Space/Time Seesaw

Persephone

Chrono Cadet
In past posts I have questioned the connection between space and time, the Einsteinian 20th century namestay, by referencing the work of Julian Barbour ( author of "The End Of Time: The Next Revolution In Physics", Oxford University Press, 1999), and his expositions on the nature of time (basically, he says it doesn't exist, time is what we call our impression of strung together nows).

But in reconsidering this construct, Space/Time, I think most people have the impression that the two are linked together homogenously. Like a scale ratio of a map key, one inch equals one mile. But what Einstien was trying to get at is the tie between the two not always being 1 to 100 or whatever. It can be more like a seesaw, you condense mass and then you expand time, you condense time then you expand mass, and all the nuanced little possible variables that might lie in between.

I find this especially interesting now that astronomers working on imagery from the HUBBLE have declared that the (our) universe is not "slowing down", but "speeding up"!

It defies our conventional logic. But maybe there are issues in "other universes" that are effecting the present state of our own?

Of course, I am still stuck on some Barbourian ideas, like our measurements have more to do with our measuring than the way things really are, but that's another topic altogether.

Any ideas?

The appropriateness of chance is astounding.
Persephone
 
Persephone, on eof the arguments against a Newtonian mechanistic universe (I know, you're post isn't about that, but hang with me) is that, according to modern cosmology, the universe (multiverse) has a horizon into which it expands. This guarantees that their are always new potentialities introduced into the universe which effectively destroys any possible notion of a determistic/mechanistic universe. Now, having said that, time/space as a continuum (one might even say that we need a new word to describe the one thing - spime? Uh,...maybe not.) has been shown to be malleable -- except according Einstein for massless particles (photons moving at light-speed) that exist in a "massless/timeless" state. However, there are other theoretical entities -- tachyons -- that are already moving faster than light-speed that have no known upper-limit, but definitely have a lower-limit in that they can never go at or slower than light speed. What I find interesting about these particles is the dillemma they represent to relativity. Faster than light seems to indicate a backwards flow through space/time. But what exactly does that mean if we have determined that the concept of the "flow" of time is subjective. And, if all particles have multiversal counterparts, what kind of counterparts would a tachyon have? Would they also represent hyper-lightspeed particles somwhere/when else? Also, if tachyons have mass -- what kind? Complex? Mass approaching light speed expands and time compresses. At light-speed, you get that infinity thing happening. So if a particle is already moving faster than light-speed, then according to the equation determining the relativistic factor, your result would be the square-root of some negative number -- so...complex.

Now, complex numbers are used as conjugates to restore equilibrium to a mathematical system, so are faster than light-speed particles, if they exist, part of some equilibriating mechnism in the universe that we are unaware of? What is the universe like on the other side of the light-speed fence?

Just a thought,
Robin
 
Robin and Persephone,

This discussion of yours is absolutely facinating! This is really interesting stuff. I suspect that this thread will be joined by others who contribute their understanding of it and that it will blossom.

This is my basic idea: First, this subject is so complicated and mind boggling that we can get really frustrated trying to picture the forces that are at work here. However, if we try not to stray too far from the standard model and, instead, try to extrapolate further into it, we can find answers that are not too difficult for our finite minds to fathom. The concept of a particle/wave going from light speed/timelessness to FTL as a tachyon may really be an illusion to our easily fooled observation. According to recent experiments with the observed/non-observed experiments with light being shown to seemingly travel faster than lightspeed through God knows what kind of means, they have conclusively proven that light does go FTL; but they have no clue as to how it took place. The FTL particles somehow went through an impassible barrier and reached its destination before its counterpart did and superimposed itself at its destination according to the pattern that an uninhibited particle would have left. How can this be possible? Yet the results are there and cannot be disputed. There is only one possible explanation in my feeble brain and it only got there by studying the Bible!

I'm not trying to get into the religious aspect of all this. I'm only saying that the concept originated there. In a nutshell, there is mounting evidence that in special circumstances involving electromagnetism, there are vortexes formed within every system whether of a solid nature or of space itself and it definitly involves our perception of time. If, in some way, light can find a way to escape its boundaries, it will "find" a way to shine. If a vortex or window through "solid" matter can be found, then its passage through that vortex would make it seem like the light traveled faster than lightspeed but in reality it went by way of a shorter route. Trying to imagine a particle/wave of light going faster than lightspeed would be like trying to imagine time going backwards and the light getting there before it was sent. It doesn't make sense. It isn't "beautiful". There's something wrong with the picture. The same would hold true for the idea of a multiverse. Perhaps it would just seem like there has to be a multiverse to fully understand the complexities of things. I've never been comfortable with the idea of a multiverse although I can conceive of dimensions beyond our perceptions. At a later time, I'd like to get into the idea of vortexes and science's latest understanding of their formations.
 
DA, the multiverse is merely a mathematical model that describes the apparent behavior of probalistic potentialities at the quantum level . No more, no less. This particular model is attractive because it dispenses with infinities caused by pertubation calculations. The side-effect is that you get these infinite "universes" instead of collapsing the Schrodinger Wave leaving only one universe and having all of these "left over" parts to have to explain away. Very messy.

Trying to explain a multiverse is like trying to explain what a complex number is as it pertains to everyday 4-dimensional reality. What exactly does it mean to have the square-root of negative two things in your hand? These numbers are used all of the time from light diffusion equations to electro-magnetism equations, from relativity to quantum mechanics, so... they must touch a reality that we are not ordinarily accustomed to in some fashion. They work, therefore, we can infer that there is something that we can't detect with present technology, but, in the vacuum of numerical purity, must be there.

There ARE philosophical problems with the Many Worlds theory not to mention that many physicists think that this approach is a cop-out - "just create another universe and that factors away your problems!". However, one must point out that, regardless of the far-fetchedness of the concept, quantum predictions work when equations are solved through using this model especially as they pertain to quantum computation. Allow me to quote an interview with Deutch:

////
The key to Deutsch's model sounds peculiar. He treats the multiverse as if it were a quantum computer. Quantum computers exploit the strangeness of quantum systems-their ability to be in many states at once-to do certain kinds of calculation at ludicrously high speed. For example, they could quickly search huge databases that would take an ordinary computer the lifetime of the Universe. Although the hardware is still at a very basic stage, the theory of how quantum computers process information is well advanced.

In 1985, Deutsch proved that such a machine can simulate any conceivable quantum system, and that includes the Universe itself. So to work out the basic structure of the multiverse, all you need to do is analyze a general quantum calculation. "The set of all programs that can be run on a quantum computer includes programs that would simulate the multiverse," says Deutsch. "So we don't have to include any details of stars and galaxies in the real Universe, we can just analyze quantum computers and look at how information flows inside them."

If information could flow freely from one part of the multiverse to another, we'd live in a chaotic world where all possibilities would overlap. We really would see two tables at once, and worse, everything imaginable would be happening everywhere at the same time.

Deutsch found that, almost all the time, information flows only within small pieces of the quantum calculation, and not in between those pieces. These pieces, he says, are separate universes. They feel separate and autonomous because all the information we receive through our senses has come from within one universe. As Oxford philosopher Michael Lockwood put it, "We cannot look sideways, through the multiverse, any more than we can look into the future."

Sometimes universes in Deutsch's model peel apart only locally and fleetingly, and then slap back together again. This is the cause of quantum interference, which is at the root of everything from the two-slit experiment to the basic structure of atoms.


KurzweilAI.net
////

Once again, we can infer that other universes exist through the numerical purity of the equations. And look! No left over parts!

I recommend the writings of David Deutch - Professor at Oxford University. He works at the Centre for Quantum Computation at The Clarendon Laboratory, University of Oxford.
 
Robin,

I remember reading the article about Deutch in Discover magazine. I was immediately drawn to the article because it involved the non-locality experiments which John Wheeler was so interested in. When I reread the article, I was I was reminded of what I said about how I believed that light didn’t travel faster than light. Apparently, he believed that his multiverse explanation came to the same conclusion. The standard model of finite speed for light still held true. I was pleased at his conclusion about light speed, but I am still skeptical of the multiverse theory. He even mentioned that one day the quantum computational model may be disproved but that the new discovery would be even weirder.

In the Edge interview on his website, I was surprised to find out a few things about his theory. I was particularly intrigued with his choice of term that he used for a quantum bit. His use of quibit, of course, seems to be in line with the fact that he is a Jewish scholar and it only stands to reason that he would use a “measuring rod” that closely aligns with the Old Testament means of measurement; that is, a cubit. The ancient use of cubit is a very interesting one and goes back to pyramidal times and probably long before that. What’s interesting about the cubit is that it has no “standard” such as centimeters, inches or such. It was simply the measurement from elbow to the tip of the middle finger plus the span of the width of the hand. Modern explanation of the cubit has a range of values. What this implied to me when I first discovered the measurement of the cubit that it was a very personal measurement. Obviously, someone with short arms and small hands would build a very different house than someone with long arms and hands. This was a strange peculiarity to me. That was when I started to study it out a bit more deeply and came to even stranger conclusions. Probably the one place where the cubit was used more than any other was in the building of the Old Testament Sanctuary and outlined in painstaking detail in the book of Ezekiel. Another very peculiar term was used in this construction and it entailed the use of a “measuring road” and “line of flax”. While studying out these Hebrew terms, what I discovered was that the builder was to reduce the size of the measurement to what it called “comminuting linen”. In other words, the material was to be atomized. This is not my term. This came right out of Strong’s Concordance of the Bible. What this led me to believe, then, is that the entire structure of the temple, omitting the courts between the temple proper and the walls surrounding the temple(which were complex structures in themselves), were to be quantisized. When I looked at it from this point of view considering all the ruby crystals of the windows inside the temple, the crystal foundations, the crystals in the breastplate of the high priest, the sapphire crystal of the ten commandments in the ark and the sapphire throne above it all—literally a sea of glass; what I then imagined WAS nothing short of a quantum computer. It is no small coincidence that the measurements of the structure constitute a golden mean spiral with very precise geometrical proportions and all encased in gold which is the most perfect reflector and containment. Include in the mix some “shaking posts” which sound like tuning forks, a whirlwind showing the precise form of the vortex, 12 lamps to provide photons, 99+ chambers which go round about the whole structure and connected by “doors”-and lots of other mysterious things; well, it’s a whole lot weirder to me than quantum computational theory!!

I can conceive of a whole lot of “probable” me’s with every conceivable action I might take out there in the vortexes somewhere, but I have difficulty with EVERY possible me being out there in reality. Free will would have to have that many permutations to really be considered free will. As Deutch pointed out, there are definite metaphysical and philosophical problems with the theory-especially from his point of view since he is Jewish. From a purely religious point of view, it could really open a can of worms about the whole salvation issue. Somewhere out there, you could be an axe murderer or a saint. It’s almost a paradox in itself. God gives us a quantum computer so that we can prove that the multiverse is a deterministic machine which proves that there is no God. Interesting concept!
 
"Spime Spime Spime Spime, Spime Spime Spime Spime, Spimety Spime, Spimety Spime..."

(Think Monty Python SPAM sketch!)

Just on an unserious note here......SPIME sounds good for dinner tonight!

Dear Robin,
Can't help lovin' your lexiconical coinage!

The appropriateness of chance is astounding.
Persephone
 
Hungry for the SCIENCE!

Dear Robin,

Thankyou! I am just reading the first couple of pages of this "Structure Of The Multiverse" by Deutsch and am elated to find that the proposal statement contains a thesis impetus including ambiguousness alongside a non-ambiguousness, ie.
Property 1: A physical system "S" contains information about a parameter "b" if (though not necessarily only if) the probability of some outcome of some measurement on "S" alone depends on "b".
Property 2: A physical system "S" contains no information about "b" if (and for present purposes we need not take a position about 'only if') there exists a complete description of "S" that is independent of "b".

I will continue reading, but I enjoy the principal set forth to credit and I enjoy the specificity of the laguage used.

The appropriateness of chance is astounding
Persephone
 
Top