Galaxies the Same 11 Billion Year Ago

[dennislmay]

A couple minor bits of information:

A different article on the same subject says 11.5 billion years galaxies have looked the same.

The quasar survey from about the 1989-1990 time frame should have been a big wakeup

call concerning cherry picking. It was known back then that quasars are uniformly

distributed in the observable universe. Since they are the brightest objects later

surveys not doing their homework concerning brightness and accounting for all objects

in a given volume were necessarily cherry picking.

The other big wakeup calls should have been when large chemically old galaxies were seen

at the furthest reaches of observation while some chemically young galaxies have been

discovered nearby. The complete absence of 1st generation red dwarfs when they should

be super-abundant should have been like a starter pistol next to cosmologists ears to wake

them up that there is an issue concerning the ages of galaxy components much less galaxies

themselves.

The bad news - I suspect this will be a one week story then business as usual will continue.

Dennis

Is the implication that they looked the same at 12.5 billion years ago too?

--Brant

In the forgotten history of the Big Bang theory they did not expect to see any galaxies

at all when looking very far into the past. The theory keeps changing to try to adapt

to observation - it has no predictive ability to date.

To me the implication is that no matter how far back you look things look the same as

they do locally except a slower rate of time and red-shifted. There is no observational

evidence to support the Big Bang theory - unless you cherry pick observation and

ignore a whole host of logical contradictions internal to the theory. You also have

to ignore discussions of alternatives.

Dennis

No galaxies? Then what? The edge of the universe? How can you see nothing?

--Brant

They expected to see nothing - radiation and gas perhaps. That was prior to the magic of inflation and other magical fixes to match observation.

Dennis

[dennislmay]

Existence exists. Still holds true.

Simply awe inspiring to realize that life arose naturally. Just kind of happened in a manner consistent with the nature of matter and energy.

Consciousness came later.

There are no contradictions in the universe.

It is about time that someone figured out the correct philosophy. Delighted that I was here during the lifetime of the one human being who did it!

Biology was my first science - immediately after high school biology [10th grade] I jumped into reading graduate textbooks on genetic theory.

Physics was my 2nd science - I soon lost interest in biology once I realized physics was full of errors [15-16 years old].

The problem people have understanding evolution is primarily the same issue they have understanding the chaotic processes behind

quantum mechanics - the issue of large numbers. A form of innumeracy plagues the sciences - even Nobel Laureates in physics.

Large sizes, small sizes, short and long periods of time, complex natural systems, slow and fast speeds, feedback in large systems and long

time scales - all lead some scientists and others to react irrationally looking for short cut answers [bad philosophy]. I first realized how serious the

problem was in discussions with the brightest undergraduate physics student I knew at the time [about 1982-1983], he literally could not envision

scales smaller than what known in orthodox physics or large numbers of particles on small scales. After that incident I came to recognize the

problem as a plague stopping progress across many disciplines.

Dennis

[Brant Gaede]

So, Dennis, how does A New Kind of Science integrate with your knowledge and suppositions?

--Brant

[dennislmay]

So, Dennis, how does A New Kind of Science integrate with your knowledge and suppositions?

--Brant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science

Wolfram's book came out after G.S. Duane's paper on hyperchaotic synchronization [2001] which gives the complexity explanation

for J.S. Bell's work on the foundations of QM.

Wolfram has many interesting things to say regarding complexity but the cellular approach can only go so far in physical

applications - Duane's work is far more comprehensive in scope [in only a few pages versus a lengthy repetitive tome] though Duane

fails to explain supraluminal signaling within the scope of his work - the problem I addressed by 1990 [i also assumed the results

Duane proved in 2001].

In other words Wolfram did some good work - much of which was repeating what was already known - but he over-reached in

attempting to apply his hammer to everything which he sudden perceived as a nail. Good work in many ways but it failed in

its primary task and added nothing to the foundations of physics - Duane's is the correct approach.

A smart guy who keeps heading into dead end approaches - but by the time he leaves an approach it is thoroughly explored

and documented - you can't fault him on not being thorough once he becomes interested in a subject. The best documented

bad ideas known to man.

Dennis

[dennislmay]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130822122530.htm

Like previous discussions where jets from the sun produce

streams of pure hydrogen for extended periods of time these

black hole jets should produce chemical sorting on a large

scale sent directly into intergalactic space. Future

generations of "young" galaxies will form from this

isotopicly sorted material.

Dennis

[Peter]

Is it time to rewrite the laws of physics?

By Tom Chivers Science Last updated: August 26th, 2013

'Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so,” said Ford Prefect in Douglas Adams’s The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. For the past century, mainstream physics has agreed with him. To most of us, it seems obvious that the world is moving steadily forward through time, from a known past, through an active present, into a mysterious future. But, as Einstein said, “physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one”.

“Mainstream physics basically eliminates time as a fundamental aspect of nature,” explains Prof Lee Smolin, a physicist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, in Ontario, Canada. “It does that in various ways, but the most common is the so-called 'block universe’ picture, which is derived from general relativity.”

Under this system, what is actually real is not our passage through time, but the whole of reality at once. “Imagine taking a movie of your life,” says Prof Smolin, “and laying out the frames on a table, and saying: that is your life. There is no now, there is no change.”

He thinks that it is high time – so to speak – this view was overturned. In his new book Time Reborn, he makes the case that time is a fundamental reality of the universe, and that without it, too many of the big questions of physics are left unanswerable.

The question of what time is, and whether it is real or illusory, is an ancient one. Even before Plato, Greek philosophers were debating whether, as Heraclitus said, you cannot step in the same river twice, that all is flux and change, or whether Parmenides was right and that change is an illusion, that the universe simply exists as an unchanging lump.

The first person to address the issue in depth, according to Dr Julian Barbour, author of The End of Time, was St Augustine. He was baffled by it, and said as much. “What then is time?” Augustine wrote. “If no one asks of me, I know; if I wish to explain to him who asks, I know not.” Still, he did make an attempt to explain it, coming to the surprisingly modern conclusion that there could not have been time before the world, because there would have been no change, and without change, time is meaningless.

Sir Isaac Newton, a thousand years later, disagreed. He held the common-sense view – instinctively shared by the rest of us – that time is absolute, marching on regardless of the doings of the stuff of the universe. It was Einstein who showed that it was no such thing.

According to his theories of relativity, time and space are part of an interwoven fabric: the presence of matter changes both, stretching the fabric like a weight on a sheet.

His theories are counterintuitive – arguing that someone who is traveling ages slower than someone who is standing still, and that time goes faster the further we get from the surface of the Earth – but at least, in his universe, there is such a thing as time.

“Einstein, in a way, makes time something real – with the idea of space-time, he makes it as real as space,” says Dr Barbour. But there is a fundamental difference, which leads us to one of the great problems with our concept of time: “We get the impression that we are always moving through time, when we can perfectly happily sit still and have no impression that we are moving through space. That’s a very big mystery, because the laws of physics work exactly the same way whether you run them forwards or backwards.”

Clearly, that is not how we perceive the world. We see babies be born, grow old and die; water flowing downhill; and wood burning to ash. “If you drop an egg on the floor, it breaks, and there is no way you can put that egg back together again,” says Dr Barbour.

This is due to a property called entropy, or disorder. The second law of thermodynamics dictates that the universe will move from ordered, low-entropy states to disordered, high-entropy states: ice will melt and coffee will cool, until everything is the same temperature, and everything is mixed together in an undifferentiated mass. “According to the fundamental laws of physics as we know them, it shouldn’t make any difference which way you look at them. And yet it is clearly the case that entropy increases,” Dr Barbour says.

That leaves an awful lot of questions unanswered – which is where Prof Smolin’s ideas come in. “The second law dictates that any system in disequilibrium should come quickly to equilibrium,” he points out. “But our universe, even though it’s more than 13 billion years old, is very far from equilibrium.”

This is due to particular facts about the laws of physics – such as the strength of gravity, or the precise set of particles we observe – and the very specific way that the universe began. But Prof Smolin points out that we still do not know why those laws are as they are, or why the universe should have started in its particular way: “There seems to be no simple principle that picks out the standard model of particle physics from a vast number of equally likely possibilities.” Uncountable billions of other universes could have existed in which there would be no stars, no planets, and no us.

Prof Smolin’s point is that, for modern physics, in which time is treated as an illusion, this question is unanswerable. “The initial conditions and laws, in the block universe model, are just part of the universe. It would be like asking a computer to explain the program it’s running.” But if we treat the laws as things that could have been different had history gone differently, or that can change with time, “then time has to exist prior to those laws, and then it has to be real in a way that the block universe doesn’t allow”.

There is a risk with much of theoretical physics that it strays into a realm of philosophy, away from the science of experiment and reality. Prof Smolin insists that this is not the case: his idea of “real time” includes hypotheses that make testable predictions. One such experiment might be to use quantum computers, which, in theory, will be able to detect the evolution of physical laws. Dr Barbour (whose book tends to support the time-is-an-illusion school of thought), says that observations of astronomical phenomena called gamma-ray bursts might also show violations of Einstein’s laws at the universe’s smallest scale – although so far, he says, they have proved remarkably robust.

If Prof Smolin is right, he believes that it will have implications far beyond academic physics. “A lot of our thinking about many things, from the nature of being human to political and environmental problems, are poisoned by the belief that the future is already determined and that we can’t find truly novel solutions,” he says. “For example, in economics, the insistence that the laws are formalized in a timeless mathematical setting, like Newtonian physics, leads to some incorrect ideas, which helped contribute to the economic disaster of 2008.” A model of the world in which “the future is open, and the universe can discover novel structures, novel ideas, creates a very different idea of our possibilities” – and could lead to some very different thinking.

Whether he’s right or not, only time itself will tell. Certainly, physics has done away with the concept of time for so long that simply saying that it is real feels almost

Comments:

A1234567Z

09/05/2013 08:26 AM

60 seconds, 60 minutes, 60 hours, can be arranged like fence posts, telegraph poles or Electricity pylons one post is one dimensional 6 posts is two dimensional 6 by 4 posts is three dimensional and a box of 6 by 4 by 4 posts is four dimensional, consider a star its life and death, the birth and death of galaxies, and then all the host of generations of the galaxies, and then consider a question that was once asked, teach us to number (count) our days, that we may apply our hearts to

john

08/31/2013 08:37 PM

Time is simply the perception of entropy. For physics time matters naught. For a series of mental snapshots of the universe time is of prime importance. Quantum theory and relativity say nothing about perception. And so where is the issue?

mefatha

08/31/2013 12:10 PM

Time has a natural arrow as there are asymmetric phenomena; the main one has been mentioned which is the continuing increase in entropy in any system over time. The second is in the asymmetrical decay of certain particles. Neither phenomenon is inconsistent with the "block universe" described.

Quantum mechanics provides a more basic problem; the" collapse of the wave function" in quantum systems, where an "observation" results in the fixing of the properties of particles.

"Before observation" we have an entangled wave form -> "after observation" we have individual particles which exist with fixed properties.

This is a very strange world in which we as observing agents apparently produce the arrow of time and events are undecided until observations are made.

[BaalChatzaf]

Whatever replacement is introduced has to be as good a predictor as the Standard Model for Fields and Particles.

[Brant Gaede]

Time is only motion measured or its measurement. Space is only distance between objects or measurement of density--of something. Neither actually exists. There is no such thing as the emptiness of space and no such thing as space-time. This switching from epistemology to metaphysics is made possible in its contradictoryness by ignoring the agent of the change: a mixed up brain.

--Brant

[Samson Corwell]

I've been saying to anyone who would listen since about 1991 that the universe would look the same no matter how far back you look. A 1990 comprehensive quasar survey I read at the AFIT library back then make it clear cherry picking has been keeping the Big Bang theory alive from 1990 to now.

Dennis

What would be the point of cherry picking in support of the Big Bang theory?

I can see why climate change types cherry pick their data, but why would BB theorists do the same?

The Big Bang theory requires both General Relativity and QM [the two great modern theories] in order to work. Einstein was an early poster child of the extreme leftist media and those embracing social relativism. QM from the beginning embraced bad philosophy and the orthodox have fought every step of the way to this very day to empower that bad philosophy using lies and distortions promoting a particular unnecessary interpretation of QM. Some of the most famous supporters of the Big Bang approach and General Relativity are also extreme leftists [Hawking]. There is a tens of billions of dollars a year financial incentive to maintain the status quo in physics [government cash flow] with the stars and darlings plus tens of thousands of more mundane careers heavily invested in the Big Bang theory continuing. How many people actually challenge their world view once having invested their entire lives in it? They see what they want to see and they publish what is easy to publish [support for the status quo]. To admit you've not seen the obvious errors of your ways your entire career is to admit fundamental failure as a scientist. Most would rather kick the can down the road and assume there is yet another fix that can be added to save the model.

I saw the problem starkly displayed in the quasar survey back in 1991 [it was already a year or two old then]. I just happened upon the survey while looking for another paper. Professional cosmologists chose to look the other way and cherry pick and kick the can down the road for 20+ years. They will continue to kick that can down the road until called on their BS. Those vested have little incentive to do anything else and they still have to power to keep out alternatives which would harm their vested interests. Like corrupt leftist media - bypassing them till they die up and blow away seems the best way to go.

Dennis

You're linking the theory of general relativity to philosophical relativism? Hilarious. More and more I am discovering the ways in which people cobble together words and try to connect two obviously unrelated things on that basis.

If quantum mechanics, the Big Bang theory, and general relativity theory are manifestations of political premises, then what does that say for Objectivism?

[Peter]

Brant wrote:

Time is only motion measured or its measurement. Space is only distance between objects or measurement of density--of something. Neither actually exists. There is no such thing as the emptiness of space and no such thing as space-time. This switching from epistemology to metaphysics is made possible in its contradictoriness by ignoring the agent of the change: a mixed up brain.

end quote

The ancient Greeks thought that there was a rational principle called the “logoi” that governed the universe. And Ayn Rand thought the universe was “knowable” to humans because of our rational faculty. Is the universe rational or logical or is my question the result of “a mixed up brain?” I suppose the universe is just the way it is and we humans supply the epistemological connotation of logic and reason just as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle seems to suggest that the universe is the way it is . . . or it may be not be, at the same time.

So, let’s have a show of hands. Does time exist? And how many want to go back to Newtonian Physics? Insert smiley face.

Peter

[dennislmay]

I suppose the universe is just the way it is and we humans supply the epistemological connotation of logic and reason just as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle seems to suggest that the universe is the way it is . . . or it may be not be, at the same time.

So, let’s have a show of hands. Does time exist? And how many want to go back to Newtonian Physics? Insert smiley face.

With de Broglie-Bohm quantum mechanics you don't have to throw out causality and identity as orthodox quantum mechanics attempts to do.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has been in the news a lot the last year and a half or so - things are not as simple as the Heisenberg

relationship attempted to make them. It is not in fact a fundamental principle at all - rather shorthand for a belief system.

Going back to "Newtonian Physics" is a false premise implying that questioning the correctness of orthodox quantum mechanics or the

abandonment of causality and identity means the abandonment of all modern physics. That is not the case at all. Rather modern physics

would be corrected using theories which obey causality and identity.

Dennis

[Samson Corwell]

Let me ask you this, Dennis: Do you believe that the theory of general relativity is some sort of leftist charade?

[Selene]

Let me ask you this, Dennis: Do you believe that the theory of general relativity is some sort of leftist charade?

Careful...mine field question...also, advanced question begging.

"...some sort of leftist charade?" <<<<define those terms my friend.

[dennislmay]

Let me ask you this, Dennis: Do you believe that the theory of general relativity is some sort of leftist charade?

No, I do however believe it is a fundamentally flawed theory. The cult of personality surrounding Einstein has a lot to do with why

it continues to have any credibility. Those who worship beauty in mathematics are among others at fault. Any hope of GR being

saved by Dark Matter entirely died in 2010/2011 with the work of Stacy McGaugh among others.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.3913.pdf

The philosophies and politics at play in the 1904-1927 time frame [also before and after] in Europe set the course for many mistakes in physics.

Dennis

[Samson Corwell]

Let me ask you this, Dennis: Do you believe that the theory of general relativity is some sort of leftist charade?

No, I do however believe it is a fundamentally flawed theory. The cult of personality surrounding Einstein has a lot to do with why

it continues to have any credibility. Those who worship beauty in mathematics are among others at fault. Any hope of GR being

saved by Dark Matter entirely died in 2010/2011 with the work of Stacy McGaugh among others.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.3913.pdf

The philosophies and politics at play in the 1904-1927 time frame [also before and after] in Europe set the course for many mistakes in physics.

Dennis

Alright. Could you explain your emphasis on leftist that you have here:

The Big Bang theory requires both General Relativity and QM [the two great modern theories] in order to work. Einstein was an early poster child of the extreme leftist media and those embracing social relativism. QM from the beginning embraced bad philosophy and the orthodox have fought every step of the way to this very day to empower that bad philosophy using lies and distortions promoting a particular unnecessary interpretation of QM. Some of the most famous supporters of the Big Bang approach and General Relativity are also extreme leftists [Hawking]. There is a tens of billions of dollars a year financial incentive to maintain the status quo in physics [government cash flow] with the stars and darlings plus tens of thousands of more mundane careers heavily invested in the Big Bang theory continuing. How many people actually challenge their world view once having invested their entire lives in it? They see what they want to see and they publish what is easy to publish [support for the status quo]. To admit you've not seen the obvious errors of your ways your entire career is to admit fundamental failure as a scientist. Most would rather kick the can down the road and assume there is yet another fix that can be added to save the model.

I saw the problem starkly displayed in the quasar survey back in 1991 [it was already a year or two old then]. I just happened upon the survey while looking for another paper. Professional cosmologists chose to look the other way and cherry pick and kick the can down the road for 20+ years. They will continue to kick that can down the road until called on their BS. Those vested have little incentive to do anything else and they still have to power to keep out alternatives which would harm their vested interests. Like corrupt leftist media - bypassing them till they die up and blow away seems the best way to go.

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

Political purity and the ability to predict correctly are totally disjoint

Einstein was so wrong that a GPS can locate you to with ten feet of your actual location. If this is the result of left wing politics, I will keep it. As long as I get located correctly.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Samson Corwell]

Political purity and the ability to predict correctly are totally disjoint

Einstein was so wrong that a GPS can locate you to with ten feet of your actual location. If this is the result of left wing politics, I will keep it. As long as I get located correctly.

Ba'al Chatzaf

More simply, ((P→Q)∧¬Q)→¬P.

[dennislmay]

Alright. Could you explain your emphasis on leftist that you have here:

The Big Bang theory requires both General Relativity and QM [the two great modern theories] in order to work. Einstein was an early poster child of the extreme leftist media and those embracing social relativism. QM from the beginning embraced bad philosophy and the orthodox have fought every step of the way to this very day to empower that bad philosophy using lies and distortions promoting a particular unnecessary interpretation of QM. Some of the most famous supporters of the Big Bang approach and General Relativity are also extreme leftists [Hawking]. There is a tens of billions of dollars a year financial incentive to maintain the status quo in physics [government cash flow] with the stars and darlings plus tens of thousands of more mundane careers heavily invested in the Big Bang theory continuing. How many people actually challenge their world view once having invested their entire lives in it? They see what they want to see and they publish what is easy to publish [support for the status quo]. To admit you've not seen the obvious errors of your ways your entire career is to admit fundamental failure as a scientist. Most would rather kick the can down the road and assume there is yet another fix that can be added to save the model.

I saw the problem starkly displayed in the quasar survey back in 1991 [it was already a year or two old then]. I just happened upon the survey while looking for another paper. Professional cosmologists chose to look the other way and cherry pick and kick the can down the road for 20+ years. They will continue to kick that can down the road until called on their BS. Those vested have little incentive to do anything else and they still have to power to keep out alternatives which would harm their vested interests. Like corrupt leftist media - bypassing them till they die up and blow away seems the best way to go.

Dennis

The entire question revolves around interpretations. If you have two or more equally valid theories [ability to make predictions] and/or mathematically identical but have different interpretations you have decisions to make. Do you embrace them all equally or do you take a philosophical stand and pick the interpretation(s) in line with your philosophical bent? Or do you have a sliding scale where you place the different interpretations in some kind of pecking order of probability for correctness - again based on your philosophical or personal preference of some kind?

That is really the question at the heart of present day issues within modern physics.

*****

In 1904/1905 the first important question of interpretation came up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

"Because of the same mathematical formalism it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment."

When I had undergraduate Special Relativity it was taught by a professor who is a world class expert in Special Relativity. He taught both interpretations as equally valid approaches because there is no ability to distinguish between the two. I suspect this is not the normal approach to teaching the subject since he photocopied a long out of print book specially for our class. If you are not exposed to LET being equally valid you are likely to fall prey to a number of fallacies concerning relativity in general. If you are never exposed to LET you will certainly be hobbled in your ability to see alternative approaches in that and other subject matter.

*****

In 1925-1926 modern quantum mechanics was born. It was in fact born 3 times right away - Heisenberg, Schrödinger, and Dirac all had versions eventually shown to be mathematically equivalent by Hilbert. Dirac having already shown that shown that “Matrix Mechanics” and “Wave Mechanics” were special cases of his theory.

In 1924-1927 we had Louis de Broglie developing what eventually evolved into de Broglie-Bohm quantum mechanics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory

"This theory results in a measurement formalism, analogous to thermodynamics for classical mechanics, which yields the standard quantum formalism generally associated with the Copenhagen interpretation."

de Broglie's work of 1924 could be seen as an early attempt at Gregory S. Duane's work of 2001 in hyperchaotic synchronization as an explanation of deterministic QM under the Bell Inequalities.

There are in fact a number of quantum theories to choose among - all with differing interpretations.

The first summary I found of the multitude of interpretations was by Nick Herbert:

http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Reality-Beyond-New-Physics/dp/0385235690

Of course with Wikipedia and Internet searches to original sources you can now explore the maze of options in detail.

In his book "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy" J.S. Bell calls it a "scandal within physics" that de Broglie-Bohm quantum mechanics is not taught along side conventional quantum mechanics.

http://www.amazon.com/Speakable-Unspeakable-Quantum-Mechanics-Philosophy/dp/0521523389

I share Bell's view of the scandal within physics. No text I had in undergraduate or graduate school had more than a one sentence throw-away concerning other interpretations of quantum mechanics. I was actively misinformed about the status of other interpretations of quantum mechanics by one undergraduate physics professor, plain lied to and misdirected by one graduate physics professor and blocked from pursing such interests as part of my education by that professor and another professor at another graduate school - so yes I have a personal interest in what Bell had to say on the subject.

There are in fact many interpretations but the teaching portion of the educational system is vested in one interpretation or minor variations of that interpretation. There are researchers in the various interpretations at scattered universities throughout the world. They enjoy what I would estimate to be a 10,000:1 minority status. In journals specifically concerning the foundations of physics the status is much improved - perhaps a 20:1 minority status. In general physics journals the status would still be in the ballpark of a 10,000:1 ratio, hardly the equal status Bell thought deBB QM should have.

As with LET if you are never exposed to alternative interpretations of QM you will certainly be hobbled in your ability to see alternative approaches in that and other subject matter.

*****

In the time frame of 1904/1905 - 1916 the question of gravity and relativity was explored.

http://www.amazon.com/History-Theories-Aether-Electricity-Classical/dp/0883185237

In his book concerning the development of modern physics Sir Edmund T. Whittaker notes that differential forms of Special Relativity to include gravitational effects were being worked on prior to the introduction of General Relativity. Basically in those theories you had 3-dimensional space plus variables to model relativity plus gravity.

What Einstein did is a near perfect analogy to the question of modeling hydrodynamic systems as Eulerian or Lagrangian. In Eulerian systems you set up a 3-dimensional space plus variables. In Lagrangian systems you grid up the space then allow the grid to distort using tensor mechanics. The problem with having a distorting grid is the same as the issues General Relativity runs into. Distort the grid too much and you run into singularity problems, make the system too complex and you run into computational difficulties, decide to add other effects into the physics and you are pretty much out of luck [quantum mechanics] - unless you are willing to do so by Eulerian means. Hydrocodes work and use both types of codes and mixed versions.

That is where General Relativity is stuck today - no Eulerian model because that would get you away from the fundamental assumptions of General Relativity - being a construct of distorting space versus 3-dimensions plus variables.

Who knows about the alternative approaches? I figured it out on my own before reading about it in Whittaker. [i did Hydrodynamic modeling prior to reading Whittaker and doing 95% of my own physics work] I've never seen the subject Whittaker brought up talked about anywhere else - except by myself.

As a result of interpretation virtually all gravity research has gone into one monoculture since 1916. The problem is GR entirely fails on the scale of galaxies. Dark Matter was brought in as a Band-Aid and that entirely failed as well. So now cosmology is in crisis because of several wrong turns into dead ends because of interpretation driving research in particular directions.

*****

Why are certain interpretations in physics de facto forbidden by our state controlled educational systems until after tenure? And even then dying on the vine for lack of funding? That is the literally multi-billion dollar question. I know the reasons are philosophical and political. You will have to decide for yourself if you believe that or the various and ever evolving reasons and excuses given by those supporting the orthodoxy.

I don't think you can really understand the enormity of the problem unless you really understand the degree to which the work of J.S. Bell was undermined, distorted, misinterpreted, and sabotaged [as he documents in his book mentioned above] and again even in a conference celebrating his life - after his death where he couldn't defend himself. After his death it was said he was about to get the Nobel Prize.

Dennis

[Peter]

Dennis wrote:

That is where General Relativity is stuck today - no Eulerian model because that would get you away from the fundamental assumptions of General Relativity - being a construct of distorting space versus 3-dimensions plus variables.

end quote

May I go astray for a moment and settle back to earth? In my every day life I prefer the first Wikipedia, “epistemological” definition of Eulerian which I will print below. Human’s need their epistemological notion of *Time* to live confident lives.

Dennis can you or anyone else integrate your scientific understanding of *Time* *The Uncertainty Principle* and *Quantum Mechanics* into the contextual philosophy of Objectivism?

Peter

Notes:

In the Ayn Rand Lexicon, Leonard Peikoff wrote, “Time is a measurement of motion; as such it is a type of relationship.”

And Ayn Rand wrote in [iTOE, 2nd Ed., p. 56.]:

“The units of the concept ‘consciousness’ are every state or process of awareness that one experiences, has ever experienced, or will ever experience (as well as similar units, a similar faculty, which one infers in other living entities). The measurements omitted from axiomatic concepts are all the measurements of all the existents they subsume; what is retained, metaphysically, is only a fundamental fact; what is retained, *epistemologically*, is only one category of measurement, omitting its particulars (time) - i.e., the fundamental fact is retained independent of any particular moment of awareness.”

end quote

Stephan Hawking observed on page 22 of his tenth anniversary edition of “A Brief History of Time”:

“. . . . the theory of relativity put an end to the idea of absolute time! It appeared that each observer must have his own measure of time, as recorded by a clock carried with him, and that identical clocks carried by different observers would not necessarily agree.”

end quote

From Wikipedia:

In graph theory, an Eulerian trail (or Eulerian path) is a trail in a graph which visits every edge exactly once. Similarly, an Eulerian circuit or Eulerian cycle is an Eulerian trail which starts and ends on the same vertex. They were first discussed by Leonhard Euler while solving the famous Seven Bridges of Königsberg problem in 1736. Mathematically the problem can be stated like this:

Given the graph on the right, is it possible to construct a path (or a cycle, i.e. a path starting and ending on the same vertex) which visits each edge exactly once?

Euler proved that a necessary condition for the existence of Eulerian circuits is that all vertices in the graph have an even degree, and stated without proof that connected graphs with all vertices of even degree have an Eulerian circuit. The first complete proof of this latter claim was published posthumously in 1873 by Carl Hierholzer.[1]

The term Eulerian graph has two common meanings in graph theory. One meaning is a graph with an Eulerian circuit, and the other is a graph with every vertex of even degree. These definitions coincide for connected graphs.[2]

[dennislmay]

Dennis can you or anyone else integrate your scientific understanding of *Time* *The Uncertainty Principle* and *Quantum Mechanics* into the contextual philosophy of Objectivism?

the other is a graph with every vertex of even degree.

My view of *time* is the classical physics view of time where it is a variable. Incorporated into a Lorentz Ether Theory version of relativity the apparent passage of time can differ from place to place because the currency of time keeping is the speed of light which is not a simple vector additive quantity but related to the properties of space it travels in.

The *The Uncertainty Principle* is a short-hand notion for an inexact idea in orthodox quantum mechanics concerning the ability or inability to observe certain variables precisely that affect each other. The inexact quasi-legitimate nature of the principle means it is not in fact a principle at all but it has been treated as such for generations. A good friend of mine had a project in graduate school rejected because the professors were clueless about the exaggerated claims of *The Uncertainty Principle* - I told him at the time he was completely correct and some 20-25 years later the scientific community is finally starting to catch a clue.

It is my view that *Quantum Mechanics* is simply classical mechanics with chaotic synchronization and a faster than light process thrown in to allow chaotic synchronization to exist at distance for light and a host of other particles.

This means that QM implies nothing new philosophically beyond the assumptions of classical mechanics.

In the Eulerian modeling I am talking about a fixed 2-D or 3-D grid is established and materials and energy flow through the fixed grid structure. Energy and materials move a certain amount per time step increment then each grid cell is updated with the new material and energy mix. By that means physical turbulent mixing, chemical mixing and reactions, radiation effects, sound waves, shock waves, heat, and boundary effects can all be simulated.

Dennis

[Peter]

In great affairs men show themselves as they wish to be seen; in small things they show themselves as they are. -- Nicholas Chamfort

Events have drawn me away, but I am back. Thanks for your answer Dennis.

Dennis wrote:

My view of *time* is the classical physics view of time where it is a variable. Incorporated into a Lorentz Ether Theory version of relativity the apparent passage of time can differ from place to place because the currency of time keeping is the speed of light which is not a simple vector additive quantity but related to the properties of space it travels in.

end quote

I better understand your answer about *time* because of Science Fiction. Time is slowed or speeded up by gravity for instance. Well, of course, there is also the distance light has traveled. Would the traveling lights’ intensity matter? Does light change with gravity or distance traveled? Isn’t light always traveling? Can light be static? I remember a QM experiment where light was supposedly unmoving and frozen in speed. Are their any other variables? Please correct me when I am wrong if you have the time.

Would you be in agreement that space travelers (nearing the speed of light, traveling outward) then (returning to earth more slowly,) or (returning to earth more quickly,) would result in *the existence of and not just the sensory experience of time* being different for entities traveling through time at variable speeds? I am thinking of the plot twist where more time has passed on earth and upon returning the travelers are overwhelmed by the advances in the sciences and the strange, new society back home. Another SF story line I remember had the travelers experiencing difficulties in deep space traveling at sub-light speeds, but they were saved by the more time advanced and scientifically advanced culture back on earth that came to their rescue at faster than light speed.

Intuitively, I have always thought those theories were INCORRECT, and that no matter the percent of light speed attained in traveling away from earth, upon returning to earth, time would have factually passed the same for the travelers and the earthbound. And that is where human / Objectivist epistemology could lead us away from reality, as it does when more primitive humans are positive and don’t mind spouting their disbelief that the Apollo moon landing were a Hollywood type hoax. And no evidence will sway them from their wrongful thinking.

Peter Taylor

[dennislmay]

In great affairs men show themselves as they wish to be seen; in small things they show themselves as they are. -- Nicholas Chamfort

Events have drawn me away, but I am back. Thanks for your answer Dennis.

Dennis wrote:

My view of *time* is the classical physics view of time where it is a variable. Incorporated into a Lorentz Ether Theory version of relativity the apparent passage of time can differ from place to place because the currency of time keeping is the speed of light which is not a simple vector additive quantity but related to the properties of space it travels in.

end quote

I better understand your answer about *time* because of Science Fiction. Time is slowed or speeded up by gravity for instance. Well, of course, there is also the distance light has traveled. Would the traveling lights’ intensity matter? Does light change with gravity or distance traveled? Isn’t light always traveling? Can light be static? I remember a QM experiment where light was supposedly unmoving and frozen in speed. Are their any other variables? Please correct me when I am wrong if you have the time.

Would you be in agreement that space travelers (nearing the speed of light, traveling outward) then (returning to earth more slowly,) or (returning to earth more quickly,) would result in *the existence of and not just the sensory experience of time* being different for entities traveling through time at variable speeds? I am thinking of the plot twist where more time has passed on earth and upon returning the travelers are overwhelmed by the advances in the sciences and the strange, new society back home. Another SF story line I remember had the travelers experiencing difficulties in deep space traveling at sub-light speeds, but they were saved by the more time advanced and scientifically advanced culture back on earth that came to their rescue at faster than light speed.

Intuitively, I have always thought those theories were INCORRECT, and that no matter the percent of light speed attained in traveling away from earth, upon returning to earth, time would have factually passed the same for the travelers and the earthbound. And that is where human / Objectivist epistemology could lead us away from reality, as it does when more primitive humans are positive and don’t mind spouting their disbelief that the Apollo moon landing were a Hollywood type hoax. And no evidence will sway them from their wrongful thinking.

Peter Taylor

The simple answer again is that the currency of time keeping is the speed of light. Gravity bends light so it takes a longer path to get where it is going - thus slowing the passage of time. If you leave home, go very fast, then return home the use of currency in your frame of reference was affected during your trip so you have aged less than those who stayed home.

Light can travel in media where its passage is slowed to a near crawl - the passage of time is for the use of the currency in a vacuum so this slower rate of travel is not a slower rate of time but brakes on the free-flow of light - varying with frequency.

Dennis

[Peter]

Dennis wrote:

Light can travel in media where its passage is slowed to a near crawl - the passage of time is for the use of the currency in a vacuum so this slower rate of travel is not a slower rate of time but brakes on the free-flow of light - varying with frequency.

end quote

From Wikipedia:

Slow light is the propagation of an optical pulse or other modulation of an optical carrier at a very low group velocity. Slow light occurs when a propagating pulse is substantially slowed down by the interaction with the medium in which the propagation takes place. In 1999, Danish physicist Lene Vestergaard Hau led a combined team from Harvard University and the Rowland Institute for Science which succeeded in slowing a beam of light to about 17 meters per second,[1] and researchers at UC Berkeley slowed the speed of light traveling through a semiconductor to 9.7 km/s in 2004. Hau later succeeded in stopping light completely, and developed methods by which it can be stopped and later restarted.[2] This was in an effort to develop computers that will use only a fraction of the energy of today's machines.[3] In 2005, IBM created a microchip that can slow down light, claiming that its light-slowing device is the first to be fashioned out of fairly standard materials, potentially paving the way toward commercial adoption.[4]

end quote

Now, back to slower me. I would think slowing light would slow your computer.

Would you confirm that you are saying existents other than light don’t have their “rate of time” tied to the speed of light that is acting upon them, unlike Einstein’s theory that *time* changes for entities traveling near the sped of light? In the above IBM experiment light is slowed to a crawl, however, time is not slowed to a crawl for the materials inside the chip. Correct? I think you might say they are not tied together.

Do you envision any practical or theoretical applications for time travel, or is it all a fallacy? Isn’t it interesting that the concept *time* is tied to *travel*? If an astronaut neared the speed of light would there be physical changes to his mind or body, not tied to normal aging and the physical affects of traveling? If time has varied between the speedy traveler and those back on earth, would there be other variances?

Since the electrical / chemical signals in the brain of Dennis May are traveling through a medium which slows them - perhaps surgery or genetic engineering could lessen the gap between neurons or interacting portions of the brain to speed up thought as in does with the IBM computer called Watson. Fighter pilots speed up their reaction time with practice and I have heard that described as an instinctual reaction but it may not be that at all. It is a volitionally acquired skill yet many people like you and a medical doctor I know, think we are *determined*. We just can’t experience that we are determined like we may not experience other dimensions of the space time continuum.

Peter

[BaalChatzaf]

delete

[Peter]

Ba’al wrote, “delete.”

If you had not wanted your readers to be speculating about your purposes, you would not have written, “delete” and then sent that one word: you would have cancelled your message. “Delete” sounds like a line from Camus, Sartre, or the robot in “Lost in Space.” I demand to know, what you deleted!

Peter