding to the rash of new ideas, University of Arizona Bira van Kolck recently proposed that experiments with another small particle called a deuteron could lead to an explanation for one of the most daunting puzzles physicists face: the imbalance of matter and antimatter in the universe.

A deuteron is a simple , or the core of an atom. Its simplicity makes it one of the best objects for experiments in .

A property of the deuteron known as a magnetic quadrupole moment could reveal sources of a phenomenon known as time reversal violation, Van Kolck and his collaborators, including recently graduated UA doctoral student Emanuele Mereghetti, show in a recent paper published in .

Most of what physicists know about the universe can be described by what is called the of particle physics. Developed by Van Kolck's former doctoral advisor, Steven Weinberg, the standard model describes everything from Newton's to the behavior of subatomic particles with what is known as .

"This theory explains almost everything we know about the universe up to this point," said Van Kolck. "However," he added, "there is one problem that the standard model does not explain."

"Like the protons and neutrons – the particles making up the nucleus of an atom – every particle has what's called an antiparticle, things like antiprotons or antineutrons. The universe seems to have many more particles than antiparticles," said Van Kolck. "So there is a question of why the universe seems to have such an asymmetry between particles and antiparticles."

Time Reversal: A Simple Particle Could Reveal New Physics
Because a deuteron consists of two subatomic particles, it is not considered to be a particle by nuclear physicists. A deuteron technically is an atomic nucleus, or the core of an atom, but unlike more complex nuclei, the deuteron consists of just one positively charged particle called a proton and one neutral particle called a neutron. (Image courtesy of Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility)

"The current indication is that the universe started from a very concentrated state, which some people call the Big Bang, and evolved from that. It would be appealing if we could show that the universe started with a balanced number of particles and antiparticles and that the fact that we observe more particles now can be explained in the process of evolution of the universe."

When things don't look balanced, physicists ask why. The explanation may lie in a rare violation of the phenomenon of time reversal.

Time reversal?

"Let's suppose you're playing billiards," said Van Kolck. "You have two balls and you knock them against each other on the table. Suppose you film this, but you play the movie in reverse. If you don't tell the person who is watching which version is forward and which is backward, the person wouldn't be able to tell."

Just as in the movie, time can be reversed in the equations that describe our world and the equations still balance.

For example, the maximum speed of your car is the miles it can cover per hour, or to a physicist, distance divided by time. If time is reversed so that it becomes a negative number, the equation still balances because the magnitudes of the speed and distance stay the same.

But wait a minute, you say. Time only goes one way: People get older, not younger.

"This is an apparent direction of time," said Van Kolck. "It has to do with the initial conditions. We can have laws of physics that work both ways and still give rise to phenomena that have a direction of time."

"Let me continue with this example of the billiard balls," said Van Kolck. "When you start a game there is a triangle of balls in the middle, and someone shoots a ball into this cluster causing all the balls to scatter. If you play that movie in reverse, most people would say that there was a direction of the original movie, because it would be very unlikely that you could start all the balls with the right velocity so that they collide, all of them stop in a triangle and one comes out."

"The reason why we perceive a preferred direction has to do with the fact that it is much easier to go from a simple initial state then from a very complicated state," said Van Kolck. So time can be reversed in physics equations without affecting the result, but the effects of time reversal remain unperceivable in our everyday lives.

"Until the 1960s, physicists thought that the laws of physics were exactly invariant in the transformation of time going to minus time," said Van Kolck. "Then it was discovered that there are some phenomena involving subatomic particles where there seems to be a very tiny violation of this symmetry."

In other words, if you made a movie of the billiard balls and played it in reverse, the backward version actually would be a little bit different from the forward version – like a "glitch in the matrix."

"It's like the process of some things happening in one direction versus the opposite one doesn't happen at the same rate," said Van Kolck. This phenomenon is known as time reversal violation.

When time reversal is violated, the equation doesn't balance out; your car doesn't go as fast on the way back. It is this imbalance that physicists believe may explain the unequal amounts of matter and antimatter in the universe.

Since physicists first started looking for sources of time reversal violation in subatomic particles, they have been measuring properties of particles known as electric dipole moments, or EDMs.

An EDM is generated by a property of known as spin. Spin can be visualized as a particle spinning around its center rather like the Earth rotates around its axis.

With time reversal, the spin would appear to reverse, like a movie of the particle played backward. But for the equations to balance, the EDM would have to equal zero. Any non-zero value would generate a different outcome of the equations – the backward version of the movie actually would be different from the forward version.

"Physicists have looked for EDMs of particles because if you measure one, you know that time reversal is violated," said Van Kolck. "We know that there is a tiny bit of time reversal violation in the standard model. But it doesn't seem sufficient to explain the matter-antimatter asymmetry, because that violation of time reversal is very small. So we are looking for sources that would make other processes where we would see this phenomenon."

However: "Measuring the EDMs alone doesn't tell you a whole lot," said Van Kolck. "It tells you some, but what we show is that if you can measure another property of the deuteron, called the magnetic quadrupole moment, then you can tell a whole lot more about the mechanism."

"Like the electric dipole, the magnetic quadrupole violates time-reversal symmetry," said Van Kolck. He and his collaborators identified mechanisms of time reversal violation that correspond to different measurements of magnetic quadrupole moments for the deuteron.

"Nobody had pointed out before that this would be such an effective way to separate these mechanisms," said Van Kolck. "We are proposing that people try to measure the magnetic quadrupole moment to understand the source of time reversal violation."

Unveiling previously unknown sources of t-violation could lead to an explanation for one of the greatest questions physicists face: the reason for the imbalance of matter and antimatter in the universe.

Experiments with the deuteron would probe the same scales of energy as the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, and could lead to completely new discoveries in physics, Van Kolck said: "It's a different way to look for physics beyond the standard model."

Explore further: Biology meets geometry: Describing geometry of common cellular structure

Related Stories

Physicists testing Nobel-winning theory

Nov 13, 2008

(PhysOrg.com) -- Soeren Prell and a team of Iowa State University researchers are part of an international research team testing a theory that led to a share of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physics for Japanese researchers Makoto ...

Physics experiment suggests existence of new particle

Nov 02, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- The results of a high-profile Fermilab physics experiment involving a University of Michigan professor appear to confirm strange 20-year-old findings that poke holes in the standard model, suggesting the ...

Recommended for you

High-intensity sound waves may aid regenerative medicine

14 hours ago

Researchers at the University of Washington have developed a way to use sound to create cellular scaffolding for tissue engineering, a unique approach that could help overcome one of regenerative medicine's ...

Formula could shed light on global climate change

19 hours ago

Wright State University researchers have discovered a formula that accurately predicts the rate at which soil develops from the surface to the underlying rock, a breakthrough that could answer questions about ...

New world record for a neutron scattering magnet

19 hours ago

A unique magnet developed by the Florida State University-headquartered National High Magnetic Field Laboratory (MagLab) and Germany's Helmholtz Centre Berlin (HZB) has reached a new world record for a neutron ...

User comments : 128

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Isaacsname
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2011
Actually,... a masse shot would not look normal at all during a time reversal.
Nanobanano
1 / 5 (14) Oct 11, 2011
Classical distance formula is not symetric in time reversal, due to the rules of multiplication of negative numbers.

For positive t, we have:

p = vt plus 0.5at^2

and for example, if "t" is 1 second, that becomes:

p = v plus 0.5a

But if "t" is -1 second, that becomes:

p = -v plus 0.5a

Because 1^2 = (-1)^2

Therefore, if you time reversed the classical distance formula, no symetry.

In order to be symetric, you'd need to have:

"p = -v - 0.5a"

But that has no solution, because there is neither real, nor imaginary, nor complex number which can give the needed result to maintain symetry, that is, IF "v" and "a" are the same in both the positive and negative scenario.

ack plus signs disappeared.
SmartK8
4.3 / 5 (10) Oct 11, 2011
"You have two balls and you knock them against each other on the table. Suppose you film this, but you play the movie in reverse."

Ouch!
LionHell
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2011
speed equals distance divided by time, as simple as that.
Assuming there is such a thing as 'reversed time', the mathematical result is 'reversed speed'

The formula you're using is used for when there is acceleration, not the case here, only speed...
kaasinees
1.8 / 5 (13) Oct 11, 2011
"Let's suppose you're playing billiards," said Van Kolck. "You have two balls and you knock them against each other on the table. Suppose you film this, but you play the movie in reverse. If you don't tell the person who is watching which version is forward and which is backward, the person wouldn't be able to tell."

But in both instances we still "move forward" in time.
Just because we give time numbers doesn't mean there is forward or backward button for time.
Just because we are playing a movie in reversal does not mean we are reversing time.
When we "undo" a change, does not mean that change never happened, in order to undo the change we have to change something. Meaning we will always "move forward in time".
If it was really possible to "prevent something from happening" we enter the domain of alternate realities and not time reversal.
Sometimes an apple is just an apple.
This is not science this is scientology.
R2Bacca
1.8 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2011
The billiard ball analogy fails because it is a macroscopic substitution for a quantum mechanical process. Things are much, much different at the quantum mechanical level. For example, Paul Dirac predicted "negative energy particles" - particles that turned out to be the very antimatter being discussed.
Nanobanano
1 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2011
speed equals distance divided by time, as simple as that.
Assuming there is such a thing as 'reversed time', the mathematical result is 'reversed speed'

The formula you're using is used for when there is acceleration, not the case here, only speed...


In the real world, there is always acceleration for one reason or another, so the formula must be examined.

Your text book argument is correct, but only for the thought experiment for which it was designed.

So the real world always has to consider the most generalized equation.

Also, there is acceleration even in the example given, it's just instantaneous acceleration of a collision, which we don't normally think about much
spaceagesoup
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2011
the example of the billiard table is used as a simplistic thought experiment, reversing the video is a simulation of reversing the order of events, which is negative psychological time. obviously playing the video backwards is not "undoing" the event, pretty sure no one was confused about that one.

time has no real physical property, it is only a mental framework for the ordering of state-changes within a system.

also, you should check the difference between scientology and illogical arguments, they aren't synonyms
Nanobanano
3.8 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2011
time has no real physical property, it is only a mental framework for the ordering of state-changes within a system


I totally disagree.

the theory of relativity absolutely postulates and relies on the fact that time in deed IS a physical property in it's own right.

The mathematics and geometry of the Lorentz transformation, although pre-dating Einstein's theory, is actually immediately derived from that assumption.
Isaacsname
not rated yet Oct 11, 2011
Actually,... a masse shot would not look normal at all during a time reversal.


Lol, what'd I say something stupid... again ?

If I had two balls and a cue ball, and broke them, filmed it, reversed it, you couldn't tell the difference . If I broke with a masse shot, filmed it and played it in reverse, there's no way logically you could say that the two balls would cause the cue ball to masse after a collision.

What's wrong with that ?
R2Bacca
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2011
@Isaacsname - I think you're taking the billiard analogy a little too far... You could come up with any number of apparent failures for any given contrived macroscopic setup to explain particle interactions.
NotAsleep
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2011
@Issacsname, the billiards analogy fails if you forget to take into account the heat energy dissipated into the bumpers, into the air and into the mat of the table. In reverse, it would appear as if energy was stored in these places and released into the ball, thereby increasing its velocity.

Improbable? Absolutely, but not impossible and it still suits the thought experiment

@Nanobanano, think "reversed time" instead of "negative time". Time, acceleration, etc. are all vectors that require a direction. i.e. 1 second in the -1 direction vs. 1 second in the 1 direction. I'm too lazy to come up with proper vector notation... so hopefully that suffices
Polymath137
3.7 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2011
While this deuteron time reversal work is fascinating in it's own right, there seems a *vastly* simpler explanation for the whole "matter/antimatter imbalance problem", like so:

When a particle pair is created out of energy, the two are always mirror-image particles, like an electron and a positron, a proton and antiproton, etc., and I see no reason to think it would be any different when universes are created. Indeed, it seems to me a stark violation of the principle of Occam's Razor to *assume* any other explanation!

That is to say, "Universes come in pairs, one of matter, one of antimatter." While there is no evidence to PROVE this, there is certainly no evidence TO THE CONTRARY, and it simplifies problems nicely. I suppose the OBJECTION is "It's unprovable." Well? So is String Theory.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2011
time has no real physical property, it is only a mental framework for the ordering of state-changes within a system


I totally disagree.

the theory of relativity absolutely postulates and relies on the fact that time in deed IS a physical property in it's own right.

The mathematics and geometry of the Lorentz transformation, although pre-dating Einstein's theory, is actually immediately derived from that assumption.
-Says the learned physmatist whose extensive education and experience has nevertheless left him with an embarrassing lack of clue. And a manic invulnerability to criticism. Perhaps he should plumb his own inner depths for knowledge?

'Know thyself.'

"The Suda, a tenth century encyclopedia of Greek Knowledge, says: "the proverb is applied to those whose boasts exceed what they are," and that "know thyself" is a warning to pay no attention to the opinion of the multitude."
jmlvu
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2011
This column could be summarized to violations of symmetry when generating quadrupole moment could explain lack of matter anti-matter symmetry in the universe.
Does phyorg really have to write to a 6th grade level?
El_Nose
1 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2011
time is a mathematical abstract -- its existence is inferred but much like any of its properties it's hard to prove -- balanced circuit equations can result in an answer of negative time and electrical engineering student has come across one of these in intro to circuits.
Nanobanano
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2011
time's existence is not hard to prove, idiots.

Everything you do is based on time.

The whole reason relativity ends up havinb been proven correct in experimentation is that "time" is a real physical property of the universe.

People who deny time as a real property of the universe are insane.

Notasleep:
Vectors have positive and negative numbers as components as a sign.

"Velocity" and "Acceleration" are automatically a vector, but every vector has a scalar and a direction.

negative is a direction, but negative is a number too.

If you say, "v = -5" that tells you both the direction and the scalar, and it is a vector by default.

But a negative number is still a negative number.

The analogy of a video playing backwards is inaccurate, but your primitive brain cannot quite comprehend what they are talking about, so they have to use half-truths to try to make it understandable.
Nanobanano
1.7 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2011
But the analogy of playing a video backwards is bad, and unfortunately you guys don't get that.

Playing a video backwards would be not much different than re-wind, which is still a "normal" time event.

A time-reversed event would be the photons coming back out of your eyes, and every place else in the universe they had gone, and going back into the television as the recorder played BACKWARDS, even though the "Play" button was on, until it got to the beginning and stopped where it started. Of course, the "sound" would also go back into the speakers, and the electricity would reverse it's current back into the lines and go back to the power plant where it was made, and the coal would re-associate from air, co2, and other waste in the planet, etc.

The pathetic analogy of playing a video backwards left people with a totally wrong impressiong.

But facts are facts. The classical position formula is not symetric at all when time is reverse.
Nanobanano
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2011
Ghost:

I'll continue to report you for abuse EVERY SINGLE TIME you personally attack me like that, which you have taken a personal vendetta against me.

I don't care what you think, so STFU and grow up, idiot.

Anybody who knows enough math to do the proofs for relativity, or just check some relevant texts and articles, would know that what I said was absolutely correct, because it's derived from a geometric interpretation of TIME as the 4th axis of space-time, and always has been.
Nanobanano
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2011
Why were people talking about time travel, from Einstein to Machio Kaku now,if time is not a property?

http://www.youtub...WMNoHSm8

If time is not a property, and is just an artifact of perception, as you weirdos claim, then pretty much all of the major physicists since Einstein have lost their minds.

the very notion of "Time Travel", which the doctor is speaking of, proves that Time is a PROPERTY: A dimension.

In order to TRAVEL there has to be a dimension on which to move, and that is a property, not an artifact of instrumentation, and not a matter of mere perception.

http://www.youtub...=related

yeah
pauljpease
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 11, 2011
Actually, I think there was a recent paper suggesting that the slight time reversal violations observed in particle physics experiments can be accounted for by factoring in general relativity. It turns out that the experiments are done on Earth, which is in the Milky Way Galaxy. The Galaxy is rotating so that the frame-dragging effect of relativity is very strong here on Earth (the Galaxy is very massive and spinning really fast). I think it's an elegant explanation of the results, and seems plausible.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2011
With a high speed camera one could tell the difference when playing the film in slow motion. You should be able to see air resistance slowing the balls down in the forward direction and speeding them up when the film is reversed.
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2011
lol Nano.
Of course, the "sound" would also go back into the speakers - Nano


Maybe there are 'small' time reversals. For example: sound from speakers. Pretend energy is conserved and can be of any infinite shape or form. And pretend information is equivalent to energy.

Now imagine sound from speakers reaches your ear, then your brain. Of course the form has change when in your brain. This form of energy in your brain represents information. Normally this information (energy) is simply store and maintained. This is great because if the same information (energy) is supplied again by the speaker, the stored and maintained reference already in your brain will match and label the incoming energy as the same as stored and maintained reference label sound of speaker. Although form and shape of energy are infinite they always represent the same information. This is why the sound of speaker in the same for everyone.
cont...
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2011
This is why the sounds of speakers is the same for everyone.
So why does everyone hear differently? You don't. Your associations with the reference are unique - the reference itself is always ubiquitous.

Now imagine your reference storage receives a signal:
"STORE NO MORE! SEND TO WHERE RECEIVED! The energy (your reference)is 'shipped out' to where the energy was originally received - your ears. And your ears can be a microphone or speaker. So now you have sound coming from ears indistinguishable from the sound coming from speakers. You might object one is louder than the other. True. The information content of both are identical despite the size and form of energy.
So actually there is no time for energy. Energy is timeless. Energy is conversed. Information is timeless. Information is conserved.
So if time exists, then what is time?
Well, time is the 'length' or 'pathways' energy or information use must in order to distribute.
All distributions we labeled, we label time.
Halliday
5 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2011
Classical distance formula is not symetric in time reversal, due to the rules of multiplication of negative numbers.

For positive t, we have:

p = vt plus 0.5at^2

...

Therefore, if you time reversed the classical distance formula, no symetry.

Nanobanano:

You have forgotten that for a given v (initial velocity) and a (constant acceleration), so the position p = v*t + (a/2)*t^2, both v and a can each be replaced by their negatives while producing a correct result. Hence, p = v*t + (a/2)*t^2 = (-v)*(-t) + (a/2)*(-t)^2. So, reversal in time implies reversal in the sign of velocity (initial velocity, in this case), hence the reversal of the direction of motion.

Absolutely expected and logical. In fact, this is what one will see when one reverses a movie. (Of course, your other comments suggest you have a problem with the movie reversal analogy, as well.)
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2011
Distributions are reversible. And the way in which distributions are 'dispensed' determines the direction of time - if time exists.
sigfpe
5 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2011
> The physics world was rocked recently by the news that a class of subatomic particles known as neutrinos may have broken the speed of light.

Not it wasn't.
AWT
3 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2011
> The physics world was rocked recently by the news that a class of subatomic particles known as neutrinos may have broken the speed of light.
Not it wasn't.
This is just your opinion. But it formed a spike in ArXiv traffic and this spike is experimentally testable.

http://www.alexa....rxiv.org
Cynical1
2.5 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2011
Time is the ruler by which we quantify/describe change. Therefore TIME is not a property of the universe - CHANGE is...
natetuvkok
1 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2011
"You have two balls and you knock them against each other on the table. Suppose you film this, but you play the movie in reverse."

Ouch!
haha so lol
Argiod
2 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2011
Paradox is the Child of False Premise.
There is something in your theory that is not quite in line with reality.
Perhaps we live in an infinite universe, in which imbalance is strictly a local phenomenon, but that balances in the overall picture.
The basic premise of Physics is that Energy may neither be created nor destroyed. Thus, it would be impossible for there to ever have been a 'beginning'. This archaic concept is a vestige of Catholic teachings. It is time for clear thinkers to abandon the 'Big Bang' theory and move on to an infinite universe which is a zero sum game at best.

Of course, this is just my opinion; I could be wrong.
Argiod
2.3 / 5 (10) Oct 11, 2011
Another issue that refutes the 'Big Bang' theory is black holes. Now that it has been established that black holes exist, we must consider that if everything we can currently percieve was originally in an infinitesimally small point in space, then it would have been the Grandfather of all black holes; and NOTHING would have been able to escape, not even light, which is massless!

Again, this is just my opinion; I could be wrong.
Seeker2
2 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2011
...NOTHING would have been able to escape, not even light, which is massless!

Except, apparently, Hawing radiation. Black holes evaporate into blackbody radiation. Eventually the U becomes only radiation. A solution to GR equations apparently includes white holes, and eventually it would seem all radiation (the whole U) would get swallowed up by these creatures. If they could focus all radiation on one point, as if they were spherical, that would be lots of energy, probably too much for even the white hole. In which case it escapes back into the universe in the form of high energy through this single point. All this energy and its spacetime cause sudden expansion (inflation) and cools and condenses until matter is formed. Don't let anyone tell you all this matter came from a single point, I should think, but from inflation.
_lack_aiser
1 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2011
If you take the universe and anti-universe and superimpose them together, a very tiny violation of the symmetry woulde cause momentum - all the momentum in the cosmos...
Cynical1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2011
Maybe we're just watching the time reversal video of the big crunch.....
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2011
Dear flooding egomaniac:
Anybody who knows enough math to do the proofs for relativity,
-To which somebody had to show you what you dont know:
You have forgotten that for a given v (initial velocity) and a (constant acceleration), so the position p = v*t + (a/2)*t^2, both v and a can each be replaced by their negatives while producing a correct result. Hence, p = v*t + (a/2)*t^2 = (-v)*(-t) + (a/2)*(-t)^2. So, reversal in time implies reversal in the sign of velocity (initial velocity, in this case), hence the reversal of the direction of motion.
...AGAIN.
I'll continue to report you for abuse EVERY SINGLE TIME you personally attack me like that, which you have taken a personal vendetta against me.
-And I and others will continue to report you for flooding nonsense bullshit about your personal life and the physics you obviously dont know, until you are banned. AGAIN.
driverdoug
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2011
Time reversal violation is simply a mental construction. Our thoughts travel faster than the speed of light, because this energy resembles that of creation, not reaction. Time is relative to the space between objects. Time is not moving. It's all happening Now. "Time" is simply the "rate" at which the observer is moving through space, and if you change the space between objects and the rate of speed of the observer, time appears to have been altered. From the observers point of view. The time before time, when there was no matter, "Hey what's the matter?" "Nothing." No Thing. The purest form of Vibration Energy existed--antimatter>since the Big Bang, space between matter is expanding and "time" is slowing. Energies driving expansion will dissipate and everything will literally "fall into place!" If there is no such thing as time: we are all living all our "lives" at once. We just don't know it, because it would be no fun to not have an experience.
hush1
2 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2011
Paradox is the Child of False Premise. - Arigod


Only if we talk family.
Mathematicians start with 'primitive notion' which is just a disguise for the word 'assumption' that everyone else uses.

So, the only permissible conclusions are:

There is no such thing as a "false premise" That's laymens' talk. A premise introduces arguments. A premise is neither true nor false.

1.)Assumptions can never be false
(That's not an assumptions' purpose - an assumptions' purpose is to introduce argument - not solve it.)
2.)There are no true paradoxes.
(There is no way to find purpose for true paradoxes)

The words you state are poetry. (Not even philosophy)
And if you speak those words they sound like music.
Which is as close as that statement will ever get to physics.

Nice try, through. :)
hush1
1 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2011
Arigod
1.)Black holes do exist - the expressions describing them will never lead you to them. There will be forthcoming new descriptions of singularities - without events horizons and with measure.
2.)Gravitational waves do not exist. The expressions from which they arise comes from math that does not exist. You can not find solutions from maths that do not exist.
3.)I refuse to opinionate about BB. Too many people having too much fun in surmounting data to announce BB's death.
DarkHorse66
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2011
@driverdouq: on the one hand you describe time as a non-entity and as only existing in the here-and-now. (I'd love to hear how you describe sequential events in terms of now, occured and complete, yet to happen; WITHOUT resorting to spacial/spacial movement references!) Then you contradict yourself by implying that, because other processes are slowing down, time is slowing down as a direct result.????! Also, "the time before time" is an oxymoron. Could you please rephrase that (If you even can). If there was no time before time, do NOT use temporal references to describe whatever that might be. Even PERIOD before time is a reference that relies on the existence of time, to be valid in any context. So even that won't wash. You need to think a little about what you are going to write, BEFORE you commit it to text.
Regards, DH66
hush1
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2011
lol DH66.
Doug will reply:
Let's fast forward to a future where the scientists are discussing history:
First scientist:
"Do you remember the history where science believe in time?"
Second scientist:
"Yes, I do. They were just as imaginative as we are today!"
bewertow
4.2 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2011
What's with all these idiots coming up with reasons why billiards does not look the same going back in time? Are you too thick to see that it was a simple analogy?
Daleg
4.3 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2011
What was shown as early as the 1960's was that some processes such as nuetrino generation, don't happen in a way that is logical according to the mathematical rules prescribed by quantum mechanics when you reverse the time arrow. A brilliant experiment with Cobalt Atoms showed that if you filmed the time reverse of the disolution of the atomic nucleus, the nuetrino would come into the nucleus with a left handed spin, when all neutrinos emitted by Cobalt atoms in the disolution process are always measured with a right hand spin. In other words reversing the disolution of a cobalt atom reveals a physically impossible process a left hand spin nuetrino. The question then becomes why a left hand spin nuetrino never occurs naturally in any experiment of the disolution of Cobalt nuclei. This is what they mean by time reversal, any phyisical process when reversed should reveal a plausible reality as to what is measured. Well in this type of CP violation experiment the reverse process doesn't.
Daleg
4.3 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2011
I should have pointed out that by cooling the atoms to near zero it was shown that the nuetrino will always come out of the nucleus to the right and was never emitted to the left as a time reversed version would demand must happen to maintain mirror symmetry. Thus since mirror symmetry was violated then the time reverse sequence is impossible as there simply is no such thing as a left handed spin nuetrino in the disolution of Cobalt nuclei.
driverdoug
1 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2011
Time is not a continuum such as frames of a film passing thru a projection of light, but rather to be thought of as an up and down vibrational frequency, like guest checks on the spindle by the line cooks at the corner pub. "Age" as it relates to non-corporeal local energy fields has to do with levels of awareness, not the relative length of rate change, or "time." Events and experiences are simply chances for opportunity, things that happen. Nothing occurs at random or accident. Life is not a product of chance. There is no such thing as coincidence. Time is not a movement, but a field through which we move. Time is merely a mental construct, and does not exist. The ability to observe it depends on your point of view. Deja vu is the realization that we have already been there before. We are always at a place of free will and total choice. Time before time is simply when all matter is so dense that there is no space left. No thing. Nothing is the matter.
DarkHorse66
2 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2011
@driverdouq: Sorry to have to say this, but have you actually read what you have written? Some bits might some kind of sense, when taken on their own, but all put together, it looks like a mismatched mishmash of ideas that don't really go together and some are even mutually exclusive. I had hoped that you would have given a bit more thought to your answer and written something more coherent. As for assuming that time began only when matter stopped being at maximum density, we don't actually know what came before. Even many scientists won't rule out that time didn't start with the BB anymore. Furthermore, consider that time is considered to have stopped advancing inside any BH too (area of max density of matter, no matter how degenerate), while the space around it IS subject to temporal effects. Unfortunately the whole thing looks more like a (failed) attempt at philosophy. Not a good look. DH66
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2011
Time is the ruler by which we quantify/describe change. Therefore TIME is not a property of the universe - CHANGE is...


Change is the ruler by which we quantify/describe time. Therefore CHANGE is not a property of the universe - TIME is.

Change occurs in space-time. It is a RESULT of the properties of the Universe and not itself a property.

DarkHorse66
Also, "the time before time" is an oxymoron.
But it sounds so cool in fiction. Especially in books with swords, sorcery and Elder Gods.

'In a time before time itself the Elder Gods existed. They have always been and will always be. Nothing can destroy them because they are everything that is and everything that isn't.' Conan The Lovecraftian.

'And they want to eat your brains. So save the last bullet for yourself.' Bob Howard.

Ethelred
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2011
Therefore CHANGE is not a property of the universe - TIME is. - Ethelred


You might not need to "over described" the universe when one of the symmetries used to describe the universe is a symmetry that does not have a degree of freedom labeled time.

What prompted the above?
cont...
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2011
cont...
This:

http://www.quantu...t-posts/

"For those with some calculus-based physics background: this is related to the fact that the electromagnetic field can be written as derivatives of a potential. This means the potential is defined up to an constant. This overall constant (more generally, a total derivative) is a gauge symmetry. To connect to the quantum picture, we previously mentioned that the vector potential is the classical analog of the 4-vector describing the photon polarization.

Technical remark: in some sense, this gauge symmetry is not a symmetry at all but an overspecification of a physical state such that distinct 4-vectors may describe identical state. (Compare this to a symmetry where different states yield the same physics.)" - Who ordered that?! An X-traordinary particle
Monday, October 10th, 2011
Aidan Randle-Conde
From "Quantum Diaries"
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 14, 2011
Specifically, the parenthesized prompted me to response to your comment.

Let's not discuss this here. I accept your view of time.
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2011
Instead, let's digress to advance stuff.
The Poincaré Conjecture is proved:
Any shape or form without a hole is a sphere.
Any shape or form is pretty all-encompassing,
don't cha' think?
If you think about a 2D continuous plane without coordinates that will be a sphere too.

Are we doomed to intrinsic curvature for all dimensions?
Will a hole save us from impending sealed fate?
Is an all pervading curvature bad?
lol
Stay tune to the next episode in the human drama of:
Only time will tell.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2011
Why were people talking about time travel, from Einstein to Machio Kaku now,if time is not a property?
Timespace is a conceptual framework. Even Einstein, if I recall correctly, said as much. That notwithstanding, in classical physics timespace cannot be a real space because space is symmetric, while time is not.
Cynical1
2 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2011
Per cynical; If the universe had no change - there would be no need for time...
Per Ethelred; if the universe had no time - there would be no change...
So, I guess that brings us to the chicken 1st or egg 1st dilemma.
I mean, if the chicken came 1st - who screwed it to have the egg? And if the egg came 1st - who screwed whom to give DNA to that egg to make it appear? Sorta seems like SOMEBODY was doing something. (and I am most definitely not a creationist...:-)
The eternal quandary...
Cynical1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 14, 2011
And to Daleq - if we see neutrinas exit to the right (that's actually stage left) - what would someone on the other side of the event see? Heck - what is the neutrinos POV?
Daleg
not rated yet Oct 15, 2011
When the experiment was conducted in the 1960's they actually reversed the magnetic moment of the spin of the Nuclei. In sum this should have produced a mirror image effect or that the nuetrino was emitted from the nucleus to the left. The actual result was that the nuetrino still was emitted to the right. Proving that regardless of what CP invariance implies nature simply ignores the rule. Since when the atom's magnetic moment is aligned with the direction of spin the nuetrino is ejected to the right theory perdicts thatreversal or whenthe magnetic moment is contrary to the direction of spin the nuetrino should then be emitted to the left, but as it was still ejected to the right, mirror symmetry failed. This means you can't reverse the time arrow for the process because nature excludes due to quantum mechanical processes a cobalt atom emitting a left hand spin nuetrino, which is what you see in the mirror.
Daleg
3.5 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2011
Why were people talking about time travel, from Einstein to Machio Kaku now,if time is not a property?
Timespace is a conceptual framework. Even Einstein, if I recall correctly, said as much. That notwithstanding, in classical physics timespace cannot be a real space because space is symmetric, while time is not.

Spacetime is the length an object exhibits through four dimensions or the actual "real" length", our perception is skewed by curvature and being unable to visualize 4 dimensions. Space/Time is symmetric, none of the 4 dimensions including time alone however will be measured to be so. As your perception is based on your movement through them. This is what causes the misperception of length and time. Yes Spacetime is conceptual, but very firmly grounded in the theory's mathematics as the only true reality in which an object can be measured absolutely. Therefore actual distance and time must be stated in space/time co-ordinates to be absolute not relative.
hush1
2 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2011
We no longer use the expression:
"Only time will tell"
"Only OPERA will tell"
is the new expression replacing the obsolete and superseded expression.
Isaacsname
5 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2011
What's with all these idiots coming up with reasons why billiards does not look the same going back in time? Are you too thick to see that it was a simple analogy?


The analogy is picked by the teachers to use as an aid in visualizing a concept, not the students. The fault there lays with the people picking the analogy to use, not those that misunderstand it.

What's so thick about that ?
hush1
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2011
Wonderful wording.

1.)The analogy is picked by the teachers to use as an aid in visualizing a concept, not the students. The fault there lays with the people picking the analogy instead of the concept to use, not those making a false choice between concept and analogy.

There. Attempted improvement failed.

Let's see...
2.)The analogy was pick by teachers not students, as an aid in visualizing a concept. The analogy used becomes incorrect when students fail to recognize the end of an aids' usefulness - the aid of analogy. Who's fault is this? The teachers' fault.(If the blame game exists.)

Another attempt at better wording. Failed.

3.)An analogy to explain what a correct analogy is:

Concept is the syringes' contents from a hypodermic needle.
The shot leaves a needle mark on the skin.
Correct analogies are shots that heal without marks.
Incorrect analogies are shots leaving permanent marks.

Last attempt through analogy. Successful attempt.
Ironically
Burnerjack
1 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2011
There is one "far out" concept that alludes to "different way of understanding "spacetime". That concept is that spacetime is a kind of holographic, crystalline structure where contrary to Woody Allen's statement, everthing that ever happened, is happening and will happen. What separate events is your constant traveling through it. Crazy concept, I admit, but is resolves many issues as well as explains clairvoyance, ancient memory and the like. Do I believe it? Doubtful, but an alternative way of looking at the problem which may allow another avenue of solution.
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2011
BJ
Interesting take.
There are attempts to merge the discrete with the continuous via Information Theory. Avoids singularities, rids need of approximation and perturbation theory and provides a sufficient (complete) description of any point in space without time.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2011
Monday, October 10th, 2011
Aidan Randle-Conde
From "Quantum Diaries"
That is about Richard Feyman and does not have the quote. It did have link to the talk on Feynman on video.

http://cdsweb.cer.../1386327

There are two different versions of the video. I am still downloading the higher res version @383MB of MP4.

He also linked to this
http://www.youtub...vlS8PLIo

Which has been posted before.

http://www.quantu...e-conde/
Nearly half way down. My that is a complex control. Makes the old Appolo project look simple. And that is just HIS desk. Four panels with four windows each and each window with MANY tabs. Not counting his laptop.

A little lower he has a picture of the Higgs.

Lower he says that even though he works at CERN he doesn't think the Higgs exists.

Then comes Tevatronic Rhapsody for fans of Queen and Fermilab. WHich would likely be one of the members of Queen. The one with the Phd in Astronomy.

Ethelred
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2011
Thks. QD is the human aspect of QM.
QD - Quantum Diaries.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Oct 16, 2011
What is the radius of a black hole in a universe with zero volume?

Clearly you are still inside.

"Now that it has been established that black holes exist, we must consider that if everything we can currently percieve was originally in an infinitesimally small point in space, then it would have been the Grandfather of all black holes; and NOTHING would have been able to escape, not even light, which is massless!' - foopie gone goopie
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2011
I mean, if the chicken came 1st - who screwed it to have the egg? And if the egg came 1st - who screwed whom to give DNA to that egg to make it appear?
Something very chicken like but not quite a chicken rogered something else that was was very chicken like but still was not quite a chicken. The two produced an egg that contained a mix of each plus possibly a new mutation that resulted in an offspring that was just barely a chicken. This went on for many generations where the the organisms where rather a bit of both almost a chicken and just barely a chicken with many aspects of each in any particular offspring.

This continued until the members of the almost a chicken groups could no longer get laid by the just barely a chicken groups and the now two species went back to rogering only what they got excited by. At all times they avoided goat herders that wanted to tie them to stakes and make them look at striped rags as it might turn them into striped goats.

Ethelred
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2011
lol Ethelred
Best for this thread explanation so far. Stars everybody! And I? Learned a new word: "roger". A valuable extension to my vocabulary - updating my synonym list this very moment.

Sounds so British - that can only be my subconscious bias at work. Pronounced presumably 'rogue' 'grrr' and not the American pronunciation conferring acknowledgement.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Oct 16, 2011
"Classical distance formula is not symetric in time reversal, due to the rules of multiplication of negative numbers." - nano

What makes you think that the constants v (velocity) and a (acceleration) do not change their sign when time runs in reverse?

Cynical1
2 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2011
LOL, Ethelred...:-)

Bravo on an excellently improvised tale - Would make a great limerick if you could shorten it up a bit! And I, too, have now expanded my vocabulary! However, your missive did skirt the primary point of which came 1st... ( I can't WAIT to hear the simile for this one...:-)
Deesky
5 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2011
However, your missive did skirt the primary point of which came 1st... ( I can't WAIT to hear the simile for this one...:-)

Which came first? The egg of course. Chickens evolved from (avian) reptiles (dinosaurs) which were egg layers. So the egg existed well before chickens came to be.
Cynical1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 17, 2011
Well, played, Deesky. Now - which came 1st - the egg or the avian reptile?
Cynical1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2011
And Ethelred,
Which came 1st - My Dad(1934 - and named Roger coincidently)?
or the term Rogering? He still is to this day quite the womanizer...:-)
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2011
Eggs came first. And before that was reproduction by fission. Since most eggs are just a single cell to start with, as with humans, I think that covers it.

Which came 1st - My Dad(1934 - and named Roger coincidently)?
or the term Rogering?
Rogering. The first time I ran across it was in a Flashman novel, which are set mostly in the Victorian period. I am pretty sure that George McDonald Fraser saw it in period sources but maybe he just used a common British term.

I do remember Dan Aykroyd using it on Saturday Night Live.

Well, now, I have a work order here which specifies that I am to "roger you roundly" till 6:15 tomorrow morning.


http://www.hark.c...-roundly

Ethelred
driverdoug
1 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2011
Nanobanano has the mathematical proof correct about why spin does not reverse. Darkhorse should re-read Einstein's Theory of Relativity: Our demarcation of time is all relative. We have arbitrarily divided Centuries, base 10, Decades, base 10, Months, base 12, Hours, base 12, minutes, arbitrary 60, seconds, 60, as constructs that still don't match up with the time of one revolution around the sun, as we were startled to find our galactic arm is rotating, and that nothing in our system is fixed. The solution about Big Bang is as obvious as the tide on the beach, or the falling leaves in the fall. Everything we see on a physical level is cyclical. The ebb and flow, the rise and fall, the in and out is observable everywhere. The oscillation theory is in line with what we see here on Earth. Black holes and pulsars are simple poles where matter exchange occurs between universes. Our soul self is so much larger than we measure. Our individuations are actually all One. We are all One
driverdoug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2011
@darkhorse66: mental constructs are a part of measurable thought energy that can affect matter: non-entities is a "liability" in your paradigm because nothing is solid in a literal sense. What we call solid is actually 98% air! When we look at the space between molecules, we see that local organized energy fields are actually quite spacious.
driverdoug
1 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2011
I'd love to hear comments about gravitational force. I'd like to hear Hush1's thoughts. When we understand gravitational force, we will be close to intra dimension travel. Perhaps we should all go to Wright-Patterson AFB and see what knowledge our scientists have picked up from our friends.
driverdoug
1 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2011
Does anyone recall the experiment done here in California by Sand Hill Rd., whereby the guys at the collider at Stanford split the atom, forced the spin to change on the electron, and witnessed that the spin on the other body, already separated, also started spinning in the other direction? In other words, the other "quark", no longer a part of the original collision, began spinning in the same reverse direction as the forced particle?
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2011
Driverdoug
More than happy to comment on 'gravitational force' That is beyond thread commentary scope. So I am forced to be 'trite'.

Mathematicians, or if you will, geometers have literally:

Missed the curve.
The line is fine. Replace it when you are ready.

Deriving any curvature from any euclidean definition is ultimately doomed. This is why Geometers and Mathematicians 'play around' with excluding some of the axioms of Euclid.

This is why the word 'axiom' now has an 'alternate' definition.
Seeker2
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2011
...Don't let anyone tell you all this matter came from a single point, I should think, but from inflation.

...What is the radius of a black hole in a universe with zero volume?

The point and zero volume are mathematical abstractions which don't exist in nature (per QM). The limiting volume is the Plank volume.
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2011
Don't let anyone tell you all this matter came from a single point, I should think, but from inflation. - Seeker2


We are in agreement here.

...What is the radius of a black hole in a universe with zero volume? - Seeker2


I'm looking. I don't know yet.

The point and zero volume are mathematical abstractions which don't exist in nature (per QM). - Seeker2


I accept QM's treatment of nature. We both know it is incomplete. Despite wonderful success. Mathematical abstractions are good places to start at.

The limiting volume is the Plank volume. - Seeker2

For the measurable. The physical. Yes. Agreed.

We are sounding bizarre for onlookers - our dialogue.
No more bizarre than QM.

I think Einstein's dice were round. The continuum his favorite pet.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2011
...one of the greatest mysteries of physics: the imbalance of matter and antimatter in the universe.

Dare call mythbusters? Could we all be fish floating around in a big fishbowl? I'd say it's all out there; you'll probably never encounter most of it - until, if spacetime starts to contract, it may be forced to come together and interact with matter, in which case all that energy of pair creation accumulated since the BB is released in another really BB.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2011
cont...
As I see it matter-antimatter pairs can be created if you think of matter and anti-matter as being distortions in adjacent (or contiguous) elements of spacetime. All you have to do is move the boundary between adjacent elements and you have a larger element (anti-matter) and a smaller element (matter). These boundary shifts happen continuously because of the uncertainty principle. So as long as you have spacetime and the uncertainty principle matter and antimatter will be continuously created.
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2011
Outcomes of round dice falling on Bézier surfaces are bizarre.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2011
cont...
The boundary shifts vary in magnitude due to the uncertainty principle. Larger elements form high pressure areas (anti-matter) and smaller elements matter. Normally low pressure and high pressure cancel each other, but if their separation is large enough undistorted elements may intervene (mediate), leaving matter and antimatter free to go their own ways. Then low pressure attracts low pressure (gravity) and high pressure repulses high pressure (anti-gravity). The bouyancy effect of intervening elements also expels the high pressure (low density) elements (also anti-gravity), eventually expelling anti-matter to the edges of spacetime. Inflate a ball and it floats, deflate it and it could sink.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2011
What path exists before the inflationary period? Does it have inflection?
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2011
...Mathematical abstractions are good places to start at.

Certainly. And they say science is not mythology? Let me off at the next stop please.

Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2011
What path exists before the inflationary period? Does it have inflection?

Yes the Big Bounce idea. Some think the U will precisely repeat itself. They don't consider that at the time of the BB the U exists in one 4-dimensional Plank volume. At this volume the uncertainty principle rules, in which case no two universes ever repeat themselves.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2011
...no two universes ever repeat themselves.
Fuzzy wording, but you get the idea.
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2011
If two universes are different, then what makes them different?
Different QM states produce the same physical properties.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2011
Different QM states produce the same physical properties.
Peter Woit opposes the multiverse concept in a following way:

"So, the multiverse cant be tested, but we should believe in it since its an implication of string theory, but string theory cant be tested because of the multiverse"

In dense aether theory a duality between untestable and omnipresent phenomena exists. It means, the multiverse concept is actually very common and linked to different observational perspectives of any observer. Everyone of us can see the same Universe differently, at least a bit. So that the multiverses are all around us. This idea doesn't violate anything - so that it doesn't bring anything new as well.

For example, the strings theorists are saying, the multiverses are high-dimensional slices of hidden extradimensional reality.

So that dense aether theory says: OK, even relativity theory or quantum mechanics are such a 4D slices of extra-dimensional reality, which is all around us.
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2011
IMO my stance is supported even with Bousso and Susskind article, in which they put the equivalence between Multiverse concept and Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Many Worlds interpretation deals with quite common quantum phenomena, which would render the Multiverse concept as a quite common stuff, too.

http://www.techno...v/26787/

Because there exists a duality between behavior of Universe at microscopic and cosmological scales, the same can be said about Multiverse during distant Universe observations. The quantum phenomena like the gravitational lensing, Kerr geometry of black holes, dark flow and/or polarization of CMBR can be all interpreted like the different manifestations of Multiverse concept.
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2011
QM's states have differences that account for the same physical properties. The idea violates nothing and extends physical description.

The different states are simply mathematical expressions to extend the consistency of physical description.

The expressions are necessary and insufficient - arising from the mathematical without a sufficient physical interpretation.

A description for the source of differ states via a physical interpretation of that description is forthcoming.
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2011
QM's states have differences that account for the same physical properties. The idea violates nothing and extends physical description.
But Multiverse states aren't physically observable as well. If they would be observable, they would belong into our Universe. In this way, the Multiverse states could just account to various observable physical states at their very best in the same way, like the quantum states.

It's just a postmodern philosophy, based on assumption of hidden underlying/extradimensional/ultramundane/superluminal/whatever else reality in the same way, like many religions. This hidden reality indeed may exist, but we must attribute it some properties for being able to use it in further predictions.
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2011
Hush1-
...If two universes are different, then what makes them different?

The uncertainty principle. The CMB is an image of what is formed in the original Plank volume. Do you think the CMB image which we see will ever be repeated?

...Different QM states produce the same physical properties.

You lost me there.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2011
Another issue that refutes the 'Big Bang' theory is black holes. Now that it has been established that black holes exist, we must consider that if everything we can currently percieve was originally in an infinitesimally small point in space, then it would have been the Grandfather of all black holes; and NOTHING would have been able to escape, not even light, which is massless!

Again, this is just my opinion; I could be wrong.

You have to form stars before you can have black holes.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2011
You have to form stars before you can have black holes
IMO it's valid only for tiny stellar black holes. Today physicists are speculating more and more about primordial black holes and dark energy stars, which would enable the formation of black holes without star intermediate formation. In these models the giant clouds of dark matter could condense directly to active galactic nuclei, which served as a promoters of the whole galaxies. These ideas even have certain observational support.

http://xxx.soton..../0511338
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2011
...Do you think the CMB image which we see will ever be repeated?

Sure it will be repeated but I'm talking about the exact details we see in that image.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2011
...tiny stellar black holes

Stellar black holes would be formed from a star big enough to undergo gravitational collapse, like a star much bigger than our sun.

Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2011
The "tiny stellar hole" means the object of size in the range of few kilometers..

http://en.wikiped...ack_hole
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2011
Different QM states produce the same physical properties.
You lost me there.


Just pretend for a moment there are two different human brains(not difficult, because no two brains are alike). If the two brains were expose to just one image of your face and nothing else during the entire existence life span of those two brains - do you think those two brains will see the same image of your face?
(Remember. No two physical 'wirings' of brains are ever alike, and the information - the image of you - delivered via the eyes to those brains are ultimately a form of energy)

Does this explanation help you understand what I meant?
Cynical1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2011
Calippo,
Wouldn't a "dark energy star" actually be dark matter?
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2011
A better explanatory analogy and wording for different QM states producing the same physical properties:

An infinite set of configurations of circuitry with the same input will produce the same outcome.
QM states are probabilities.
Infinite configurations in the example above are physical states - where the analogy with QM stops.
Cynical1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 23, 2011
Hush. I am making the assumption that QM=Quantum Mechanics.
Given that, EVERYthing is quantum in that no 2 "systems" are EXACTLY the same. Extremely similar, but never exact. (And I do appreciate the face image analogy). Nor are the result of any actions of those "systems" ever exactly the same. We may never observe the differences in our lifetimes, but they ARE different.
It means (for me, at least)"roll the dang dice" is a rule of the universe. And the aggregate of all those dice rolls seems to work...
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Oct 23, 2011
Wouldn't a "dark energy star" actually be dark matter?
It's formed with dark matter, but it's density must exceed the Schwarzschild limit or something similar. The interstellar neutrinos are in thermal equilibrium with CMBR radiation, they're moving with speed over 500 km/sec and their density is just few hundreds per ccm - so it's not so easy for them to condense into more dense objects spontaneously.

http://en.wikiped...d_radius

But I really presume, the event described like the Big Bang actually proceeds around us in very diluted state. The AWT is based on steady state universe model.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 23, 2011
Cynical1
Particle Physics - we are gradual approaching the article's contents again - when viewed in isolation all elementary particles are indistinguishable - no measure or mathematical description can discern between them - or, if you will, the two "systems" each separately describing two isolated elementary particles (two electrons, for example) are exact.
The building blocks or a collection of one building block in particle physics are exact "copies" of one another.
The word "copies" is incorrect - there are no copies in QM, just a transfer of information.
You are correct that QM enjoys tremendous success (..."seems to work"). It is only natural to want to know what lies behind workings that are successful.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 23, 2011
Peter Woit opposes the multiverse concept in a following way
Peter has issues with theories that can't be falsified. However non-falsifiability does NOT make a theory wrong. It just makes it untestable which is a problem but what the hell gave Peter that idea that the Universe is supposed to fit HIS needs.

Ignoring ideas because they might not be falsifiable could mean that you will only be testing the wrong theories. Peter seems to be unwilling to accept this.

YOUR theory is seriously lacking in math. It can't be tested not because the math can produce a near unlimited number of valid variants but because there is NOTHING to test at all due to a total of math of any kind. Its just you waving your hands. With extra logins to produce the extra hands you need since two isn't enough. Adding more names to handwave with only increases the problem. Two handwavers are not better than one.

It's just a postmodern philosophy,
There ain't no sech thing.

Ethelred
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Oct 23, 2011
There is interesting point, why things exist in categories? Why organisms form a species? Why limited number of kinds of elementary particle exists?

The number of categories observable changes strictly with scale. At the human observer scale (which is equal to CMBR scale) the number of categories is tremendous. We are recognizing billions of insect species. With increasing distance from human observer scale the number of categories decreases sharply until we get to the stellar/atom nuclei scale. At this scale the Universe appears composed from very few particles only (proton, neutron, electron). Most of stars appear similar each other, their symmetry is maximal. After then the categories become blurred and at the Plank scale all particles are equal in the same way, like galactic clusters and or CMBR radiation.

Dense aether model explains it with geometry of mutual interactions of random blob of matter with its background in transverse waves, which we are using for observations.
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Oct 23, 2011
YOUR theory is seriously lacking in math
Because emergent geometry is lacking the math. We don't use the math for description of neighboring or very distant reality from the same reason: it becomes hyperdimensional and complex there. The application of math is restricted to the middle scale only (strictly 4D word of general relativity and quantum mechanics).

If you would sit at the water surface like piece of foam and interact with its surface ripples, then the neighboring reality would appear complex, because you're basically a soliton of surface and underwater ripples, where the effects of both kinds of waves combine. With increasing distance from your scale the water surface becomes driven with longitudinal or transverse ripples exclusively and its character becomes simpler. This is the domain of formal theories, like the quantum mechanics and general relativity.

But this deterministic scope is limited only - at the very distant perspective the Universe appears fuzzy again.
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Oct 23, 2011
From certain perspective even the electrons aren't the very same. Each electron is surrounded with its de-Broglie wave, which appears like dense coat of virtual particles and it increases its relativistic mass. Each electron is of different mass because of its different energy content (albeit their rest mass remains roughly the same) and they differ in similar but dual way each other like the stars, which are all of the slightly different mass (albeit their relative speed toward human observer remains roughly the same). At the case of subatomar particles this notion becomes even more apparent. These particles exist in many excited states, which differ in their relative energy content only. The galactic clusters are all very similar, they just differ with their mass only. We can observe one-to-many duality here: the properties of objects, which are mostly composed of single kind of particles appear dual to properties of these particles.
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Oct 23, 2011
YOUR theory is seriously lacking in math. It can't be tested not because the math can produce a near unlimited number of valid variants but because there is NOTHING to test at all. Ignoring ideas because they might not be falsifiable could mean that you will only be testing the wrong theories.
It doesn't matter, whether theory is fuzzy because it adheres on local physical analogies only, or because it adheres on highly abstract, poorly conditioned math only. From social perspective the later theory can provide a job for many theorists (which is why physicists are keeping them) - but from perspective of testable predictions both theories are roughly equivalent. My theory can provide many illustrative analogies for laymans instead. These two approaches are apparently dual.

But it's not true, some theory cannot be tested just because its lacking the math. Outside of physics the science is full of such theories. And this theory can be improved with rigor later.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 23, 2011
Callippo
Your point or suggestion that two elementary building blocks are not the same is not helpful.

I need two of the same of anything to tango. Then, any interaction or interplay I construct between the two remains consistence and gives me measure if I want to apply physical interpretation to the constructs.

No two of anything are alike in any way...I can not work with that. Can you work with that?
Surely you see the constrictions in place with a thought like yours.
Cynical1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 23, 2011
Hush, I believe he was saying the same thing that I said, but with a LOT more "science sounding" words.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 23, 2011
lol
Can you hear the shape of sound?
A famous question. Led to useful research.

I can not 'shape' the sounds of science - or, if you will, the words of Callippo.

Anyway, having two of the same is easier than having one of each without a common denominator.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2011
Because emergent geometry is lacking the math.
Nonsense. Geometry IS math.

If you would sit at the water surface like piece of foam and interact with its surface ripples,
I would get as far as I do trying to engage in rational discourse with Oliver K Manual. You are just evading the need for math.

Each electron is surrounded with its de-Broglie wave,
No. IF you are going to use that equation then you are looking at the electron AS a wave not something surrounded by a wave.

which appears like dense coat of virtual particles
No it appears as wave.

Each electron is of different mass because of its different energy content(
Horseshit. Each electron has the SAME mass if they have the same speed. If they have a different speeds then, relative to each other, they have a different mass, each seeing the other as having a greater mass.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2011
albeit their rest mass remains roughly the same
Would you care to give a smidgen of evidence to support that. Handwaving a variable mass into existence is not science. No sense talking about the rest as it based on that handwaving and thus not based on actual evidence. Cranking fits that sort of reality free crap.

These two approaches are apparently dual.
Dual with a sword as you have nothing to support you.

But it's not true, some theory cannot be tested just because its lacking the math.
No. If it doesn't have math it isn't a theory. Its just handwaving. It could be a preliminary model at best. And preliminary models posted dozens of times without any admission that it is pure speculation with no math and no evidence is just spam. Heck even Oliver has had some math.

And this theory can be improved with rigor later.
Not as long as yo make up the numbers for an electron's mass that are utterly wrong.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2011
Hush
No two of anything are alike in any way...I can not work with that.
Electrons ARE alike except for position and velocity.

Ethelred
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 24, 2011
lol Ethelred
I was trying to reach out to Callippo with the simplest of logic and wording.

You have made many, many comments to many, many people. Except for you, never once have I seen a truer, straighter, narrower path of logic and reason taken by anyone else on this website. Tirelessly. Again and again.

The correct path.
Kudos

rawa1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 24, 2011
If it doesn't have math it isn't a theory. Its just handwaving
It can still provide geometric analogies and as such predictions. For example, you're not required to use any math of heliocentric model for being able to predict the order of Venus phases from it. And this prediction is pretty robust and it enables to falsify the geocentric model easily without any math.

http://skepticalt...ases.jpg

Analogously, we could model the 4D space-time with particle model of water surface in 3D (which everyone can imagine easily) and to predict with using of it both effect of space-time expansion with distance (which is known effect already)

http://people.rit...4565.jpg

both its dependence on the wavelength of waves, in which we are observing it (which is pretty new stuff):

http://www.aether...ples.jpg

Got it?
rawa1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 24, 2011
This effect is closely related to model of two-time universe
http://www.physor...776.html
because it says, the entropic time runs backward above the CMBR/human observer scale. Which everyone can see, after all: the gravity is compacting the objects, instead of evaporation.

But physicists are focused to their interpretation of the red shift, so they ignore this quite obvious thing. They're believing, the entropy of Universe at its very beginning was zero, because they're observing it in short-wavelength visible light only. They're seeking for "rare violation of the phenomenon of time reversal", but they don't realize, they have it just before their eyes.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 24, 2011
Geometry is math. Drop the word 'analogy'.

I remain adamant:
No two of anything are alike in any way.

Can you work with that? No one can. You can.
Show us.
The way.
Cynical1
5 / 5 (1) Oct 24, 2011
Hush. If no 2 things were alike in any way, we would not have the observable universe we know, today. YOu would not be sitting at a mass produced computer, typing that comment. Things are alike enough to make repeated observations and conclusions. Hence - Hush...
DarkHorse66
1 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2011
@driverdouq:
Nanobanano has the mathematical proof correct about why spin does not reverse. Darkhorse should re-read Einstein's Theory of Relativity: Our demarcation of time is all relative.

I am fully aware that time can only be defined in relative terms, thank you very much! When you become able to express your own understanding of the Theory of Relativity in a clear and coherent manner, THEN you might be entitled to tell others that they need to go back and tell others what you feel that they haven't understood. Your posts were a strange mixture of metaphysics and philosophy; with a bit of physics thrown in on the side and the whole lot jumbled around. So it was unclear; not only in the context of which discipline you were trying to conduct your debate, but what the real intent of your post was. Your choice of words and wording of ideas was poorly chosen. If you want get idea across, then it might pay dividends to stick to the context (here: physics) and choose your...cont
DarkHorse66
1 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2011
cont...language to reflect this in an appropriate manner. Don't try to sound poetic or wax on in a lyrical manner. That is not physics. That detracts from the substance of what one is trying to say. One key tenet of the discipline is that there is a requirement to be rigorous when making a claim, assertion or a chain of reasoning. Failure at this, is ONE of the reasons so much down-ranking goes on in the physics section. THAT was my 'beef' with your posts, not the fact that you were wanting to contribute to the discussion. Make the effort to 'stay on topic' and order your arguments (think them through a bit beforehand) and you may just find that I (and others) will be happy to engage with you on a more positive note. (Your own 'average rank' might be a clue.)It's not personal, some of us are just a bit jaded when it comes to certain types of contributions. :) Cheers, DH66
hush1
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2011
Cynical 1
Callippo claims otherwise. Contrary so far to everyone who has read his comments.

Cynical 1 I am addressing Callippo. His claim is:
No two of anything is in any way alike.

All of us disagree with his claim.
Cynical1
5 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2011
Oh. Apologies, then.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2011
hush1:
...Different QM states produce the same physical properties.
...do you think those two brains will see the same image of your face?

No. The same physical properties (QM state) produce two different images.

...Does this explanation help you understand what I meant?

Yes it must have all been a misunderstanding.

...QM states are probabilities.
Infinite configurations in the example above are physical states - where the analogy with QM stops.

QM states are physical states. Their occurrence is probablistic. You can bet the farm on that one.
hush1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2011
No. The same physical properties (QM state) produce two different images. - seeker2


This is incorrect. Do not take my word. Ask any theoretical physicist. I don't have to ask - our family is chalk full of theoretical physicists - I am the least nerdy one - my science is of another branch.

Do not mixed QM states with physical states.
A cardinal sin.
The outcome of QM states are physical states.
The occurrence of physical states are probabilistic.
The probabilities come from QM states.

No physicist is going to share your mistake.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2011
Typo: "mixed"
Correction: "mix"
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 06, 2011
hush1:
...No. The same physical properties (QM state) produce two different images. - seeker2
...This is incorrect. Do not take my word.

Cook an egg. Some people like it over hard, others sunny side up. Same physical properties, I presume. We all have our particular tastes.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.