h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Of course this willl unleash a torrent of critisism. Isn't that what h2g2 si all about? Let the music play and the dance begin. Nice of you to be kind to S_Simo

Hiya BB. So be it, multi-spatial, quantum-antimatter, cocktails at fifteen paces!

If you set up the link, those who wish can join the fray!

Sir Simon, I welcome your participation as well.
------------------
BB; I thought that the sausage bit might be jocular in nature, which was the reason for the blather. But, as you said, the cat's out of Schroedinger's box now.

Always admitting that I have the capacity to be wrong, big-time occasionally, I don't buy into parallel universes (the kind that mirror ours in any manner except for the sheer possibility of their unrelated existence).
I'll be glad to check out 2528444, a little later.

Oh, and I rather like the title: 'Quizzical Quantum Quodlibet: Debut Song of Feverish Debate'.
------------------
SS; Glad you joined in, three-sided debates are often even more fun!

Just to clarify a couple points of your preferred theories:

(1) A point, line or area are representations and do not exist in reality. Only volume is dimension.
This sounds a little 3D biased, doesn't it? Perhaps a 4D space-time entity would consider us impossible and non-existent. It wouldn't make it so - I hope!
There is no real proof that 2D or 1D universes could not exist (or that they do). They may just be too skinny for us to detect, or exist in two dimensions that do not intersect within our region of space-time.

(2) Time is continuation of universal existence and cannot be conceived or studied outside of universal totality.
We are limited in the perception and study departments, but that doesn't mean we cannot conceive and theorise, does it? We may yet discover that time is not so universal and uni-directional as we thought, just as it turned out that our planet isn't the center of the universe, isn't flat, and is not entirely 'special' in any regard - possibly not even in its ability to generate life-forms.

(3) The perception of time is an effect of the extending universe upon all atomic mass. Extension is in turn an expression of primal energy, the Big Bang. Our universe is an energy medium containing one unit of energy.
Ah, yes. The perception of time may be just that, but the nature of time, divorced from our dimensionality and limiting filters of perception, may be something entirely different! Allowing for our limited ability to understand with unaided senses has been the cornerstone of scientific exploration and advancement.
There were many people who did not want to believe that 'invisible rays' could carry sound and video signals through the air, who thought that human beings traveling more than 60 miles an hour would explode from the build-up of internal pressures, and believed that having one's picture taken would capture one's soul.
We have to be careful what we believe are 'facts', because most any 'fact' humans have ever uncovered has turned out to be almost entirely wrong upon deeper investigation.

(4) Total time is the period from the beginning of the universe to the end. Velocity of time is the rate at which this period is passing and is the rate of universal extension.
This would indicate that time is a constant, yet our most accurate pictures of the universe to date indicate that time is relative, and passes at different rates depending on things like speed or gravity.
If this is indeed true, it would mean turning theoretical physics back a couple of decades, and abandoning promising avenues of research. Research, I might mention, that has generated much in the way of the progress we experience in our everyday lives.

(5a?) Finally, the universe is one unit of energy in one unit of energy medium. These are the only constants.
This is an intriguing thought, and worthy of both consideration and debate. I wonder if you include time in this energy unit? Also, I wonder if that energy unit could be theistic or mechanistic?

(5b?) I feel that I've said too much already so I'd better pipe down and wait for the barrage.
There, that wasn't so terrible, was it?
------------------
Well, gentlemen! The battle lines have been roughly drawn, so grab your glasses and have to!

If the passage of time isn´t real (and I´m inclined to think that it isn´t in the physics sense), then how can the perception of time´s arrow be the result of a process - which by definition is something that goes on *in* time?

Just wondered.

Noggin

Thank you FT for your comments. I noted your remark about the possibility of being wrong. In my philosophy we are all naturally wrong. To be right is usually an accident made even more ridiculous when we don't realise that we got it right once in a lifetime. Helps to keep the brakes on my wilder excursions. I like the thought of parallel sausages. Who knows? To our discussion....
(1)I admit ot being 3D biassed. May be 'cause I'm a 3D sort of person. Cannot envision universes without space.
(2)It is important to observe, study and theorise even when we do get it all wrong. This planet is almost certainly not the only one with life and probably some of this life has the understanding that we still lack. Of cause, they would never contact us... not for a long time.
(3)None of what I said should be regarded as 'fact'. Just thought you might be interested in what I see. The erroneous scientific opinions that you have quoted are but a tiny part of the never ending story that confirms that science is always wrong. Only reality is truth. We just keep searching. Perhaps in the wrong places?
(4) Oh no. Time cannot be a constant. If the 'space ' of the popular 'space/time continuum' is extending, then 'time' must also be extending, so every second is longer than the last. Don't you find that natural?
In an extending universe all celetial bodies, including our moon, is receeding. Yet when meaasured by the time of a laser pulse to the moon and back it reads the same at any time (apart from natural and understood orbital perurbations).
There is no way to comprehend any aspect of this universe out of context. All subjects are to be examined, discussed, argued over in isolation but the most comprehensive research into a spark plug from a motor car engine will not help to understand the shape, size or functioning of the motor car.

"Turning theoretical physics back a couple of decades". What's wrong with that? If you lose your way and drive into a dead end, what would you do? Inventing new particles doesn't seem to help. The GUF theory is still the victim of countless attempts at unifying forces which were never divided. And so on.
(5a?) I,ve a lot of intriquing thoughts after more than eighty years of observation of Life, the Universe and Everything. Have learned to watch, listen and think. When people start to agree with me I worry that I must be wrong.

A new contender has entered the ring I see! Welcome, Noggin. That is an interesting question of yours, and in response I shall move my knight to B4. I'm not entirely sure what you mean though, so I can't quite put you in check, but I would say that the 'process' - if there is one - that embodies our *perception* of time would not need time to be the input, but instead the output. So time doesn't need to go 'in' anything. Perhaps you could explain further.

S_Simon: I do agree with FT, but I've written another essay anyway:

"(1)I admit ot being 3D biassed. May be 'cause I'm a 3D sort of person. Cannot envision universes without space."

This is a common outlook of humans. However, the bias, as FordsTowel points out, is unfounded in any reasoning, and we should not discriminate other universes just because they don't have the same number of dimensions as ours. There may be protests, you know - I can see them now - reams of 3D people dancing in a circle with a variety of polydimensional objects and great big signs saying 'Rights to non-3D universes!' in bright red letters.


"(2)It is important to observe, study and theorise even when we do get it all wrong."

I won't argue with this.

"This planet is almost certainly not the only one with life and probably some of this life has the understanding that we still lack."

I will argue with this. I shall say (and I shall say it quite firmly in a sort of 'steady on chap!' amiable tone) that we *may* be the only life-forms in the universe (though certainly not the only life-forms in the Universe, if the said Universe is infinite [in all dimensions (I can tell that somebody will want an explanation of this over-bracketed aside, but I shan't give it until asked for [darn! Another preposition at the end of the sentence (I knew I couldn't keep it up long)])]). After all, the search for extrasolar planets has so far only revealed gas planets larger than Jupiter but far closer to their parent stars. Admittedly we haven't searched very far, and there is a very good chance that intelligent life exists in the universe (not that it exists on the Earth in my opinion [because of my definition of the word 'intelligent']).

I hope that some of the life-forms, if they exist, do possess the understanding that we lack, since this would provide a very convenient 'cheat' method of advancing science. In my [as yet unwritten] novel, the sequel to my [as yet unpublished] prequel, for example, civilisations [details removed so as not to spoil the plot], which I think is quite a lucrative thing to do, in more respects than one.

"Of cause, they would never contact us... not for a long time."

Why not? If they soon invent wormholes, it may be very soon before they contact us. And, if an intelligent civilisation five billion light years away sent a simple radio signal to us almost five billion years ago then we may receive it quite soon. There is even a theory that intelligent life came to Earth before life evolved here and put some 'unnecessary' genes into our DNA that actually contain a carefully coded message. Such unnecessary genes do exist, and scientists are indeed searching for hidden messages.

Extraterrestrial contact may just be sooner than you think.

Though more probably, it will probably take longer than you think.

But remember always that you can use relativity to get to the future quickly and find out for yourself!


"None of what I said should be regarded as 'fact'."

Including that sentence? If I should regard "None of what I said should be regarded as 'fact'" as a lie, since you have told me not to regard it as fact, then I should therefore class everything you say as fact, and vice versa. I think you have created a paradox here, and I think I'm making too big a deal out of it.

"Just thought you might be interested in what I see."

It's very interesting.

"The erroneous scientific opinions that you have quoted are but a tiny part of the never ending story that confirms that science is always wrong."

Science? Always wrong? Well, you could be right. But if you are talking scientifically then you contradict yourself, especially if I shouldn't regard what you say as fact!

[I did warn you!]

"Only reality is truth."

I suppose the obvious needs to be stated every so often, but how do we know what reality is? In my opinion, we haven't got a clue. We can only 'assume' that reality is how it is, when really we could all be part of some late-night computer-generated Channel-4-style reality TV show for a hyperspatial aliens and are therefore not part of 'reality'.

"We just keep searching."

For the truth? Or for reality? Or for our car keys?

I think that the hardest question to answer here is: 'which of these things is the hardest to find: (A) truth, (B) reality, or (C) car keys?' What would you say (bearing in mind that if you give a wrong answer you will go home with nothing)?

"Perhaps in the wrong places?"

Perhaps.


"(4) Oh no."

I sometimes feel the same way.

"Time cannot be a constant."

I won't argue with this.

"If the 'space' of the popular 'space/time continuum' is extending, then 'time' must also be extending, so every second is longer than the last."

Not necessarily true. If you go back to the old cuboid analogy from the entry (this is the Nature of Time [NOT] entry isn't it? I think my cuboid analogy is in the NOT entry, you see), imagine that the space dimensions are expanding. In other words, the cuboid gets higher. Just because it's getting higher doesn't mean that it is also getting longer, obviously. And length, if you recall, represents time.

But I see what you mean in that space is time and time is space, and if we take this view of reality then we come to the conclusion that both time and space are expanding, but that doesn't mean that every second is longer than the last just as it doesn't mean that every centimetre is longer than the last.

"Don't you find that natural?"

Yes, but that's to do with something else. The reaction times of humans naturally decrease and we naturally find ourselves experiencing time as going faster as we get older. I think you might be thinking of this process.

"In an extending universe all celetial bodies, including our moon, is receeding. Yet when meaasured by the time of a laser pulse to the moon and back it reads the same at any time (apart from natural and understood orbital perurbations).
There is no way to comprehend any aspect of this universe out of context. All subjects are to be examined, discussed, argued over in isolation but the most comprehensive research into a spark plug from a motor car engine will not help to understand the shape, size or functioning of the motor car."

I don't think I shall argue with this. But I will say that I agree at least in part with your last point. With most areas of research (taking cars as an example), it is easy to study them in multiple contexts. We can study a car from the outside, the inside, and then we can take it apart and really get ourselves looking a right dirty mess before realising that we forgot to buy a toolbox; and when we try to put the car back together we find there's something left over at the end (but that's another story).

With the Universe, on the other hand, we can't study it from the outside; only from a very small portion of its inside. It's like trying to study a car if you're forever stuck in the glove compartment. Admittedly few people manage this, but that isn't really the point here. As for taking the Universe apart and getting ourselves mucky - well, there's no chance is there? By deconstructing the Universe we change the state that it is in and therefore change what we are studying. It's the old paradox of trying to understand how the human body works - you can't see how it works without taking it apart, but if you take it apart you stop it working.


"Turning theoretical physics back a couple of decades". What's wrong with that? If you lose your way and drive into a dead end, what would you do? Inventing new particles doesn't seem to help. The GUF theory is still the victim of countless attempts at unifying forces which were never divided. And so on."

What? What's wrong with turning physics back a couple of decades? Everything is wrong with it! We can't do that! Besides, we haven't reached a dead end yet!

If we do reach a dead end, we call the district council and ask them to build a bypass. Or, we realise that the site of the dead end was in fact our destination, but we missed the sign that said 'cul-de-sac'.


"(5a?) I,ve a lot of intriquing thoughts after more than eighty years of observation of Life, the Universe and Everything. Have learned to watch, listen and think. When people start to agree with me I worry that I must be wrong."

And your thoughts are indeed intriguing! I shan't doubt that. But there are broader things to consider - hyperspace, for example, is a serious theory, but we just can't see it because we're human. I'm not quite sure what to conclude about your worries when people agree with you (you'll notice that I have agreed with you on a number of points). If this happens, perhaps you should simply explain your thoughts to somebody else who doesn't agree?



---

FordsTowel, I shall set up a thread tomorrow, probably at my personal space.

---

Thank you everyone for coming to the debut concert of Feverish Debate.
Refreshments are provided at the Hitchhiker's Hotel at A2411191.

---

[This posting has not been checked through for accuracy or sanity; please expect errrours].

That was a BEAUTIFUL article....

Really well written....

it goes through presents both sides of the case...
it seems completely objective...
it involves Adamesy humor also...
it grasps your interest like a good novel....

A job well done.......

Welcome Noggin, and Black Cheetah!

BB, I'll wait until the new thread is available to reply; except to say that, if your last reply is any indication, we'd better start a stout rope rather than a thread.

SS, I'll be happy to respond to your response to my response as well, to.

{BB, I did that for you. ]

Thank you for your compliments, Black Cheetah! I'm very glad that so many people have really enjoyed reading the entry.

FordsTowel, the debate forum has been established here: F131096?thread=471480. Please bring shin pads, a mouth-guard and a chocolate bar. I have already brough a head-mask, an amplifier, shoulder-pads and plenty of olives. Thank you.

Hi BB. Thanks for your observations and for bringing the universe back to earth.

The term 'biased' was FT. My reponse was flippant, my fault. In truth, I am looking at and describing only this universe as it appears to me.
This is incredibly difficult and requires a much better mind than mine and a whole new vocabulary. There could well be numerous universes and I would not dream of discriminating against things I can't see.

Discrimination can make problems and cause trouble but it is a constant part of everyday life and maintains standards, values and good judgement. Perhaps you mean 'prejudice'....judgement before understanding? I'd hate to cause huge demon_strations with scarlet banners. They wouldn't know that we couldn't see or hear them.

You are quite right to say we haven't searched very far for planets. Only recently was the first acceptable evidence of an extrasolar planet announced. Are you prejudiced against the idea of sentient beings elsewhere in the universe? After all, we're all doing the best we can with our lizard/mammal/monkey brain using the very recent layer of thinking matter. No wonder that we occasionally(?) get it wrong.
I've long ago stopped trying to define intelligence but the word will still be bandied about with no credible attempt at definition.


I see you would approve learning about science from extraterestials but I am much more concerned about the wisdom to live in harmony with nature and each other on our own planet. Don't understand why learning from others is 'cheating'. I've been out of England so long that I'm out of touch with much of the new Americanised vocabulary. Must be something to do with the schools' examination syndrome that is sweeping Britain combined with the anti-fraud panic that is currantly blocking Banks and most other bureaucratic institutions.
I look forward to your novel with the utmost anticipation.

The sentence 'None of what I said should be regarded as fact' was not included in what I said. It was an explanatory reply to a misapprehension of what I said.

That which is not fact is certainly not true, but a lie is intention to deceive and I assure you that my attempt to describe what I see is purely for the interest of h2g2 participants. The only deception is self-deception when interpreting the amazing interactive complexity of simplicities that is the universe. After fifty years of visualisation, mental assembly and test, relativity review and logical filtering, I could still have the whole thing wrong The road to scientific knowledge is littered with broken theories and the shatteres dreams of Nobel Prizes.

With reference to my remark about 'space/time extending'and my suggestion that each second is longer than the last, you agreed the possibility of space and time expanding but didn't like the idea of seconds or centimeters expanding. I see everything extending in perfect proportional relativity. Took many years to see the interlinking independencies that control the life and death of this universe.
You see, there go all our 'constants'. Everything in motion and in proportional relativity to everything else. All is energy. The primal energy that is not locked into matter is extending the universe and is the basis of our concept of time.

History demonstrates that all new ideas are automatically rubbished by the establisment, also all those whose careers depend on the approval of the establishment. Scientific method is essential for good science but there is so much more. No good standing on the shoulders of giants who are looking the wrong way.

I am enjoying a little jousting after years of exile in 'foreign parts'. A very good health to you all
S_Simon

"This is incredibly difficult and requires a much better mind than mine and a whole new vocabulary. There could well be numerous universes and I would not dream of discriminating against things I can't see."

A good start is to use the popular words 'ana' and 'kata' as counterparts to the words 'forwards' and 'backwards' for use with a fourth dimension.

A 4D person in a 4D room would hence be able to move forwards, backwards, left, right, up, down, ana and kata. Though probably not at the same time.


"Discrimination can make problems and cause trouble but it is a constant part of everyday life and maintains standards, values and good judgement. Perhaps you mean 'prejudice'....judgement before understanding? I'd hate to cause huge demon_strations with scarlet banners. They wouldn't know that we couldn't see or hear them."

You have to remember not to take everything that I say seriously. Sometimes I don't make it clear whether I am being serious or not, and I apologise for this because it makes complex matters even more confusing. For example, my reference to the protest demonstrations was purely for comic effect.

If hyperdimensional beings exist, I don't know whether *they* would be able to see or hear *us*. If you take my cuboid universe again, you can see that they'd probably be able to see us, but hearing is a different matter, since our sound waves probably wouldn't extend into the higher dimensions. That's an interesting thought really.


"Are you prejudiced against the idea of sentient beings elsewhere in the universe?"

No.

"After all, we're all doing the best we can with our lizard/mammal/monkey brain using the very recent layer of thinking matter."

Are we? See my entry about the Superconducting Supercollider and you'll see that perhaps we could already know a whole lot more than we already do, if the government would only give us the money.

"No wonder that we occasionally(?) get it wrong."

We do occasionally get it wrong. But I don't think there are reliable methods of knowing whether we are right or wrong.

"I've long ago stopped trying to define intelligence but the word will still be bandied about with no credible attempt at definition."

My reference to the non-intelligence of humans is a completely separate issue, which is why I bracketed it. It really does depend on the definition of 'intelligent'. In short, the reason I think humans are not 'intelligent', by my definition, is because we do more stupid things than clever things overall.


"I see you would approve learning about science from extraterestials but I am much more concerned about the wisdom to live in harmony with nature and each other on our own planet."

Yes, I'm concerned with that as well. But, being a largely pessimistic person, I don't really think it's going to happen. You will see my personal opinion on the sort of thing I think might happen in my [as yet unpublished] novel.


"Don't understand why learning from others is 'cheating'."

I purposely put the word cheat in quotes precisely because learning from other civilisations is not cheating; it's just easier than formulating the facts for ourselves. Possibly.

"The sentence 'None of what I said should be regarded as fact' was not included in what I said. It was an explanatory reply to a misapprehension of what I said."

OK, fair enough. Again, my reference to the paradox involved was not really meant to be a serious comment; just my annoying habit of taking things too literally.


"With reference to my remark about 'space/time extending'and my suggestion that each second is longer than the last, you agreed the possibility of space and time expanding but didn't like the idea of seconds or centimeters expanding."

Well, technically, the length of seconds do get longer and shorter due to relativistic effects. So, I do agree with the idea in principle.

"I see everything extending in perfect proportional relativity. Took many years to see the interlinking independencies that control the life and death of this universe."

Would you care to elaborate on the 'interlinking independencies'? It sounds very interesting, but myself I cannot see it.

"You see, there go all our 'constants'."

Including the speed of light, perhaps? What do you think about the Varying Speed of Light Theory? It might interest you.

"Everything in motion and in proportional relativity to everything else."

I don't argue with that. I agree with that.

"All is energy."

Clarification: 'everything in this universe is energy'. I would agree with that statement on the outset. But I don't know about 'everything'. (There I go taking things literally again!)

"The primal energy that is not locked into matter is extending the universe and is the basis of our concept of time."

I can't dispute this. I'd like to hear more about this idea.


" I am enjoying a little jousting after years of exile in 'foreign parts'. A very good health to you all."

Thank you very much. I am enjoying this too.

I will keep my contribution short and simple -

We humans tend to only notice our use of four dimensions. However, all particles exhibit quantum behaviour where they exhibit phase in the same way as light waves / photons (I will not go into wave vs particles theory - both exhibit phase).

Phase cannot be reasoned to exist if it is not given an extra dimension - a circular one, in which particles of high frequency whiz around quickly, allowing them to have a high energy (--> e=hf), whereas low frequency particles oscillate more slowly, hence move more slowly in this extra dimension, and have a lower energy.

NB - this extra dimension is present everywhere, just as no matter where you go on a 2D grid, you can still move up and down in a third dimension.

There may be even more dimensions of similar structure. Therefore, when we say 3D, we are talking about the dimensions in which we easily control movement. There may be more dimensions of this description also in other theoretical scenarios, but you must remember time and phase as well.

Alex

Hello BB!

A very enjoyable, fascinating read, if I can say so. Sorry for dropping in here so late - I had read this article some time ago but its only now I have had a chance to look at it in more detail and make a contribution.

Just one question - in your section entitled "Why do we perceive time the way we do?" I'm wondering if you are tripping yourself up a bit. You say that time is just a dimension, and that the passage of time is an illusion caused by the type of animals we are. Fair enough, but then you appear to be using words which are time dependent to make the point.

Example : "We gather information about this frame - our surrounding environment - using our senses, and then we store the information in an input register". The word "then" is time dependent. Surely you must assume that time flows to use the word, and that therefore for this system to work, a flow of time must be assumed?

Also : "we have to transfer the information to our memory registers before we can input the information about the next frame". Again, in the way it is used here, "before" seems to be time dependent also. One thing must happen before the next - ergo time must pass.

Am I missing something out here?

Your bit on the flow of time being different for different creatures makes a lot of sense. Where can I find out more (without the equations, preferably!)?

A great read - well done!

Woodpigeon

Thanks Woodpigeon, and sorry for being so late in replying.

"Fair enough, but then you appear to be using words which are time dependent to make the point. "

It's impossible not to, since time-dependence is indelibly integrated into the English language. I have read many a physics book about the nature of time where they do the same thing.

Anyway, that part is only about our *perception* of time, isn't it? So regardless of whether or not, how or why time 'flows', this is our perception of it.

Hello BB, just read this while wandering through PR seeing if I missed anything good while I was on the vow of silence.

Clearly I did, and I can't understand why is this still kicking around in PR, as it's excellent.

Only complaint I'd have is that you twice refer to "common sense". No such thing

Might I therefore suggest the following amendments:

it becomes common sense > it makes sense

All points in space are in existence simultaneously - this is a common sense notion > actually I can't think of a way of amending this, but although it may be a common sense notion for somebody who has spent considerable periods of time analysing the universe, it is far from being "common sense" to us ordinary mortals . It *is* obvious once it's pointed out, however.

Festive greetings etc

Mol

The fact that all points of space are existent simultaneously is definitely 'common sense', but people seldom ponder it. If it wasn't the case, then I might be able to go to the chemist's on Monday, and then on Tuesday find that the car park has suddenly vanished into total nothingness. Stars might disappear at random. Obviously, if this happens, we don't notice it, and hence it is common sense to think that it is just ludicrous. Do you see what I mean?

I have amended the other common sense reference; it sounds much better; thank you!

<< Do you see what I mean? >>

No. I did before you explained it in terms of chemists and carparks, then my local authority planning head fired up.

Is this common sense notion the understanding that just because I can't see it at the moment, doesn't mean it's not there any more? That's what I understood by the phrase "all points of space are existent simultaneously".

BTW, my head is currently stuffed full of cotton wool (or feels as though it is), so I could just be being slow on the uptake because of that. Hopefully.

Mol

"Just because I can't see it at the moment, doesn't mean it's not there any more"

Yes. That's it. And to my knowledge, that is held as common sense nowadays.

OK. It's just that phrase "common sense", then. Could it be "widely accepted"? "Everybody understands" that ... ?



Mol

I love a good constructive debate - a flame war between people with strong opinions, that is, but of a constructive nature. So if you wish, feel free to let off steam about whatever it is you have against 'common sense'.

Admittedly, many people in the world, and especially those in charge, it seems, do not possess anything that could be even vaguely correlated with sense of the common variety, but in the common-sense usage of the phrase 'common sense' I think we can agree on a definition that everybody understands and is widely accepted.

I leave the proverbial ball in your own proverbial court.

I'll withdraw. I'm too tired for a row and I don't really like them and it would be a waste to rant just now and clutter up this more scientific debate. I'm on my own on this, it's OK. Thanks anyway.



Mol