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

It seems that we all have mountains to conquer, some run, some crawl, some try to scale the many mountains that present themselves seemingly from nothing. There's a lot of stuff in Nothing and Physics seems to be getting nearer to understanding it than Blind Belief ever did. Did you see 'Arrows of Time' the R.I. Chrismas Lectures? ... fascinating stuff

-1

Indeed, most of the advances in physics this century have been concerned in some way with an understanding of nothingness. The closer physicists have come to examine objective properties like solidity, the more intangibly elusive these properties have appeared to be. We have witnessed the physicality of the universe dissolve into a symbolic world of mathematical functions and operators, to finally disappear altogether amidst quantum probability waves. One could say that in pursuit of the ultimate 'stuff' of nature, physicists have been led down a narrow alley, and finally into a dead-end. But, instead of finding their quarry trapped, it is nowhere to be seen. All they are left with is the strange symbolic trace of the shadow cast by their own observational intrusion.

I’m afraid that I didn’t get to see the RI lectures. There have been some wonderful lectures in the past, and some quite bad ones too. I suspect I wouldn’t have enjoyed these lectures, although I would love to be surprised. The origin and the meaning of the arrow of time is possibly the biggest of all the BIG questions in physics. Of course, it goes way beyond physics, although physicists seek to own it for themselves. The big problem they have is that at the micro-level there is no preferred direction to time. All processes are completely time reversible. So they have to conjure it up at the macro-level by an appeal to entropy and the laws of thermodynamics, but it’s slight of hand, and a lot of people have been fooled by this trickery. I believe that the arrow of time is fundamentally axiomatic and actually lies beyond the scope of physical enquiry. Reality is process. To try to derive an arrow of time out of a timeless physical reality is folly because it is the arrow of time that actually gives rise to our reality. Rather than being an esoteric position, I hold this to be a commonsense view – yet it flies in the face of the accepted scientific view, and probably the view presented in the RI lectures.

What are your thoughts negative one?

O Serendipitous One,

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by, "All processes are completely time reversible." Are you referring to 'Time' as a 'Process' or a 'Process' as an example of passing 'Time'? Or are they one and the same? If time is a process then must it be a physical thing or a reality? As a complete novice in the understanding of this discipline in the world of Physics, it seems from what I've seen and read, that time moves forward but so far as we yet understand it, not backwards? Of course as you point out, this is where the Quantum world, anti-particles (Feynman) and the uncertainty relation (Heisenberg?) stick their oars in and confuse matters. Only when you open the box will we find out! It (Time), if it is an It, is relative to where you are and what you do. Is the past viewable in reality? If so than a Tardis must be a possibility.

As far as I interpreted the RI Lectures, (by a rather irritating Dr Johnson (Neil I presume!) the views that were expressed fell more in line with your commonsense one. I would review them again today but I'll have to wait until I can retrieve the tapes from York. As an non-sequitur did you follow Richard Dawkins' Lectures a couple of years ago, another demi-god for me; I must add him to my list.

If Time began at the Big Bang ("stand well back" - E.Izzard) and the Universe is expanding to a point when it may stop and begin to contract; will time then reverse or continue forwards? Or am I talking entropy here????

Simplistic -1

To say that all processes are completely time reversible was rather loose of me. What I was trying to say is that if you were to look at a film of a process taking place at the quantum level, and then run that film backwards, there would be nothing to distinguish it from the original. It would be impossible to tell the two apart. The mathematics of quantum theory makes no distinction between forwards and backwards in time - an electron moving forwards in time is perfectly equivalent to a positron moving backwards in time.

Einstein's theory of relativity tells us that time is relative, that there is no such concept as an absolute 'now', and this has led many to speculate about the possibility of a Tardis. But there is, as usual, a massive misconception here. What relativity actually tells us is that there is no way for us to determine any absolute 'now' - which is rather different from stating that there is no absolute 'now'. I strongly believe that there is such a now, and that is ALL there is - just this magical point of flux where a non-existent future continually flows into a non-existent past.

I am something of a heretic as far as the religion of science is concerned. I react against arrogance and certainty, looking to put the mystery back where I see it as having been erroneously taken away. I actually want to remystify science. (By the way, although he is certainly a great communicator, I hold Mr.Dawkins to be a particularly arrogant member of the priesthood).

My biggest heresy is that I don't buy into the Big Bang theory. I take Einstein's equivalence principle beyond space and into time. All points in the universe, both in space and time, are physically equivalent. The universe is self-similar at every epoch. This is possible because the expansion is taking place in space AND time. As we look into the past we naturally see light being red-shifted because the timeframe has changed. The universe isn't expanding in the sense normally understood; instead, it's the scale that's expanding. It's really rather beautifully simple. The universe is being continually fuelled with energy from this scale expansion, but it remains in a steady state - an eternally evolving organic system. Forever.

Quickly ... what's your immediate emotional reaction?

Quickly:
Confusion, due to either too much information or too little, plus a lot of scepticism as I'm a doubting Thomas in most things, until they're proven.

As a Romantic I enjoy the mysteries of the Universe as much as the next person but man has inherent 'curiosity' which demands the understanding of things and processes. Without 'curiousity' would we still be Pre-Historic? I revel in wild things and it seems a shame to me, that the natural mysteries and intimacies of life are brazenly displayed via mass media, so that the 'magic' is taken away! But I am comforted by the fact that there is always another to confound and marvel in.

Intuitively I feel that I live in the moment, unfortunately or fortunately this moment is affected by past memories and events. My future can be partially predicted by my past and my present but not exactly as there are uncertainties which are not controllable. Frankly, when I finish (die) then for me 'time' will stop. This is only my intuition but it doesn't stop me trying to understand my world in my way as you do in yours.

(This is not what I first wrote but has the gist of it. I hit CTRL BACKSPACE by accident and lost the 'fresh' version! I suffer from STM loss, it's age, and disease!)

-1

I'm sorry to have confused. My problem is that I have spent too long playing with these ideas in my head. Familiarity breeds complacency, and I end up thinking that everyone should immediately grasp my meaning. As I intimated, I have two strands to my inner life: one very physical, the other cerebral. I like to keep the two in balance, the sensuous physicality of running up and down hills is a wonderful counterpoint to the stillness necessary for philosophical enquiry. Recently I injured myself and my physical energy had no release other than through mental process. It was a very creative time. I have all these ideas floating around now, but they are not the sort that can be dropped easily into normal conversation. So, this is a roundabout way of saying that I'm eager to bounce these ideas around and get a reaction. A little too eager I fear.

Like you, I am saddened at the gross simplification and trivialisation that pervades our culture today. There seems little room for the subtle and the sublime in an overtly superficial and selfish society. I guess the question I want to answer is whether the prevailing scientific world-view which sees the universe as utterly contingent, with a clearly defined beginning and end, has a significant unconscious influence on who we are as individuals and how we behave as members of community Earth. Perhaps a different world-view which sees the universe as eternal might lead to a different kind of society - possibly a more caring society, with a greater sense of community.

You ask elsewhere if something can come from nothing. Science will say yes, and go on to say that this same something will one day disappear back into nothing. I question this. I want to say no, something can never come from nothing, only from something else, something simpler maybe, but definitely something. There has always been something - and always will be. This is not so intellectually appealing, for a large part because the mind cannot grasp it. The concept of eternity - no beginning, no end - is utterly beyond our comprehension. I think to grapple with it, to be hit between the eyes with the mind-numbing wonder of it, is to grasp a sense of the sacred.

Finally, although there is a subtle sense in which we can consider ourselves immortal in terms of our contributing pattern in the pattern of all that is, one of my guiding mottoes has always been, "you have only got the one life, so you sure better make the most of it". Life is indeed a mountain, not a beach.

My biggest handicap and possible asset, is that I can see the reasonableness of most points of view. The extreme being the chap from 'The Fast Show' who agrees with total opposites. Which is why, to me, the Quantum world appears so interesting and why I find it so difficult to argue any one stance as it depends where you are as to how you see things. Each one to his/her own! Our problem (Man's) is this terrible desire to be right or proved right rather than wrong. Science (a rather large simplistic generalisation here!) seems to based on this dichotomy, "I have a theory...", which pervades human existence. Of course this is not Science's fault but those who postulate theories through it. For some people, I'm particularly thinking here of relatives and some friends as a sample population, as they aged their views on life the universe and everything seem to harden, become less flexible and more opinionated as if age and experience is justification for holding fixed or patently bigoted or untenable ideas and positions! As I wander up my personal mountain glimpses of the horizon receding are apparent the nearer I get to the summit. I see more but feel I understand less; my mountain must have a lot of mist(eries) near the top so I find it difficult to be opinionated which is where intuition seems to play a part. On reflection isn't intuition just another form of 'blind belief'? "I know it's right because it feels right"! Or is there really something within each of us like a sixth sense that knows? Intuition, Mysticism, Religion where's the difference?

Intuitively you know that something has to come from something rather than nothing and logically, at least within the logic I understand, I feel you're right. But doesn't Quantum physics show this not to be true or have I misunderstood? Logic and Quanta are not best bed-fellows it seems! Man can only understand the world/universe within the framework of what's known and that's where you and I are disadvantaged; how much do we know? We/I know that we have a finite time ourselves (so far!) and that everything we see on this planet has a finite time and that that the planetary system and our star have a finite time, etc; or should that be ad infinitum? If logic has anything to do with it, which it probably hasn't, then the concept of a universe probably has an finite period? Here's where concept and reality may part company.

I used to be very active deriving a lot of satisfaction from performing well but enjoying especially the mind that seems to allow clear thought after physical exercise has relaxed the body. I now achieve this in a lesser way and like you spend time cogitating on universal matters. The danger seems to me as in most conversational exchanges, is the desire to impose one's ideas on another by implying that this way is THE way. I remember the outcome from a social psychology experiment (Ashe or Asche experiments?) which showed that very few people, if any, had their views changed by discussion or argument at the time but if they did change it was days, weeks or months later; rather like a seed having been planted and over time, exploding into life. The difficulty of propounding a theory or view is that most people assume that it set in concrete and that it is either right or wrong. They may know intuitively that it's one or the other but have no argument as to why. Social delicacies and the fear of rebuff or rejection mean that agreement is easier than conflict for to disagree without reason often incurs ridicule. Something only masochists enjoy!

As we get older 'Carpe Diem' is the only motto.

Die dulci fruere. .......... -1

I am intrigued...I will have to think about this. Thanks for inviting me.

F

You're posing some deep questions here.

First, let me pick up with you on intuition. This is a really hard word to define, and I probably have a different kind of understanding to you. For me, intuition is rooted in experience - as opposed to reason which is rooted in language. We absorb intuitive knowledge through our whole body and have no direct access to it through our verbalising mind. This is why it is more than 'blind' belief. It is (or can be when it is authentic) belief founded in unconscious knowledge. I think moments of creative inspiration are breakthroughs, when our rational mind gets a sudden insight into the nature of an intuition, a partial mapping into a consciously accessible pattern of symbols.

You are correct. Quantum theory does indeed suggest how something can originate out of nothing - except that this nothing is actually a lot more than nothing. The manifest world could be likened to the pattern of waves on an ocean. Quantum theory shows how the waves (the form) that construct our universe appear out of a uniformly flat millpond surface, but that ocean of water has still to be there in the first place. The analogy isn't perfect, but it is good enough to get the point across. The current scientific position suggests that time itself appears out of nothing, and this is rather beguiling I have to admit. Here I will have to work harder to express my objections.

I am really enjoying this conversation. Thanks for your time square of i.

I'm really glad you're intrigued. I need help to work this through. Please ask any questions you want.

OK, here goes

>The universe isn't expanding in the sense normally
>understood; instead, it's the scale that's expanding.

This agrees with what I've been taught, as well as my own personal intuition.

>expansion is taking place in space AND time. As we
>look into the past we naturally see light being
>red-shifted because the timeframe has changed.

I like this. Light has to be red-shifted due to the expansion of space as well, of course. Wonder what the implications of this on the Hubble equation would be? And the somewhat debated value of the Hubble-constant?

I will think more about this. (As if I could help myself! )

Very glad to have captured your interest Freedom.

For a theory which holds such a supreme position, there are many details of the Big Bang model which are far from clear, and have always troubled me. I actually think there is a gaping crack in its foundations which is almost ubiquitously ignored. The flaw has all to do with the difficulty of there being an absolute physical scale in the universe. As a very strong relativist, I don't think there is one. In measuring any quantity, be it space or time, matter or energy, all we can do is make comparisons against some previously prescribed reference quantity. Now, the theoretical foundation for the Big Bang model comes of course from the general theory of relativity, the mathematics of which suggests that spacetime has to be expanding. The trouble is that when we have no absolute basis of scale, there is no way of understanding what the expansion of spacetime really means. The popular picture of the exploding universe is of an inflating balloon on which are painted a large number of stars and galaxies. As the balloon inflates, so all the stars and galaxies are seen to move away from each other. And this concurs with experimental evidence. But, as the universe expands, the scale that is used to measure distance would presumably expand also, thereby denying us any perceptual awareness of the expansion. From the point of view of an observer on the surface of the balloon, there is NO expansion. Subjectively, the concept is meaningless.

Modern cosmologists extrapolate backwards from the expansion of the universe to locate an 'event' from which space and time themselves have sprung forth into existence. This is the Big Bang. But, in the absence of any absolute scale, the possibility surely exists that we can extrapolate backwards indefinitely. Mathematically, we can spatially reduce a pattern of information any number of times without fear of losing its meaning. Even after infinitely many reductions, the information content - the pattern - is still perfectly preserved. I am reminded here of the wondrous computer-generated representations of the Mandelbrot Set. This mathematical object is exquisitely simple in definition, but infinitely complex in structure. It can be logically defined with a few symbols, yet it contains its own infinitely rich universe of fractal pattern. At every level of resolution, new and unique detail is revealed within the same scale and general structure of patterning. The Mandelbrot universe is self-similar at every scale.

The concept of an explosive beginning to our own universe is almost entirely dependent upon the very speculative assumption that the measuring scales which determine all the fundamental atomic quantities - the 'constants' in the descriptive equations of physics -have remained totally unchanged throughout the evolutionary history of the universe. Modern cosmology requires that the measuring scales which we use today are valid in an absolute sense. It requires that they be unaffected by the evolution of the universe in which they are embedded, that they exist completely independently of its large-scale structure, indeed, predetermined before the Big Bang even brought the universe into existence. It is an assumption which sits very much in opposition to the spirit of relativity. I actually think its outrageous.

To preserve the relation of space and time, as the scale of an object increases so time must necessarily slow down. The expansion of space makes no contribution to the red-shift, only the slow-down of time. And it is this change in the rate of time that marks an arrow (the only absolute that I'm happy to allow). There seems to be a line of thought which suggests that this scale expansion is essential for a living universe, for without it there would be no energy source, and no experience of time as we know it.

The mathematics of general relativity suggests a model which is finitely bounded in space and time and contains a point of creation. However, from a subjective perspective, from inside the universe - which is the only perspective to have any real meaning - there need not necessarily be such a point of creation. Without an absolute scale, it becomes possible to extrapolate backward in time indefinitely. The universe then has an infinite history, self-similar at every epoch. It has neither a beginning nor an end. Although from the 'outside' this infinite universe is seen to be finite in time, with a perfectly well-defined birth and death, this perspective is utterly fictitious. It is a mathematical conceptualization. I would say that there is no such objective, Godly perspective.

And then, of course, there's that background radiation blackbody question.

Mishio Kaku in his broadcast ‘The Essential Guide to the 21st Century’ (BBC World Service) uses a soap bubble analogy to explain where the big bang came from. I know you don’t like this term but I think its use in this instance is in the sense of starting or appearing rather than exploding! He sees us as existing on the rapidly expanding surface. Where this differs from the balloon model is this bubble, is a bubble amongst many bubbles, as in boiling water where apparently, little bubbles form from nothing and expand very rapidly. This is thought to be the basic paradigm of the ‘multiverse’ – our universe exists in an ocean of other universes. So to an observer looking on, multiverses are in fact appearing all the time, apparently from nothing but which in fact is something!

It may be that we are nothing more than a detail in a fractal or part of a ‘The Koch Curve’ a part of which appears random to us because we only see the detail but from another position, as you imply, like a part of a Mandelbrot fractal. So what seems chaotic to us is in fact part of a greater, infinite (in a true sense) order ? So ‘Order’ comes first, it is ‘Scale’ which has man fumbling around in space thinking that ‘Chaos’ rules? Comment?

Can you explain ‘Super String Theory’ to a novice? Is this a mathematical theory or equation that attempts to explains everything? I have enough trouble trying to visualise in three dimensions never mind four. So any more and we’ll be struggling! How does it relate to the 'Unified Field Theory' or is this stretching things a bit?

Too many questions but without them there wouldn’t be any answers.
-1 (square of i)

I don't mind questions. I love to see these conversations gathering momentum and taking off in different directions.

First, bubble universes, and bubbles within bubbles. In fact, I've just read a very thought provoking book by Lee Smolin, entitled "The Life of the Cosmos", which concludes on this point. Smolin tries to suggest that natural selection has been at work to have evolved our 'interesting' universe out of millions of 'uninteresting' ones not capable of supporting life. The book on the whole is wonderful, but this final argument, for me, was stretching a point too far. I really want to be concerned with our bubble, since it seems unlikely that we'll be able to communicate with other bubbles. Our bubble poses quite enough questions ... for now.

As for the fractal implications, let me think more about that.

On the question of superstrings and unified field theory, I agree that it is difficult to get a very clear perspective. I'm afraid my mathematics isn't up to understanding all the latest theories, so I have to rely on popular accounts, which I have to admit are often highly confusing - probably because the authors don't understand the maths themselves. My knowledge is really third-hand, and then I add my own interpretation.

So, for what it's worth, I would start by saying that ultimately the 'stuff' of matter is the 'non-stuff' of energy. The problem is that energy cannot be visualized in any conceivable way. Our only hold upon it is a symbolic one - as a term in a mathematical equation. My conclusion is that the 'stuff' of the universe has no actual 'physical' reality in any sense that we ordinarily understand, the most important point being that the ultimate nature of this 'stuff' is as utterly insignificant as it is utterly ineffable. In fact, I would say as insignificant as the type of browser you are using is to the meaning of the words that you are reading in this sentence. It is only the patterns that are traced by this 'stuff' that have any genuine reality in our universe. The aim of the modern physicist, then, is to discover the rules which govern the form of these traces. They seek to define the mathematical grammar which gives form to the physical text of the universe.

Their latest theories suggest that matter be pictured as 'locked-up' energy, energy that is somehow wound into the internal geometry of a spacetime of eleven dimensions! - seven of which have been compacted to an unimaginably small scale. In this context, we should think of a fundamental particle as a specific geometrical configuration of energy, a way in which a string of energy can be tied into some kind of loop or knot. The set of unique fundamental particles in the universe can then be thought of as the set of fundamentally different ways that energy can be knotted around the multi-dimensional geometry of spacetime. Each fundamental pattern has a different mathematical 'shape', a different mathematical topology, a different pattern of excitation. It is the abstract mathematical properties of these dynamic forms which define the grammar of reality, giving rise to the atomic properties that are measured and quantified by physicists.
Perhaps the simplest example is to look at the collision of matter with anti-matter. This is nature's most spectacular interaction. All the energy of being - the combined mass of both matter and anti-matter - is converted into free, unbound energy as determined by Einstein's famous formula. Now, the only essential difference between matter and anti-matter is in the sense, or the handedness, of their excitational patterns. When a clockwise pattern of excitation meets an anti-clockwise pattern, the two mathematical shapes cancel each other perfectly. Both forms dissolve into formlessness, their combined energy being freed in a mutual unwinding of their dynamic mathematical structures. Imagine winding a piece of string clockwise down a length of small rod. Halfway along, reverse the sense of the twisting so that by the time the end of the rod is reached you have created an equal number of anti-clockwise twists. Here you have a model of matter meeting anti-matter! Grab hold of each end of the string, pull hard, and, TWANG, form gives way to a formless length of string.

But, this is to ignore the issues of quantum theory, and the difficulty posed by gravity and relativity. The mathematics of each theory: quantum electo-dynamics, superstring theory, general relativity are all staggeringly powerful and beautiful, but no-one knows how they can all be made to work together. And no-one really knows how we should be interpreting all this wonderfully abstract mathematics. It's very humbling. I guess I believe that there is some conceptual missing link that we will one day find, and when we do, it will all fit into place in a way that will make an understanding communicable in non-mathematical terms. But perhaps not.

The one thing I feel sure about is that we need to abandon the idea that the 'physical' universe is really any more physical than our mental universe. For me, the physical and the mental universes are best seen as just different representational levels within the one irreducible whole - although I can't begin to tell you what I really mean by that. This is my mysticism, although I don't often see the world like this. Our commonsensual view of a very hard, solid reality is extremely persistent.

You've certainly given the negative-one much to think on. Thanks for your insights and time away from your bed.
So 'thoughts and 'imaginations' may be real in a universal sense? Which makes my new question (see -1 page); How fast is the speed of thought in relation to the speed of light: faster or slower; discuss? more relevant than I first imagined.
But I need to sleep on these things for a day or two and give you a rest. Perhaps if you want we could exchange emails? I'll respond Sat when my online time is free. See you at the Donut stall for the eclipse?
-1

I don't believe it is necessary to give thought any supernatural status. Thought would appear to be well founded in physical processes where communication is clearly limited by the speed of light. I guess there are limits to my mysticism. You're making me think about this very deeply. I suppose I could say that I regard the mathematical grammar as the hardware of the universe, the physical world as operating system, and the mental world as the application software. That's just occurred to me for the first time. I won't think about it, I'll just post this off before I elaborate and ruin the moment.

Do you sometimes find that something which made perfect sense to you at 2am seems like nonsense when you wake up next morning and re-read it in the cold light of day. Which perception is most trustworthy?

8-
I don't think it's a matter of 'trust', that's only a self-presevation instinct ... go with the flow .... go with the first thought, where intuition has played its part without interference from consideration. It may be wrong but it's far more interesting and on the edge..... rather like reading/writing this after a fine bottle of Chianti; it may seem to be rubbish later but there's spontaneity which is often unrepeatable.
Re thought, I know that it can be determined as a physical/chemical reaction but I was wondering whether if you can think or imagine that you're in a place, you can be there faster than light could physically travel there. Perhaps this is getting into realms outside the problems you/we are considering? More tomorrow perhaps.
-1

I'm not sure if I've understood everything, but it is very interesting.
A couple more questions, if you don't mind:

>And then, of course, there's that background
>radiation blackbody question.

I was thinking like this:
If the way the background radiation fits the blackbody radiation curve means that the Universe is a perfect black body, wouldn't it then be impossible to gain any information about it's state from the outside? Is there even any point in asking about the age of the universe, or is the question totally irrelevant from our perspective?

How about the origins of the background radiation, would you explain that in the same way as the Big Bang model?

Freedom (hoping not to bore you with stupid questions)

First, no questions of this order are boring or stupid, certainly in regard to this theory, because it is only at a tentative stage. I often find that the seemingly naive questions are the ones that are actually most difficult to answer.

Second, I regard the Universe as being in thermal equilibrium because the energy loss due to red-shift is compensated for by the energy which is created due to the rate of change of time. It's a rather unusual state of t.e in terms of our normal frame of reference. I see the background radiation as the result of thermalisation processes that have been going on forever. We see a perfectly smooth blackbody curve because there has been an infinite time for the energy of the radiation to be smoothed out. The temperature we observe is the constant energy density of the universe.

It's not easy to grasp at first, but, now, having lived with it for a while, I find it deeply profound. I always regarded the concept of the background radiation as an echo of the Big Bang wonderful enough, but to think of it now as the fundamental signature of the eternity of the universe. That's a different order of wonder.

Hope that helps.

It did help a bit, thanks!

I agree that regarding the background radiation in this way is even more amazing.

I can't say that I understand everything you're saying here but I think I've grasped the concept, and I'm really glad you told me! It's good to have your old comfortable views on things questioned every now and then.

Thanks,

Freedom