1
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: thoughts about the beginning of the Universe
« on: 20/10/2024 22:02:18 »
I was interested in any thoughts about the moment zero since fractions of seconds later things have been fairly explained
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / thoughts about the beginning of the Universe
« on: 16/10/2024 20:13:41 »
The issue of singularities, infinities, and the "moment zero" at the Big Bang involves both space and time. In standard cosmological models, the singularity is often discussed in terms of both infinite densities and the nature of time. But let?s break it down:
Moment Zero and Time:
When we talk about "moment zero" at the Big Bang, we?re also talking about the beginning of time itself (at least in the standard interpretation). If there?s no past?no "before" the Big Bang?the concept of time itself becomes tricky. Theories like general relativity describe time and space as interconnected (spacetime), and at the singularity, spacetime itself is said to "break down."
In general relativity, when you rewind the clock, spacetime curvature increases, and at moment zero, this curvature theoretically becomes infinite. This is part of why singularities appear, because we?re dealing with spacetime itself, not just density.
Is the Infinity from the Moment Itself?
If we were to stop at "moment zero" without extrapolating past it (since there?s no past), the issue isn?t purely about density. The problem lies in how our equations treat spacetime. The closer we get to moment zero, the curvature of spacetime increases, which also suggests that all distances and intervals shrink to zero, leading to these infinities.
So, even if we don't think in terms of infinite density, at moment zero, general relativity still predicts infinite curvature of spacetime and the breakdown of time itself into meaningless intervals. This breakdown doesn?t only come from densities or temperatures, but from the way time and space behave under extreme conditions in the early universe.
Can This Be Avoided?
Many modern theories of quantum gravity (which would combine quantum mechanics and general relativity) attempt to avoid this issue by proposing that spacetime is "quantized" at small scales. This could prevent both infinite densities and the singularity in spacetime at moment zero. In these models, time could have a smallest unit, meaning the universe starts at a finite, but very small, moment.
- The infinities at moment zero come from both the way time and space behave according to general relativity and from density extrapolations.
- If we stop at "moment zero" in a more finite, reasonable way (as some quantum theories suggest), the infinities could be avoided altogether.
Here is a. hypothesis that touches on the peculiar nature of light and time. The idea that at the moment of the Big Bang there may have been only photons (or radiation) and no time in the way we usually understand it connects with the nature of how light interacts with spacetime.
The Nature of Light and Time:
Photons, or particles of light, travel at the speed of light, and according to special relativity, time doesn't pass for objects moving at that speed. From a photon's perspective, the distance between any two points is contracted to zero, and the time it takes to traverse that distance is also zero. In other words, a photon traveling through space experiences no time at all.
So, if the early universe were dominated by photons (or radiation) immediately after the Big Bang, this suggests something quite unusual about time and spacetime. From the photon's point of view, the moment it was created and the moment it interacts with matter (or anything else) would be effectively simultaneous.
What Could This Mean for Moment Zero?
If we consider the idea that at moment zero there were primarily photons (or perhaps a very dense form of radiation), the concept of time may become ambiguous because of how photons experience spacetime. This could mean:
- Time is not well-defined. If the universe were made entirely of photons at moment zero, then time as we experience it, which is deeply tied to the motion of massive particles, might not have existed in the same way. The passage of time, at least for photons, is irrelevant.
- A timeless state at the Big Bang: If the early universe was in a state where radiation dominated, it might have been a "timeless" state in some sense?time might only emerge as the universe cools down and particles with mass begin to dominate, leading to the expansion of spacetime as we know it.
Photon Dominance in the Early Universe:
In fact, the early universe was radiation-dominated for a very short period after the Big Bang. Immediately following the Big Bang, the universe was filled with extremely high-energy radiation (photons), and only later, as the universe cooled, did particles with mass start to form, creating a more familiar spacetime structure where time passes for massive objects.
Weirdness of the Early Universe:
This photon hypothesis underscores that something strange indeed happens around the moment of the Big Bang. It could imply:
- Time, in the conventional sense, may not have existed as we understand it at the Big Bang.
- The very nature of spacetime, and whether time "exists" for light, could give us clues about the origin of time itself.
- The moment zero might not be a moment where time begins but rather where the conditions (such as mass and the emergence of spacetime curvature) allow time to begin.
Quantum Theories and Time Emergence:
Some quantum cosmology models suggest that time itself is an emergent property, meaning it only appears as a meaningful concept after certain conditions in the universe are met. In these models, before the Big Bang (or at the moment zero), the universe might exist in a timeless or even spaceless state. Once particles with mass appear and the universe expands, time as we experience it begins to make sense.
Summary:
The fact that photons do not experience time can mean that the early universe might have been in a very different state from what we currently understand, where time, as a concept, didn?t exist or was not well-defined. Time may be intimately tied to the matter and energy content of the universe, and may not even have existed in the earliest ?moments?.We can view it as an initial expansion that since it takes no time, the moment zero begins with an already vast volume filled with light and the first ever particles.
Moment Zero and Time:
When we talk about "moment zero" at the Big Bang, we?re also talking about the beginning of time itself (at least in the standard interpretation). If there?s no past?no "before" the Big Bang?the concept of time itself becomes tricky. Theories like general relativity describe time and space as interconnected (spacetime), and at the singularity, spacetime itself is said to "break down."
In general relativity, when you rewind the clock, spacetime curvature increases, and at moment zero, this curvature theoretically becomes infinite. This is part of why singularities appear, because we?re dealing with spacetime itself, not just density.
Is the Infinity from the Moment Itself?
If we were to stop at "moment zero" without extrapolating past it (since there?s no past), the issue isn?t purely about density. The problem lies in how our equations treat spacetime. The closer we get to moment zero, the curvature of spacetime increases, which also suggests that all distances and intervals shrink to zero, leading to these infinities.
So, even if we don't think in terms of infinite density, at moment zero, general relativity still predicts infinite curvature of spacetime and the breakdown of time itself into meaningless intervals. This breakdown doesn?t only come from densities or temperatures, but from the way time and space behave under extreme conditions in the early universe.
Can This Be Avoided?
Many modern theories of quantum gravity (which would combine quantum mechanics and general relativity) attempt to avoid this issue by proposing that spacetime is "quantized" at small scales. This could prevent both infinite densities and the singularity in spacetime at moment zero. In these models, time could have a smallest unit, meaning the universe starts at a finite, but very small, moment.
- The infinities at moment zero come from both the way time and space behave according to general relativity and from density extrapolations.
- If we stop at "moment zero" in a more finite, reasonable way (as some quantum theories suggest), the infinities could be avoided altogether.
Here is a. hypothesis that touches on the peculiar nature of light and time. The idea that at the moment of the Big Bang there may have been only photons (or radiation) and no time in the way we usually understand it connects with the nature of how light interacts with spacetime.
The Nature of Light and Time:
Photons, or particles of light, travel at the speed of light, and according to special relativity, time doesn't pass for objects moving at that speed. From a photon's perspective, the distance between any two points is contracted to zero, and the time it takes to traverse that distance is also zero. In other words, a photon traveling through space experiences no time at all.
So, if the early universe were dominated by photons (or radiation) immediately after the Big Bang, this suggests something quite unusual about time and spacetime. From the photon's point of view, the moment it was created and the moment it interacts with matter (or anything else) would be effectively simultaneous.
What Could This Mean for Moment Zero?
If we consider the idea that at moment zero there were primarily photons (or perhaps a very dense form of radiation), the concept of time may become ambiguous because of how photons experience spacetime. This could mean:
- Time is not well-defined. If the universe were made entirely of photons at moment zero, then time as we experience it, which is deeply tied to the motion of massive particles, might not have existed in the same way. The passage of time, at least for photons, is irrelevant.
- A timeless state at the Big Bang: If the early universe was in a state where radiation dominated, it might have been a "timeless" state in some sense?time might only emerge as the universe cools down and particles with mass begin to dominate, leading to the expansion of spacetime as we know it.
Photon Dominance in the Early Universe:
In fact, the early universe was radiation-dominated for a very short period after the Big Bang. Immediately following the Big Bang, the universe was filled with extremely high-energy radiation (photons), and only later, as the universe cooled, did particles with mass start to form, creating a more familiar spacetime structure where time passes for massive objects.
Weirdness of the Early Universe:
This photon hypothesis underscores that something strange indeed happens around the moment of the Big Bang. It could imply:
- Time, in the conventional sense, may not have existed as we understand it at the Big Bang.
- The very nature of spacetime, and whether time "exists" for light, could give us clues about the origin of time itself.
- The moment zero might not be a moment where time begins but rather where the conditions (such as mass and the emergence of spacetime curvature) allow time to begin.
Quantum Theories and Time Emergence:
Some quantum cosmology models suggest that time itself is an emergent property, meaning it only appears as a meaningful concept after certain conditions in the universe are met. In these models, before the Big Bang (or at the moment zero), the universe might exist in a timeless or even spaceless state. Once particles with mass appear and the universe expands, time as we experience it begins to make sense.
Summary:
The fact that photons do not experience time can mean that the early universe might have been in a very different state from what we currently understand, where time, as a concept, didn?t exist or was not well-defined. Time may be intimately tied to the matter and energy content of the universe, and may not even have existed in the earliest ?moments?.We can view it as an initial expansion that since it takes no time, the moment zero begins with an already vast volume filled with light and the first ever particles.
3
Technology / Re: Concept for reducing emissions of an ICE car
« on: 10/09/2021 01:00:56 »
“Engine breaking is the drag from the engaged drive chain. Brakes are better if you need to reduce speed. “
The discussion is not about what has more stopping power.
I mean letting the car in a gear versus coasting in neutral, if you need to reduce speed faster than the coasting in neutral(or clutch pedal pressed) does, then letting the car in gear is more fuel efficient because it cuts off the fuel.
The discussion is not about what has more stopping power.
I mean letting the car in a gear versus coasting in neutral, if you need to reduce speed faster than the coasting in neutral(or clutch pedal pressed) does, then letting the car in gear is more fuel efficient because it cuts off the fuel.
4
Technology / Re: Concept for reducing emissions of an ICE car
« on: 09/09/2021 15:53:55 »
When you need to reduce speed with a rate of engine braking or faster because you can’t anticipate everything it is certainly better to use engine braking. The benefit is shown immediately on the board computer, the instant fuel flow is zero but in this situation if you press the clutch pedal and use the brake the engine will idle and take like 0.7-1.2l/hour so grater than zero.
On the other hand if you are at 800m and 130kph and approach an exit with 60kph limit, you can anticipate and press the clutch or set it to neutral then wait until you slow down to 60 right before the exit. This way the fuel consumption per distance will for most cars (there may be exceptions idk) minimum. My car has a coast function so it sets to neutral when coasting then if you slightly press the brake it engages transmission.
For regen you need a powerful generator and a large capacity with high rate of charge/discharge. Casual braking energy regen (not mild hybrids) use agm batteries that can be charged faster but they don’t charge fast enough and don’t tolerate that well low/med state of charge either the result being the function has marginal benefit and more disadvantages - battery stays quite low and if you let the car sit for a long time it will drain much quicker
The elimination of alternator/ puleys, may save weight on the front axis and a bit better fuel econ , more space in engine bay (acces for maintenance) It could be an alternative for sports cars if the owner likes the advantages
On the other hand if you are at 800m and 130kph and approach an exit with 60kph limit, you can anticipate and press the clutch or set it to neutral then wait until you slow down to 60 right before the exit. This way the fuel consumption per distance will for most cars (there may be exceptions idk) minimum. My car has a coast function so it sets to neutral when coasting then if you slightly press the brake it engages transmission.
For regen you need a powerful generator and a large capacity with high rate of charge/discharge. Casual braking energy regen (not mild hybrids) use agm batteries that can be charged faster but they don’t charge fast enough and don’t tolerate that well low/med state of charge either the result being the function has marginal benefit and more disadvantages - battery stays quite low and if you let the car sit for a long time it will drain much quicker
The elimination of alternator/ puleys, may save weight on the front axis and a bit better fuel econ , more space in engine bay (acces for maintenance) It could be an alternative for sports cars if the owner likes the advantages
5
Technology / Re: Concept for reducing emissions of an ICE car
« on: 26/04/2021 20:00:43 »
Regenerative braking works with a powerful alternator and li-ion or similar battery because a normal 12V agm 80Ah has a charging current of about 25A. So it needs 3.2h of regenerative braking which is ridiculous. I have that on my car and I don’t think it does anything. On my previous car the system used to keep the battery always too low and in the winter you could n’t use the rear defrost because of extra current needed to charge the battery (bellow a certain state of charge it charges continuously). So to work a 5kW electric starter/generator may work, it would charge a 80Ah in 12min at maximum power which is ok. This electricity is better than using the grid like in my op example because it’s something that otherwise it would be lost, but it’s harder to implement and costs more. In addition it needs data from the car, and a custom made generator, and controller.
6
Technology / Re: Concept for reducing emissions of an ICE car
« on: 24/04/2021 08:17:50 »The amount of air load of cars and motorcycles has a great influence on the greenhouse effect.but not while they are going downhill
7
Technology / Re: Concept for reducing emissions of an ICE car
« on: 22/04/2021 08:52:50 »
In the bellow article they say replacing the alternator with a thermoelectric generator can increase the economy by up to 4% compared to my calculation example of 5%. While a 12h electric autonomy may be ok, a peltier generator may be an alternative even without requiring an additional battery.
8
Technology / Concept for reducing emissions of an ICE car
« on: 21/04/2021 22:12:47 »
This is going to be less convenient for the owner but if by reducing emissions of the car it becomes eligible for lower taxes, it may be a preferred way to go.
The idea is to make all electrical accessories of the car run on battery supply only. These components include: lights, wipers, electric power steering , power windows, water pump(if electric), fuel pump, injectors, ignition, on board computers, blower and others.
The easiest way is to remove the alternator and install a shorter belt. Some cars have electric water pumps and you can remove the belt and pulleys as well but you will lose the A/C. This will reduce the front weight by about 10kg.
Next step is installing a battery module. A typical car may require about 400W of power to operate the components so with a 5kWh module you can run the car around 10h time. After that you will have to recharge the battery.
A 5kWh battery can take 60x30x8 cm3 volume and weigh 25kg.
3 li-ion cells operate between 10.5-12.3V, which will probably be enough voltage to power run the car. If the battery can provide enough current (many can do) for the starter the 12V battery can be removed otherwise the low voltage may damage it. Some Pb-Acid batteries can withstand deep discharge but 10.5 is a bit tool low. A super capacitor bank can be also installed to increase burst current for startup but it will also increase the self discharge rate.
The 3s module will need a BMS and wires directly to the high power terminals. Some cars have the 12 battery in the boot so the high capacity battery can be installed there easily. A battery monitor will also be needed.
Then this will need a charging method. The simplest way is to install a charge connector and work with a portable charger which you can leave it home when doing short trips. With a 12V/100A 1200W charger you can charge the battery in about 5h.
One liter of gasoline contains about 8.9kWh energy. With an engine that has 30% efficiency you get 2.67kWh per liter. The 400W power needs 0.15l per hour but the conversion rate through the alternator is further reduced so it should be about 0.2l/h of fuel saving. With an average speed of a busy city for example 20kph or less can be the average speed so that means 1l/100km economy from say 18l/100km to 17 which is over 5% economy.
The idea is to make all electrical accessories of the car run on battery supply only. These components include: lights, wipers, electric power steering , power windows, water pump(if electric), fuel pump, injectors, ignition, on board computers, blower and others.
The easiest way is to remove the alternator and install a shorter belt. Some cars have electric water pumps and you can remove the belt and pulleys as well but you will lose the A/C. This will reduce the front weight by about 10kg.
Next step is installing a battery module. A typical car may require about 400W of power to operate the components so with a 5kWh module you can run the car around 10h time. After that you will have to recharge the battery.
A 5kWh battery can take 60x30x8 cm3 volume and weigh 25kg.
3 li-ion cells operate between 10.5-12.3V, which will probably be enough voltage to power run the car. If the battery can provide enough current (many can do) for the starter the 12V battery can be removed otherwise the low voltage may damage it. Some Pb-Acid batteries can withstand deep discharge but 10.5 is a bit tool low. A super capacitor bank can be also installed to increase burst current for startup but it will also increase the self discharge rate.
The 3s module will need a BMS and wires directly to the high power terminals. Some cars have the 12 battery in the boot so the high capacity battery can be installed there easily. A battery monitor will also be needed.
Then this will need a charging method. The simplest way is to install a charge connector and work with a portable charger which you can leave it home when doing short trips. With a 12V/100A 1200W charger you can charge the battery in about 5h.
One liter of gasoline contains about 8.9kWh energy. With an engine that has 30% efficiency you get 2.67kWh per liter. The 400W power needs 0.15l per hour but the conversion rate through the alternator is further reduced so it should be about 0.2l/h of fuel saving. With an average speed of a busy city for example 20kph or less can be the average speed so that means 1l/100km economy from say 18l/100km to 17 which is over 5% economy.
9
New Theories / Re: Evolution of the universe for the Big Bang
« on: 11/12/2020 16:05:21 »
The reason for the growing block is that in physics there no evidence for infinities but if you assume the future and past exist at same time and infinities don’t then the only way is to say that time also has an end at some point. With the growing model time is never an infinite quantity. But it implies a relativistic spacetime existing within an absolute time for which there is no evidence.
Also at the time of Big Bang if matter went forward and antimatter backwards then if go back before BB, we find antimatter then suddenly at the moment of BB, all turns to matter, but that’s not how Feinmann diagrams work. Normal you would have matter-antimatter annihilation not antimatter turning into matter.
Also at the time of Big Bang if matter went forward and antimatter backwards then if go back before BB, we find antimatter then suddenly at the moment of BB, all turns to matter, but that’s not how Feinmann diagrams work. Normal you would have matter-antimatter annihilation not antimatter turning into matter.
10
New Theories / Re: Consciousness/identity
« on: 08/12/2020 09:09:20 »Quote
Yes,that’s what I wrote in one of the first posts that surviving of the fittest doesn’t exclude this principle where the brain generates a series of conscious states and each state feels like a continuation of the previous but they may be separate states and only the physical memories retrieved by these states makes each state fell like a continuum. They feel like a continuous (even after sleep) process of being the same consciousness when in fact each state may be unique. So in the example with the clone both the original and the clone experience distinct conscious states different from previous of the original so they would both act like clones. These can even be quantifiable since neurons generate impulses at a certain frequency.
Then that feeling would be a lie, but a lie that makes you fit. Everything that would be more fit by being able to anticipate the future is probably better able to do so with that lie programmed in at the most fundamental level.
A conscious state when you feel pain for example is felt by that single instance then it means some conscious states have the luck to experience happiness others are created and disappear in pain. Each state has the survival instinct but what survives(during the lifetime of the brain) its the physical brain to create more conscious states.
I’ve seen many times people having problems to express what they mean when talking about consciousness, I think you now understand what I wanted to say.
Here is another way to explain it.
Some person may ask itself why it is conscious as a human and not as a bird for example. But the conscious state that asks may only exist for an instance then vanish forever and all other states before it asked the question were like different people. But you remember how they experience life and think it was your instance that did it. I don’t have the answer to the question it simply happened that you were a conscious flash of a human and not of a bird.
11
New Theories / Re: Evolution of the universe for the Big Bang
« on: 07/12/2020 20:43:46 »Quote
The way I imagined it is with the present and past existing at the same time but the future doesn’t. Then it follows that spacetime gets larger. 2d + time representation where spacetime from the BB looks like a cone turns now turns to a double cone. So you could go back in principle before BB into the other direction. From our perspective (made of matter) we would see antimatter going back in time and creating the past. However, this seems confusing because at the moment of big bang there was no past no future except for the extremely small spacetime that we are uncertain about what it was. But now if we could go back in principle before BB we would see something. With regard to the QM part the past may also change so that would mean an extradimension of time where the changes are made. I’m not sure about that, it’s just an idea. Also since the past can change , according to this idea, you couldn’t notice that measured things may change so it would be difficult to get empirical evidence as you said
More like 13.7, and your wording suggests that spacetime has an age, which it dooesn't. We occupy a region of it 13.7 BY from the BB, but that doesn't mean that the other parts of spacetime don't exist. Any anti-universe such as you are describing similarly doesn't have an age. To suggest it does is to suggest just separate space existing within time, and then we're back to the universe as something that 'happened' in time and needs a real cause.
12
New Theories / Re: Consciousness/identity
« on: 06/12/2020 21:11:08 »
Identity may mean many things it depends on the context but I used it here in the sense of what identifies your conscious experience not your body as a complex machinery or whatever it is.
About the clone example (or even twins) I think everybody agrees that there is not about a single mind that is able to experience the information received (vision, hearing...) from both bodies at the same time. The clone may be physically identical at instance of time it is created but there will be two conscious minds and the if you don’t know who the clone is it will be impossible to find out by asking them questions for example. So the two conscious minds are distinct even at the moment they clone is created where we can imagine they have exactly the same memories.
You could take the clone and the original in principle an put them separately into identical environments and there will be still two separate conscious minds. My concept about consciousness is that every instance of time a new conscious mind is born and the previous disappears.
I can use another example. Let’s suppose that we can find a way to stop the brain activity completely. Then you make a clone. Let’s suppose you can administer a drug and everything can come back to normal. Whether you wake up the clone or the original it’s the same thing because they will both be distinct conscious minds but will feel the same person as before. I have extended this idea with the concept that says every moment of time a new mind is born because I couldn’t find a way around to solve the clone problem
Yes, but we feel like all events our lives, every conscious thought belongs to the same mind that was born many years ago.
I do not think that humans or anything with subjective experience is special.
[/quote] why not? We are made of the same stuff that works the same, I don’t think we have free will so every interaction of particles we are made of is normal stuff happening, nothing special but the fact we are complex machines is something extraordinary and being conscious and self aware is also unbelievable
Thank you
About the clone example (or even twins) I think everybody agrees that there is not about a single mind that is able to experience the information received (vision, hearing...) from both bodies at the same time. The clone may be physically identical at instance of time it is created but there will be two conscious minds and the if you don’t know who the clone is it will be impossible to find out by asking them questions for example. So the two conscious minds are distinct even at the moment they clone is created where we can imagine they have exactly the same memories.
You could take the clone and the original in principle an put them separately into identical environments and there will be still two separate conscious minds. My concept about consciousness is that every instance of time a new conscious mind is born and the previous disappears.
I can use another example. Let’s suppose that we can find a way to stop the brain activity completely. Then you make a clone. Let’s suppose you can administer a drug and everything can come back to normal. Whether you wake up the clone or the original it’s the same thing because they will both be distinct conscious minds but will feel the same person as before. I have extended this idea with the concept that says every moment of time a new mind is born because I couldn’t find a way around to solve the clone problem
Quote
I don't think anything has an identity beyond a single event, at least not one that doesn't violate the law of identity.
Yes, but we feel like all events our lives, every conscious thought belongs to the same mind that was born many years ago.
I do not think that humans or anything with subjective experience is special.
[/quote] why not? We are made of the same stuff that works the same, I don’t think we have free will so every interaction of particles we are made of is normal stuff happening, nothing special but the fact we are complex machines is something extraordinary and being conscious and self aware is also unbelievable
Thank you
13
New Theories / Evolution of the universe for the Big Bang
« on: 05/12/2020 13:42:24 »
Here is an idea I want to present, about what happened after the Big Bang.
The hypothesis I think makes more sense says that time and space existed at the moment of BB and something before that doesn’t make sense since there’s no time to back to. You want to know what’s going on at a time before the BB but if the universe begins to exist at the moment zero that time before moment z cannot exist. So the beginning doesn’t need a prior cause. Of course it’s a hypothesis, and It may be wrong but it makes some sense. Now the idea that I want to bring is that time may have went into two directions from the BB on. It follows then that the past is created and it’s also 14.7 b years in the other direction of time. The particles created in the reverse running time are mostly antiparticles as seen from our perspective but they would seem normal as seen from observers made of antimatter that went backwards. Occasionally we can detect antimatter as simple new strands originated from our perspective.
I also have another idea about time reversibility. In the delayed choice quantum erased experiment some may conclude that the past can be changed based on what happens in the present. For example you could write down on paper an x=5 for a detection corresponding for a lump pattern then after say 10 minutes (we imagine a 10min delay path) you detect x=7 that corresponds to an interference pattern. You look down on the page you have written but you see 7 not 5 and basically you would remember 7 and not realize the past has changed in your mind as well. You can’t tell from the fist measurement which is for lump and which for interference but after like 100 trials you will be able to distinguish them.
The hypothesis I think makes more sense says that time and space existed at the moment of BB and something before that doesn’t make sense since there’s no time to back to. You want to know what’s going on at a time before the BB but if the universe begins to exist at the moment zero that time before moment z cannot exist. So the beginning doesn’t need a prior cause. Of course it’s a hypothesis, and It may be wrong but it makes some sense. Now the idea that I want to bring is that time may have went into two directions from the BB on. It follows then that the past is created and it’s also 14.7 b years in the other direction of time. The particles created in the reverse running time are mostly antiparticles as seen from our perspective but they would seem normal as seen from observers made of antimatter that went backwards. Occasionally we can detect antimatter as simple new strands originated from our perspective.
I also have another idea about time reversibility. In the delayed choice quantum erased experiment some may conclude that the past can be changed based on what happens in the present. For example you could write down on paper an x=5 for a detection corresponding for a lump pattern then after say 10 minutes (we imagine a 10min delay path) you detect x=7 that corresponds to an interference pattern. You look down on the page you have written but you see 7 not 5 and basically you would remember 7 and not realize the past has changed in your mind as well. You can’t tell from the fist measurement which is for lump and which for interference but after like 100 trials you will be able to distinguish them.
14
New Theories / Re: Consciousness/identity
« on: 05/12/2020 12:49:37 »
So you are saying there is a usable energy for further increasing the entropy and that seems ok. At some point when every particle will be far away from each other as the universe expands the entropy will not be able to increase and the usable energy may tend to zero, then like R. Pennrose hypothesizes it will loose the sense of size and a new different universe will “begin” as if from a very dense state.
The universe may record everything but if the information is not integrated by a brain with a special structure, it’s not going to produce consciousness
The universe may record everything but if the information is not integrated by a brain with a special structure, it’s not going to produce consciousness
15
New Theories / Re: Consciousness/identity
« on: 05/12/2020 07:05:26 »Quote
The fact that the body and the brain are physically almost identical doesn’t mean it’s the same.I meant to say identical to the former body and brain.
They're not nearly identical. One is
You say that after a loss of consciousness (anesthesia or dreamless sleep) the person experiences a new state of wakefulness but then what if someone dies after say 1000years its body and brain are completely rebuilt by some process? Is it going to be equivalent to not doing anything to the original person?
I think it may be equivalent to waking from loss of consciousness and even equivalent to not doing anything to the initial person, but not because its identity is restored because what happens if you make two clones? So the idea is the old identity vanishes and new ones are reborn. And it could be that this would go even weirder in the sense that every moment of time, within the brain, a new identity is born and the old vanishes as a continuous process and the new one always feels it has lived since a long time. This explains the multiple clone problem.
By identity I mean what makes you feel “you”, the subjective experience.
16
New Theories / Re: Consciousness/identity
« on: 05/12/2020 06:41:41 »After the brain is irreversibly destroyedSome people claim that after you are gone, it may be possible by chance to be rebornDefine "gone".
17
New Theories / Re: Consciousness/identity
« on: 04/12/2020 21:02:45 »Quote
“Also known as Last-Tuesdayism. It seem to have nothing to do with reincarnation.”when I said “the idea” I was referring to my hypothesis not reincarnation
18
New Theories / Re: Consciousness/identity
« on: 04/12/2020 20:58:28 »Quote
If a new identity or consciousness is born with all the memories, you don’t actually realize you, as a conscious mind, were just born maybe a few minutes or days ago.But that’s what my hypothesis says, it’s not a reactivation of the prior identity. The fact that the body and the brain are physically almost identical doesn’t mean it’s the same.Quote>>Even if it was, it doesn't seem to be a reactivation of some prior identity, which is why I don't think the 5-minute thing is relevant to the question initially asked.
The main idea is even in a case of loss of consciousness (trauma, perhaps deep sleep or anaesthesia) the old identity dies and a new one is born with all the memories existing physically in the brain then the new “self” doesn’t notice anything, it continues as nothing happened.
19
New Theories / Consciousness/identity
« on: 04/12/2020 18:56:11 »
Some people claim that after you are gone, it may be possible by chance to be reborn again if for example multiple universes exist or there is a series of Big Bangs and collapses. In fact the reactivation of an old identity may happen more often than we thought. But that doesn’t mean the old identity lives again. It may be dead.
This idea reminds me of the 5 minute hypothesis which of course it’s not true, that says the Universe began 5minutes ago within a simulation and you have all the memories of the past in it. If a new identity or consciousness is born with all the memories, you don’t actually realize you, as a conscious mind, were just born maybe a few minutes or days ago.
Here is a post about this:
[Link to seemingly personal page removed]
This idea reminds me of the 5 minute hypothesis which of course it’s not true, that says the Universe began 5minutes ago within a simulation and you have all the memories of the past in it. If a new identity or consciousness is born with all the memories, you don’t actually realize you, as a conscious mind, were just born maybe a few minutes or days ago.
Here is a post about this:
[Link to seemingly personal page removed]
20
New Theories / Re: Mathematics proven inconsistent an integer= a non-integer
« on: 23/01/2019 09:58:57 »
I don't know. ∞-∞ undetermined.