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

Freedom to wonder. Freedom to question. Freedom to imagine.

Please keep dropping by.

You're right. Go with the flow. I often get some wonderfully creative thinking done while I'm running. The ideas flow. They're brilliant and impulsive ideas, yet, later, although I guess they're still brilliant in a way, I usually find that they are totally impractical. Most of my truly creative thinking happens when I'm physically tired, when the rational mind isn't getting in the way perhaps.

With your speed of light question you seem to be referring to our magical dreamworld. I think that is indeed another discussion. By the way, I've posted my e-mail address on my home page.

Hi Guys..Sorry,Serendipity,but I have to disagree with a coupla things,
like frinstance that everything is time reversible...The weak nuclear
interaction breaks that symmetry,and if it didn't,there wouldn't be
a universe,cos if all the stuff produced in the big bang cancelled,
there would be nowt left to make a universe out of!
Also that the background radiation could be anything other than the
remnants of the big bang..thats why its 3degreesK,and not some
arbitrary temperature...the COBE satellite data confirms this.
Nice forum,by the way...
Did u see my bit about 'missing mass'?
Also see 'spinning things' for a puzzle(on askh2g2)

Great, some argument, some strong opinions. This is what I need.

First, I concede to you regards time reversibility - but only just. I was simplifying things to make a point - which I believe is still valid: that the time used in the equations of quantum theory does not map directly on to the arrow of time which orders the macroscopic world. Most 'everyday' quantum processes preserve time symmetry, and it is only under extreme conditions that the violations of the weak interaction become significant.

Second, in respect to the CBR, I should point out that in the early part of this century there were several estimates made of the temperature of the universe based on a stationary model in thermal equilibrium. The conclusion was that the temperature ought to be close to 3K! Nothing arbitrary about it at all. In the expanding scale model of the universe, the equilibrium temperature is that temperature where the energy being added from all radiating sources is equal to the energy being lost by redshift. The CBR would seem to support both theories with equal strength. I admit that the Big Bang theory has an extremely seductive power, and is indeed a very strong theory, but would you not admit that there is a little more room for doubt than is ever suggested?

Very much like your missing mass idea - although the expanding scale theory has no missing mass to find!

I will call you up on spin soon. I'm sure we'll get on to Mach and the question of inertia shortly after.

Are you a Hoylian,Serendip?....Or a Devil's advocate????Do you think
the contents of the universe are increasing?...Or that the mass is
fixed?....If so,why?...Or that particle size is decreasing to give
the illusion of expansion?(Variable speed of light may cancel this)

I am a great fan of Fred Hoyle, but I am not a Hoylian. Indeed, I'm not an anything-ian. I don't like labels, because they inevitably suggest boundaries - and it is beyond boundaries where I like to play. The role of Devil's advocate is not unfamiliar to me, but it is not really appropriate here, although, if pressed, I guess there is a small element of that involved.

No, I don't believe that the contents of the universe are increasing (like Hoyle). I believe the universe is in a state of dynamic equilibrium, a self-sustaining feedback system. In this sense, the mass is fixed, although I would contend that the value is irrelevant. Mass emerges from more fundamental relations. I have always felt it to be rather presumptive of the standard model (Big Bang) to assume that the properties of the fundamental particles are absolutes. Relativity causes all sorts of problems for quantum theory, but rather than face up to the challenge, physicists appear to ignore them. I believe that the mass and size of fundamental particles only has meaning in relation to the whole of the universe, and the metrics of spacetime itself.

How does a particle "know" what size it should be? If it was the only particle in an otherwise perfect vacuum, what reference could there be? I believe that the only reference there can be is the metrics of space and time. The standard model assumes that the metrics of space are expanding, but not in a way which effects the size and mass of the fundamental particles. This assumption, which for me is actually rather flimsy, is never questioned. I am suggesting that the metrics of space AND time are expanding, in a way which perfectly preserves the RELATIONS between space and time. Einstein's General Relativity theory does not show any preference for a particular scale. If the scale is changed, there is no observable change in the physical universe because we make all our observations with instruments whose scale has changed proportionately. We only become aware of it over time, through effects like the red-shift.

The inherent paradox is that the universe can expand eternally - without ever changing. And just as there is no end, there is no beginning. The universe just is. Intellectually, I have a problem with this, but I have persuaded myself that this rational objection is not a valid one. Intuitively, it feels right, and, anyway, is it really any more implausible than a Big Bang where the universe emerged out of a 'nothing' which already had the scale and properties of the fundamental particles pre-configured?

How does this FEEL Heres_Johnny! Where do others think the scale and mass of the proton and electron come from?

Sorry,Serendipity...it just doesn't FEEL right to me that 'everything just is',I need explanations for all this
'stuff' around us.The big bang seems to answer all the questions..steady state seems impossible to me looking
at the evidence.I agree Einstein had a problem with Quantum theory V relativity,but QCD has helped to explain
the masses of the particles by the addition of quarks.If our timeframe is expanding,would we see a redshift?I
think that it would tend to cancel out.

I though some about this yesterday, and certain things seemed to fall into place. I thought: Almost everyone can accept it if you tell them that the universe is infinite in _space_, even if they can't grasp the concept of infinity, they can accept it. Saying that the universe is infinite in time shouldn't be any different then, should it? Since time is also, like space, a property of this particular universe. The question "When did the universe begin?" suddenly seemed no more valid to me than "_Where_ did the universe begin?" If there is no beginning point in space, why should there be such a point in time?

I like these conversations.

F

I'm not surprised at your feeling, because I know the feeling very well myself. It has taken many years for my suspicion to grow that all is not quite so easily explained away. The Big Bang only pretends to offer an explantion. The BB universe is really just as mystical as my eternal universe.

I firmly believe that there is no evidence which makes a 'steady-state' theory impossible. It all comes down to a matter of interpretation. The strongest evidence for the BB comes from the CBR and the red-shift, both of which have acceptable SS explanations. I would also refute that the BB answers all the questions. In fact, there seem to be an increasing number of difficulties. For example, we find fully formed galaxies in the very early history of the BB Universe. Without introducing some additional concept (like dark matter - which I know you have a theory about) the rapid formation of galaxies out of a homogeneous young universe is deeply problematic.

The origin of the redshift in the expanding scale model is identical in principle to the BB model, except for two subtle differences. In the standard BB model, the redshift is caused by an expansion in the three dimensions of space only. Light is stretched (redshifted) en route from distant galaxies. Remarkably, though, our measuring scales do not get stretched in the same way. In the ES model, light is again stretched en route from distant galaxies and, if the rate of time was constant, things would indeed cancel out because the scale we measure the wavelength with would change in proportion. But the ES theory suggests that the rate of time changes also, and this provides for the phenomenon of redshift.

Since Einstein showed us how inextricably cojoined are space and time, is it such a huge leap to make from an expansion in space only to an expansion in time and space? For me, the latter feels more likely to be correct. The usual analogy sees the BB universe as an inflating balloon covered in paint spots where all the paint spots are moving apart from each other. The difference in our positions amounts to you saying that the paint spots stay the same size while the balloon expands, while I say that the paint spots get bigger - because the spots exist as patterns in spacetime, not as 'things' floating on spacetime. I would have thought that the messages of RT and QT have more in common with my interpretation than yours!

Freedom, you do indeed have a free and liberated mind. I have never thought about infinite time in comparison with infinite space in the way you have described. It is very clearly expressed. There is a huge psychological barrier concerned with time which must be rooted in our human experience of birth and death and the Western creation mythologies. I'm sure people rooted in Eastern mythologies would have far less difficulty.

With the Big Bang theory, of course, space itself is being created. The universe is expandng as space, as opposed to in space. The expanding scale theory could allow for a universe that is infinite in space, or a closed finite universe. I guess I'm drawn, perhaps paradoxically, to the closed model. That's certainly psychological. I'm happy for my imprint on the universe to last forever, but I don't want it to be of infinitessimal consequence.

I'm glad you're enjoying the conversations. I certainly am. Thanks.

Thank you for the nice words

The thought was new to me as well, it just jumped at me late one evening...as seems to be the case so often, doesn't it? Or maybe it was I who jumped the psychological barrier?

I suppose the universe could be finite it space and still not have a starting point. Like a circle: you can measure the circumference, it's definitely finite, but you can't say that it _starts_ here or there. I'm not sure if the analogy is valid here, but I'm thinking this could be the case with time as well - that the universe could have a finite age, or a finite lifespan, without necessarily having a beginning moment. What do you think of this?

Agreed, late at night is definitely the best time for intuitive thinking.

I guess from the age of about 12, when I first started reading about relativity, I have thought of our universe as the 3-dimensionsal equivalent of the surface of a sphere - go far enough in any one direction and you will return to your starting point. I have always hoped that we would one day equate two stellar observations made from the two hemispheres in opposite directions as actually being the same object!

I suppose I also think of time as being of a different order to space, so that it cannot curve back on itself in the same way. I have thought about it in the past, but my mind gives way under the weight of paradox. I shall think about it more late tonight.

The universe has no starting place because it started at a point when a point was the entire universe. Everywhere is the starting point, hence the question becomes meaningless. Time (at least appears to be) unidirectional, with 0 being defined as the start of the big bang. A minor diversion - did you know that time itself is quantised? A time of about 10e-40 seconds (10-40 to those who speak HTML) is the amount (analogous to the charge of an electron, which isn't really the 'quantum' of charge)

Since when is time unidirectional? Let's get into some relativity, here. Time is not a constant. It does not move foraward at a constant rate. So who says it only moves forward? Have you ever heard the theory that history moves in circles? We wouldn't notice if time moved, say, sideways, because it wouldn't be moving forwards, and so it wouldn't seem to pass. And if it moved diagonaly, it would just seem to pass more slowly. I believe that time moves diagonally (relative to me, of course) when I'm doing someting boring, and when I want something to be over. Especially when I'm waiting for something. But it moves in a straight line relative to me when I want to savor the moment.

~Irving

>A minor diversion - did you know that time itself is quantised?

Yes...as well as space itself. Amazing, isn't it? Magnetic flux is too.

Good point. I am of the opinion that if anything tends to be unidirectional, it is our minds rather than time.

But what about the second law of thermodynamics?

I didn't realise that time was quantized to, as well as everything else, although it seems very logical, with all the other quantizations floating around....
I'm still not sure I understand your picture of the universe, Serendipity, but I'm working on it...
The Mayans split time into lots of circles... they were afraid that time would stop altogether... they maybe would have liked the idea of the universe being infinite in time

I turn by back for a few hours, and there is all this activity. Great.

There is indeed no starting point in space. All points in space are equivalent - the foundation of Relativity Theory. I am just going one step further to suggest that all points in space AND time are equivalent.

The concept of quantised time is critical. The scale expansion of the universe proceeds in a step-wise fashion. I contend that the universe only exists in this quantum moment of process, that time itself is defined by the expansion. It is intrinsic to the very fabric of our universe. Time is pre-ordained to progress forward. It is the only absolute in a universe where everything else is relative.

The fact that all fundamental properties are quantised would suggest that, ultimately, we inhabit a digital universe.

Joanna, glad to know you are working on it. I know it's not easy. I'm working on an analogy(developed from something already posted here) which hopefully will help.

Can you explain more about the Mayans and this splitting of time into circles? This sounds interesting.

A great deal of effort has been spent trying to justify the derivation of the arrow of time from the second law of thermodynamics, which I believe to be completely ill-founded. Freedom, I will return to this.