Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: Bill S on 03/06/2018 22:26:01
-
Is it just me; or does anyone else see a problem with the idea of time emerging from a situation in which it didn’t previously exist?
-
That's because "before time" is an oxymoron.
-
I don't see a problem at all. You can't touch, taste or smell time. It is not a physical thing but a way of measuring physical changes.
-
That's because "before time" is an oxymoron.
Obviously there can be no time before time. This would tend to support the idea that time cannot “emerge”, because the act of emerging would require time.
I don't see a problem at all. You can't touch, taste or smell time. It is not a physical thing but a way of measuring physical changes.
We seem to be converging on the idea that time is just a tool we use for measuring
-
Outcomes define us
They need time
Without a BB there is nothing defining anyrthing
-
There is (possibly:) two ways of 'existing'
One doesn't need 'time'
The other one does
Which one would you choose?
-
Is it just me; or does anyone else see a problem with the idea of time emerging from a situation in which it didn’t previously exist?
Time is a measure of change, when nothing existed, nothing changed, until the BB so there was no time. Other views are the BB started from a big crunch and the universe is cyclical. The BB theory might not be 100% correct, and space time originated from a White hole via an ER Bridge from a BH, which is driving the expansion of space time in our universe in the present. The rate of passing of time is dependent on gravitational potential, or the stretching of space, in a BH space time breaks down and time stops, in a White hole it does not.
-
when nothing existed, nothing changed, until the BB so there was no time.......
That is a (sackful of) logical oxymorons. We can't understand anything without getting our logical ducks in a row.
I agree with others that "time emerging" doesn't work as an idea and would say that the onus is on anyone who feels it might so work to come up at least with a thought experiment showing two states ,one without time ( however defined) and the other with time (defined the same way) that would allow us to examine any possible transition between the two states (emergence).
Not holding my breath....
-
That is a (sackful of) logical oxymorons.
An oxymoron is a rhetorical device that uses an ostensible self-contradiction to illustrate a rhetorical point or to reveal a paradox. I think I did this successfully in my post above, t = 0 is not obvious. But like you wrote what I wrote could be a sackful even though it is based on partially contradictory theories. :) When the ducks do not line up willingly, try slicing them up, with occams razor :(
-
An oxymoron is a rhetorical device that uses an ostensible self-contradiction to illustrate a rhetorical point or to reveal a paradox.
Hey that is just lifted from Wikepedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron
and so seemingly a niche meaning or usage
I was just using (hopefully) its main meaning as shown here
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oxymoron
": a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (such as cruel kindness); broadly : something (such as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements"
-
Time is a measure of change, when nothing existed, nothing changed, until the BB so there was no time.
Let's see if I'm following your logic.
Before the BB, there was nothing. There was, therefore, no change and no time. Is that right?
-
Let's see if I'm following your logic.
Before the BB, there was nothing. There was, therefore, no change and no time. Is that right?
A bit over simplified, but as one of many options yes. Time slows due to gravitational potential and may not tick at all inside a Black hole. What is outside of the BB expansion of space time. Nothing no space and no time either.
I presented a sackful of theories as geordiedef pointed out, you have opted for the first part of the paragraph I posted.
Looking at the first idea you latched onto. Space time today is expanding due to dark energy. Time slows due to gravity, in black holes, some folk :) reckon it stops relatively speaking.
EFE equations indicate that a White hole may drive the expansion of space via a ER Bridge. Others indicate that dark energy and the expansion of space time is due to quantum fluctuations. If the expansion of space and quantum fluctuations/zero point energy is due to a White hole then as the white hole expands so does time and space. At the simplest level the universe may have evolved from a black hole connected via an ER Bridge to a White hole.
-
A bit over simplified, but as one of many options yes.
If we keep things simple, I have a chance of understanding them. :)
The rest of your post illustrates elegantly why I was trying to clarify one point, before moving on to the next.
Perhaps I could simplify things a bit more?
Are you saying there was nothing before the BB?
I'm not looking for what might be the views of others, or the consensus of scientific opinion. What I would like to clarify is the absolutely basic foundation of your reasoning.
-
Wheeler deWitt and the emergence of time.
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/quantum-experiment-shows-how-time-emerges-from-entanglement-d5d3dc850933
An interesting read and not that long.
-
What I would like to clarify is the absolutely basic foundation of your reasoning.
I am undecided as are many and that is why I am asking questions. However my reasoning is that the first Big Bang MAY have originated from a Massless black hole, originating from a zero energy universe, whereby gravity represents -ve energy and dark energy/mass represent +ve energy and cancel out.
The following is speculation, but to answer your question. I take the view that space is not just space time, there are other dimensions, one of which connects all points in our flatland view of space to all other points. I am currently taking the view that the output of this dimension is driven by a White hole and ER bridge.
Speculating about the concept of a massless Black hole, I make some assumptions about how gravity and dark energy would appear in space. If the curvature of space is caused by the absorption of quantum fluctuations and space by mass and the expansion of space is caused by the appearance of dark energy (quantum fluctuations) in open space from the above ER bridge/extra dimension. Inside a standard black hole where gravity tends towards the insane and space time breaks down, quantum fluctuations may be absorbed completely and space time would not exist. A massless BH before any BB might also have zero quantum fluctuations and represent an infinite source of -ve gravitational energy, and as a result because of the nature of space naturally result in a BB feeding energy via an ER bridge into space time resulting in the BB. The ER bridge operates like a one way valve to space time expanding space time via dark energy which may be currently manifesting itself as quantum fluctuations.
I am thinking that all things emerged from space because of the nature of space time, and at least one additional dimension, which resulted in the original BB, because there was no alternative.
-
@disinterested I thought you'd appreciate that one.
-
Thanks for that link, Jeffrey. I'd lost it and am pleased to be able to have another read.
-
I am thinking that all things emerged from space because of the nature of space time, and at least one additional dimension, which resulted in the original BB, because there was no alternative.
So, there were a few things before the BB?
Space and at least one additional dimension. If it was an additional dimension, there must have been something to which it was "additional".
So, have we reached a point where you are saying there was something before the BB?
-
If you want to take this further then it might be instructive to browse the following article. Where ER=EPR.
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/new-einstein-equation-wormholes-quantum-gravity
-
Thanks. At a quick glance; looks good. I'll probably have some comments/questions when I've read it properly. Could even provide some support for Bohm's ideas.
-
So, there were a few things before the BB?
Space and at least one additional dimension. If it was an additional dimension, there must have been something to which it was "additional".
So, have we reached a point where you are saying there was something before the BB?
What I described is about as close as I can be to describing "nothing" without describing an already existing infinite mass/energy.
What do you think time came from, do you believe the BB happened, or do you have another opinion.
If you want to take this further then it might be instructive to browse the following article. Where ER=EPR.
"Heisenberg's principle was an attempt to provide a classical explanation of a quantum effect sometimes called non-locality. According to EPR there were two possible explanations. Either there was some interaction between the particles (even though they were separated) or the information about the outcome of all possible measurements was already present in both particles.
The EPR authors preferred the second explanation according to which that information was encoded in some 'hidden parameters'. The first explanation of an effect propagating instantly across a distance is in conflict with the theory of relativity. They then concluded that quantum mechanics was incomplete since its formalism does not permit hidden parameters."
One additional dimension connecting all points in space and time would allow for non local information transfer and instantaneous waveform collapse. This would not violate relativity as the information transfer does not travel through space time. Entangled particles themselves travel through space time at max c, the information entangled particles contain can pass between entangled particles by another dimension which is not space time instantly. They are still connected until they are forced to decohere.
The wave functions of wave particle duality exist at all points in space including black holes. Does the wave of wave functions exist in an additional dimension and manifest in space time as particles.
-
One additional dimension connecting all points in space and time would allow for non local information transfer and instantaneous waveform collapse.
If all points in spacetime were connected then surely all particles would behave as entangled. It would only be reasonable to assume that only particles created together as entangled are connected.
Really fixated on your theory of an extra dimension explaining all? You seem to want to bring it into all discussions ;)
-
Really fixated on your theory of an extra dimension explaining all? You seem to want to bring it into all discussions
Sorry I just did it again on another thread, what space is intrigues me. Extra dimensions explain a lot of things to flat landers, an extra none spacial dimension, unless I am completely barking mad, which is not impossible, seem to imply another connecting dimension/membrane existing outside of space time. String theory has extra dimensions including a membrane, to explain the universe. I dont see a problem with one extra dimension, let alone 13 from M theory, it may go some way to explaining dark matter, dark energy, spooky entanglement etc. An additional long range gravitational force transmitted via an additional dimension could explain a hell of a lot.
At the beginnings of time I think it boils down to what is space, what caused the expansion, was it inevitable because space is as you stated on another thread unstable.
-
If all points in spacetime were connected then surely all particles would behave as entangled. It would only be reasonable to assume that only particles created together as entangled are connected.
entangled particles decohere easily, if disturbed/measured etc. entangled photons are created together are they not? The BB was, if it was correct very hot, this would not have lended itself to photons or any particles being created remaining entangled.
-
If you say all points in space are connected then each point must be directly connected to every other point. How could objects possibly move.
-
What I described is about as close as I can be to describing "nothing" without describing an already existing infinite mass/energy.
This is where a lot of troubles come in. Nothing is exactly that: nothing. Anything else is something, no matter how close to nothing it may seem to be.
One of my favourite quotes is L. Krauss: “By nothing, I do not mean nothing…..”
-
These papers contradict the idea the Inflation has an eternal past, i.e. it takes the position that Eternal Inflation might not be eternal (A. H. Guth Inflationary Theory). Both papers make multiple references to A. H. Guth’s papers on Eternal Inflation.
Yes, this is Alan Guth’s early paper which I thought @Bill S might like to see, it gives an idea of the types of argument being put forward.
Since then there have been a number of papers some supporting others offering alternatives. Big work in progress, lots of very detailed analysis, not a top level subject.
It is possible ( ??? ) that gravity is caused by the absorption of space/quantum foam also. Following that reasoning inside a BH quantum foam may be absorbed completely creating a void in space time. Before the initial BB event a void in space may have existed that made the BB event/expansion of space inevitable.
Some of your post is getting off topic in regard to speculations, and might be too close to ideas that are generally better addressed in New Theories.
Yes, I think too many speculations are getting into a number of these topics when they really ought to be discussed in New Theories. We don’t want to limit anyone unless necessary so please read https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66954.0
What I described is about as close as I can be to describing "nothing" without describing an already existing infinite mass/energy.
This is where a lot of troubles come in. Nothing is exactly that: nothing. Anything else is something, no matter how close to nothing it may seem to be.
One of my favourite quotes is L. Krauss: “By nothing, I do not mean nothing…..”
If you look at the Alan Guth paper you will see just how unnothing the vacuum is. Is nothing sacred? :)
-
What do you think time came from, do you believe the BB happened, or do you have another opinion.
What I may, or may not, believe has nothing to do with my attempts to understand the Universe or any aspect of it. IMO, beliefs can be a major impediment to rational thought.
As far as the "origin" of time is concerned, I see a lot that suggests it is just a tool we use to measure perceived change, but I continue to look for evidence/opinions that might indicate otherwise.
The BBT, in one of its modified forms, would seem to be the best working theory we have, at present, I would certainly not argue with it.
-
If you look at the Alan Guth paper you will see just how unnothing the vacuum is
I seem to have lost the link to this paper. Is it in this thread, somewhere, and I'm missing it? :(
Got it! In the "nothingness" thread.
-
A. Guth’s Paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0702178.pdf
My initial reaction on a quick scan is that it is gratifying when someone of the stature of Guth publishes evidence that supports ideas that are coming to the fore in my own thoughts.
No one will be surprised to learn that I run into terminological pitfalls early in the paper. Hopefully, we can get those out of the way now, so as to avoid the “infinity/eternity debate” that could take us off topic.
Although inflation is generically eternal into the future,….
If this means anything, it must mean that, as far as we can tell; possibly as far as we will ever be able to tell; inflation has no definable end in the future direction. It cannot mean that something that is finite/bounded in time suddenly becomes eternal/infinite.
…..it is not eternal into the past: it can be proven under reasonable assumptions that the inflating region must be incomplete in past directions, so some physics other than inflation is needed to describe the past boundary of the inflating region.
So, if it is not eternal in one direction, how could it become eternal in the other?
I’ll try to stick to “common usage” of the terms “eternal” and “infinite”, but with the above proviso understood.
-
Is it just me; or does anyone else see a problem with the idea of time emerging from a situation in which it didn’t previously exist?
Sure. I don't see a problem with that. All you're speculating on is whether there is a finite age to the universe or whether there was something before time which wasn't time itself but a precursor to it. Sort of a chaotic scramble of events which had no order to them or something weird. Try speculating on what we now call time as being much different. Time is nice and linear and progresses at a steady rate everywhere. Perhaps the universe wasn't like that before the time we can trace the history of the universe back.
By the way. It seems to be a universal assumption that there was a big bang which started the universe. In fact there is no such event in the Big Bang Theory. Take a look at what my favorite person has to say on this point:
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/common_misconceptions/Alan_Guth_03.mp4
-
Repulsive gravity and a false vacuum are very interesting. I need time to read Alan Guth's paper more thoroughly.
-
One other thing. It is interesting that the false vacuum potential has a profile similar to that of the Higgs potential. A false Higgs anyone?
-
If all points in spacetime were connected then surely all particles would behave as entangled. It would only be reasonable to assume that only particles created together as entangled are connected.
entangled particles decohere easily, if disturbed/measured etc. entangled photons are created together are they not? The BB was, if it was correct very hot, this would not have lended itself to photons or any particles being created remaining entangled.
That’s what is behind the point I was making. That not all points in spacetime will be connected.
Would need to think whether this is relevant to current thread. I need to go through some of the items in the link @jeffreyH gave, might take some time.
So, if it is not eternal in one direction, how could it become eternal in the other?
If you are looking from our frame then it could be eternal into the future, but looking back the inflation meets a discontinuity, hence is not eternal.
All you're speculating on is whether there is a finite age to the universe or whether there was something before time which wasn't time itself but a precursor to it.
That’s an interesting thought.
When talking about ‘before time’ most people mean before this universe began. You seem to be saying, in this universe but, say before inflation, there might have been a period with ‘time’ but not as we know it (Jim).
-
I don't see a problem with that. All you're speculating on is whether there is a finite age to the universe or whether there was something before time which wasn't time itself but a precursor to it.
I have no problem with the idea that our Universe, whether it started with a bang or a whimper, had a beginning, and is therefore finite, within the parameters we can assess. However, I do have serious problems accepting that something came from nothing.
A couple of questions arising from your quote must be:
Do you see time as something more than a measure of change?
Is it an entity that exists independently of anything else?
Unless each of us can find, and stick to, answers to those questions, within our own reasoning, we are likely to continue floundering about, using different shades of meaning as suites our arguments at different times.
Sort of a chaotic scramble of events which had no order to them or something weird.
The significant point here is that even “a chaotic scramble of events which had no order to them” would involve change. Perhaps the question we should be asking is not “did time exist before the BB?” but “was change a feature of any scenario that might have existed before the BB? Here, again, we would need to be clear about our own definition of time.
-
If you are looking from our frame then it could be eternal into the future, but looking back the inflation meets a discontinuity, hence is not eternal.
We’ve been here before, in other threads. Can you have half of eternity? I think not; but I’m here to learn, so I’m willing to change my position.
-
If you are looking from our frame then it could be eternal into the future, but looking back the inflation meets a discontinuity, hence is not eternal.
Absolutely you can. Eternal means "does not end". Think of the + side of the real number line, i.e. x> 0. There are an infinite number of points there and it goes to infinity. But its only half of the real number line. But there will never be a point in time where we can say that time is infinite if that's how time was.
-
Absolutely you can. Eternal means "does not end".
Turn around Pete. What was the beginning, becomes the end.
If it were eternal in both directions from a specified point, then there would be equal distance in both directions. Each would be "half". Like infinity, half of eternity cannot be eternity. It must be a finite amount. If it is finite it is, in principle, measurable. Measure it and multiply by 2, and you know the dimensions of eternity/infinity. This makes no sense to me.
Think of the + side of the real number line, i.e. x> 0. There are an infinite number of points there and it goes to infinity.
Mathematically, there may be in infinite number of points, but on more than one occasion, on this forum, people have agreed that infinity is not a number. I think you may have been one of them.
Whatever you might do mathematically; how can you ascribe any meaning to an infinite number of anything. It's a contradiction in terms. Either infinity is a number, or it is not. Is it just convenience that seems to make people want it both ways?
But its only half of the real number line.
Half of infinity?
But there will never be a point in time where we can say that time is infinite if that's how time was.
Thanks Pete, you make my point for me. Time can never be infinite.
See what I've done? I've answered the question in the OP. Would that it were as simple as that, though. :)
-
Eternal means "does not end". Think of the + side of the real number line, i.e. x> 0. There are an infinite number of points there and it goes to infinity. But its only half of the real number line. But there will never be a point in time where we can say that time is infinite if that's how time was.
So you are saying eternal refers to the timeline and we can’t differentiate on direction. So although we can have ±∞ there is no ±eternal.
whether there was something before time which wasn't time itself but a precursor to it. Sort of a chaotic scramble of events which had no order to them or something weird. Try speculating on what we now call time as being much different. Time is nice and linear and progresses at a steady rate everywhere. Perhaps the universe wasn't like that before the time we can trace the history of the universe back.
I suppose if the universe was so dense and compact you could envisage spacetime so extremely curved/distorted to the point where it might bend back on itself and all sorts of connections made, or even fragmented.
-
I suppose if the universe was so dense and compact you could envisage spacetime so extremely curved/distorted to the point where it might bend back on itself and all sorts of connections made, or even fragmented.
Would it be the (spacetime) model that broke down rather than necessarily what it was attempting to model ?
Not to say that what was being attempted to model might not in fact break down somehow , just that the spacetime model could give no information regarding it.
Actually I thought that quantum models had a completely different approach to time than classical ones (don't ask me about it, though)
-
Turn around Pete. What was the beginning, becomes the end. If it were eternal in both directions from a specified point, then there would be equal distance in both directions.
It's not meaningful to say that any point is in the middle of an infinite line and the same thing applies to time. Far too many people have the bad habit of thinking that infinite is a number or a distance. It's not. Infinite only has meaning in the sense of a limit. Thus in the expression
lim(x->infinity) [1/x] = 0
"infinity" does not represent a number. All it means is that as x gets larger and larger with no limit the expression f(x) = 1/x gets smaller and smaller and there is no number large enough so that 1/x = 0 or that there's a y = 1/x which for which f(x) cannot be smaller. In calculus infinity has no meaning outside of a limit.
Like infinity, half of eternity cannot be eternity. It must be a finite amount.
No. You couldn't be more wrong. You're ignoring the example I gave.
Mathematically, there may be in infinite number of points, but on more than one occasion, on this forum, people have agreed that infinity is not a number. I think you may have been one of them.
No. I explained that to mean that its a line which has "infinite length" even thought it has a beginning. There's no question about that mathematically keeping what I said above in mind.
Whatever you might do mathematically; how can you ascribe any meaning to an infinite number of anything.
You keep making the mistake of thinking that "infinite" is a number. Its not. Its far from being a number of any kind.
But its only half of the real number line.
Half of infinity?
[/quote]
Please learn the meaning of "infinity" since I cringe when I read things like that. :)
Thanks Pete, you make my point for me.
No I didn't. You misunderstood what I said. I said "you can't say that" and that does not mean there's no such concept.
It means its a wrong notion.
-
If you say all points in space are connected then each point must be directly connected to every other point. How could objects possibly move.
I have over stepped the forum rules, but to answer your question of which I am sure you know the answer anyway.
Bosons manage to occupy the same spot, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality . All things can be regarded as wave functions. The BB expansion of space and time started with lots of energy in the form of ??? (wave functions perhaps)
-
I have over stepped the forum rules, but to answer your question of which I am sure you know the answer anyway.
Bosons manage to occupy the same spot, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality.
You mean that they "can" occupy the same place in space, right? So can Fermions.
-
If you say all points in space are connected then each point must be directly connected to every other point. How could objects possibly move.
...... but to answer your question of which I am sure you know the answer anyway.
Bosons manage to occupy the same spot,
That doesn’t really answer @jeffreyH question.
All things can be regarded as wave functions. The BB expansion of space and time started with lots of energy in the form of ??? (wave functions perhaps)
Although all things can be described by wavefunctions, again it doesn’t answer @jeffreyH
Also, a wave function isn’t a form of energy
-
You keep making the mistake of thinking that "infinite" is a number. Its not. Its far from being a number of any kind.
Pete, this is precisely what I have been saying for years. Infinity is not a number. I tend not to use bold type or capitals; I feel that that may be an insult to those reading what I write; but perhaps I need to be more emphatic.
I do not think that infinity is a number. I accept that it is used in mathematics in a specific and specialised way, but find that mathematicians/scientists tend to behave as though their mathematical use of infinity were the only sense in which anyone had a right to use it.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=infinity+is+a+concept+not+a+number&oq=infinity+is+not+a+number&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l3.19503j1j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
... In mathematics, "infinity" is often treated as a number (i.e., it counts or measures things: "an infinite number of terms") but it is not the same sort of number as either a natural or a real number.
In fact, it is not a number at all. If I need to state that more clearly, please tell me how you would have me do it.
-
You mean that they "can" occupy the same place in space, right?
Yes.
So can Fermions
Fermions are particles are you sure they can occupy the same point in space as another fermion or particle.
How could objects possibly move.
Bosons can move whilst occupying the same space, JeffreyH question was (how could they move) how does my answer not answer jeffreyh question. How would you answer it ?
-
Can time emerge?
A related concept (looking through the other end of the telescope): Can time disappear?
Some theories about the long-term future of the universe predict a gradual heat death, or (more violently) a big rip.
In these long-distant times, does time go away? Perhaps there is no way to measure it, if entropy has already reached a maximum?
-
Can time disappear?
Space does not exist inside a theoretical wormhole. Can time exist inside a wormhole like an ER bridge.
-
Fermions are particles are you sure they can occupy the same point in space as another fermion or particle.
Obviously, I don’t know what Pete had in mind, but could you be extrapolating the Pauli exclusion principle beyond its scope?
I think it says that no two identical fermions can occupy the same quantum same state at the same time. I would interpret this as saying that two fermions with different characteristics, e.g. two electrons in a different spin state could be in the same quantum state at the same time.
Does that mean that they are in exactly the same place at the same time? I don’t know, but I would be inclined to defer to Pete on that.
One thought, though; how would the uncertainty principle influence our ability to measure their exact location at a precise time?
-
A related concept (looking through the other end of the telescope): Can time disappear?
This is subject to the same proviso as is the original question; namely, how do you define time?
If time is just a measure of change, the question should be: can change "disappear"?
-
So can Fermions
Fermions are particles are you sure they can occupy the same point in space as another fermion or particle.
Bosons are particles as well. Yes, @PmbPhy is sure, it’s just that there is a limit to the number which is not so with bosons.
How would you answer it ?
I wouldn’t, because I’m not claiming all points in space are connected :)
I was coming from the viewpoint that your answer is similar to @jeffreyH asking how a car can move and you saying 2 can fit in a garage. However, you might ask him to expand on his question.
Space does not exist inside a theoretical wormhole. Can time exist inside a wormhole like an ER bridge.
Where did you see that? In the EPR papers both space and time exist in wormholes/bridges. They are constructed using intrinsic curvature of 4D spacetime, that’s how they can be derived from GR, Einstein wasn’t proposing additional dimensions.
-
Where did you see that? In the EPR papers both space and time exist in wormholes/bridges. They are constructed using intrinsic curvature of 4D spacetime, that’s how they can be derived from GR, Einstein wasn’t proposing additional dimensions.
I may have been watching too much star trek.
Yes the EFE were formed originally in 4 dimensions but many people have explored additional dimensions.
Passing through a wormhole via the singularity inside a BH to another space/world, implies you are not travelling in normal space time. To keep the wormhole open it requires exotic matter, which rather than attracting needs to repel just like what dark energy does causing the continued expansion of space time. Popolawski and others have explored the idea that our universe is a WH existing inside a BH.
-
Things move. We know that. If all particles were entangled by being connected together then all their fields must be connected together. This means that all the forces would be evenly distributed everywhere. So that no impetus can be given to anything to make it move. This can apply to many worlds, extra dimensions and a host of other propositions. The imagination can be a dangerous thing when unfettered.
-
Things move. We know that. If all particles were entangled by being connected together then all their fields must be connected together. This means that all the forces would be evenly distributed everywhere. So that no impetus can be given to anything to make it move. This can apply to many worlds, extra dimensions and a host of other propositions. The imagination can be a dangerous thing when unfettered.
As I pointed to Colin above, and he agreed with, the likelihood of entangled particles appearing out of the BB are very slim to zero, particles decohere very easily, and when they are v hot they aint going to be entangled. All things are fields, a field can exist every where at once, as can an ER bridge output. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing ;D
Where did you see that? In the EPR papers both space and time exist in wormholes/bridges.
Do you have a citation for the above statement, how can space exist in a wormhole when it allows you to step around space, how can time exist when entry and exit is virtually instantaneous regardless of distance?
-
how can space exist in a wormhole when it allows you to step around space
Isn't that just conjecture?
how can time exist when entry and exit is virtually instantaneous
If it were virtually instantaneous, would that not involve a brief instant of time?
-
All things are fields, a field can exist every where at once, A little knowledge is a dangerous thing ;D
Although fields exist everywhere at once their value is not the same everywhere and everytime, for most locations their value is zero. The Higgs field is an exception.
I think you are misunderstanding what fields are.
The correct quotation is “A little learning is a dangerous thing”
how can space exist in a wormhole when it allows you to step around space, how can time exist when entry and exit is virtually instantaneous regardless of distance?
Entry and exit is not instantaneous.
See this for a layman’s overview of current thinking https://www.space.com/20881-wormholes.html
You seem to be introducing new theory speculation and a degree of misunderstanding into these threads and it would be best to continue the conversation there rather than causing confusion here. Although there is a great deal of speculation regarding extra dimensions it is worth bearing in mind that mathematical treatments using higher dimensions usually don’t mean what might be interpreted as extra physical dimensions.
If it were virtually instantaneous, would that not involve a brief instant of time?
Yes, and coming back to the OP there is another interesting example of incorrect interpretation of time. You will be aware that the spacetime interval shows the spacial dimensions as having the opposite sign as the temporal dimension. I have seen all sorts of misinterpretations of this; that time moves backwards relative to space, that if light is expanding outwards in a sphere then time is moving inward towards the center, etc. All these misinterpretations are due to a lack if understanding of what the spacetime interval is saying.
-
Isn't that just conjecture?
The entire thread is conjecture is it not.
@Colin2B All things are fields in QFT do you disagree with this statement. If you do agree with this statement, how do they not contain energy.
back to the OP there is another interesting example of incorrect interpretation of time. You will be aware that the spacetime interval shows the spacial dimensions as having the opposite sign as the temporal dimension. I have seen all sorts of misinterpretations of this; that time moves backwards relative to space, that if light is expanding outwards in a sphere then time is moving inward towards the center, etc. All these misinterpretations are due to a lack if understanding of what the spacetime interval is saying.
I do not think the above is related to my ramblings unless you have misunderstood something, but I agree is it interesting how some some people view time and space :)
My view is becoming increasingly none orthodox, so I will stop posting now.
-
If you do agree with this statement, how do they not contain energy.
I didn’t say they do not contain energy.
-
Things move. We know that. If all particles were entangled by being connected together then all their fields must be connected together. This means that all the forces would be evenly distributed everywhere. So that no impetus can be given to anything to make it move. This can apply to many worlds, extra dimensions and a host of other propositions. The imagination can be a dangerous thing when unfettered.
I often think it was a shame that David Bohm’s youthful left-wing affiliation came to light at a time when his fellow countrymen were looking under their beds for “Commies”. He could certainly have provided answers to most of these points, and might even have shown us how to unfetter our imaginations without too much risk, had he not been ostracised.
-
Dead cat, what do you mean by writing 'and when they (particles) are v hot they aint going to be entangled'
Why can't they be entangled then?