Cosmology at the threshold of encountering the reality

Dear Write4U;

you've hit upon the big issue here. I highlight your words below.

A quantum event certainly takes time to measure but entanglement acts instantaneously at a distance, since, as the Schrodinger equation reveals, there is no time-dependent variable! This instantaneous implication was developed by David Bohm then John Bell into the Bell Inequalities, the violation of these revealing interactions that could be explained only by:

1) Faster-than-light (FTL) interactions between the separated entangled particles; or
2) Everything, even the quantum experiments and the choices of random generators being PREDETERMINED due to the universe being an integrated ordered whole involving even the minds of the experimenters!!!!!!

FOLZONI

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I see entanglement in a slightly different way,
Visualize a lake with a given volume of water. If I add a single drop of water at one end of the lake, the entire lake instantly increases in volume by that single drop added anywhere in the lake.

This increase is not related to the expansion (dilution) of the drop throughout the lake, which would take time, but through an abstract mathematical function which just adds the volume of the single drop to the entire lake volume instantaneously. A form of Entanglement?
I have not thought this through completely, but to me it *feels* right. Perhaps *entanglement* is not a physical, but a mathematical function.

As to *predeterminism*, IMO, this would hold true if we started from a previous steady state. But as far as I understand it, this universe started from a chaotic event, a mega quantum event realeasing all universal energy in one single instant (the inflationary epoch) in a previous timeless permittive condition where the laws of nature did not yet exist other than as timeless potentials. This scenario allows for a FTL expansion during the inflationary epoch, but also rules out the concept of *predeterminism*..

Only after the cooling period and the heretofore abstract potential mathematical functions became causal to the formation of the first particles and the beginning of measurable time lines and deterministic chronologies. But I cannot visualize predeterminism from an initial chaotic condition, with almost infinite potential for expression in reality, as yet to be determined by future probabilities (Bohm's Implicate).

An example might be that a photon from the interior of the sun may take a thousand years (travelling @ *c*) to reach the surface of the sun and only then is able to travel unimpeded for eight minutes to reach the earth. I cannot see any predetermism in such an example. It is purely probabilistic, IMO.

It is interesting to note that our observations of the wavelengths generated during the inflationary epoch lack the longest wavelengths, indicating that in its initial stage the universe was very small, due to the fact that a wave length cannot be longer than the object generating the wave frequency. Thus the missing *long* wavelengths would indicate a small emitting source.

However today we have estimated that the universal wavelength (the Pilot Wave) is so long that it has completed only *7* cycles in 14+ billion years and flattening (getting longer) as the universe continues to expand. Such long wavelengths were totally absent from the early universe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Also once a layman on this issue, I too was confused by relativity-based ideas e.g. light speed limit etc., so ended up following false leads until I read Eric Lerner's The Big Bang Never Happened.

Your invocation of the universe beginning chaotically parallels my own dogmatic position on the universe (one I ascribe to so as to avoid logical paradoxes) being infinite in time and space. In this way the disorder (i.e. internal non-deterministic chaos) in the universe is its built-in fundamental feature.

My only request is for people to take off Einstein's ideological blinkers for a while (very difficult I admit) and see what the universe - and quantum theory (QT) - is like without it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(Though we already know what certain peoples' responses will be to this i.e.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

etc.).

FOLZONI

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No probablity here, the photon which starts its journey from the core of the sun never reaches the surface of the sun. This simply absorption - emission continued process...

???
Pray, throw some light on this.

[/QUOTE]

This forum should not discuss this, it is pure bullocks.

Coming back to the GW issue...

Now its is agreed that 1. spacetime is mathemtical stuff, it is nothing physical, 2. GW is actually ripples in the curvature of the spacetime.

Now please tell me how can we physically measure a non physical property ? [that was the original pointer and you did not buy it but sold it to me free.]

It is sham that we talk of spacetime but we measure curvature, dragging, ripples in space..

PS: Gravity is real, its influence is real, there got to be some transmission mechanism...my point is this unrealistic spacetime business, yes business.

 

I understand you like Bohmian mechanics, so I'll try to answer the question with a Bohmian example:

and this synopsis:

 

Dear Write4U,

Yes, I have always been impressed by David Bohm's insights on quantum physical models and his tough-minded personality (he had his native US passport seized in 1952 whereupon he was dumped on a one-way flight to Sao Paulo).

Where I have real problems with Bohm is with his continuing acceptance of Einstein's nonsense (i.e. SR etc.). Einstein's conception of the world is deterministic i.e. a Parmenidean Block Universe. Bohm's notion of Implicate Order implies something akin to this, but hidden from our scientific investigation. Instead I hold to the concept that the universe is fundamentally disordered, its infinity in time and space underlying this principle.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

However, having said these words, some people (prat

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

b

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

ys if you know what I mean) will classify this view as 'crank' or 'fringe' so I think we would have to discuss it on one of the alternative science forums here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

FOLZONI

 

For a thousand years inside the sun, then 8 minutes to earth? I call that probabilistic, not predeterministic.

Obviously you are not a musician, or you would not be asking that question.

But as to the Universal wavelength, this is a recent illustration of the univesal wave function.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"The new finding suggests that the universe has slowed down and speeded up, not just once, but 7 times in the last 13.8 billion years, on average emulating dark matter in the process," said Mead. "The ringing has been decaying and is now very small – much like striking a crystal glass and hearing it ring down."
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-06-universe-crystal-glass.html#jCp

Showing your ignorance again? Can't win an argument and are you now stomping your feet, insisting my post should be removed?
You have not provided any proof of whatever business you are in on this forum, except denying
*concensus science*.

I am glad you finally agreed with me on this.

Yes, caused by *wave interferences* , very similar to the rippels in the curvature of ocean wave interferences.

No, I gave it to you. Do what you will with it. When I post, I hope to elicit a response from *knowledgeable fellows", who do have in-depth knowledge of physics or cosmology. You are just a catalyst .

Who are you addressing here". I never discussed this in previous posts.

I agree with you onthat, but IMO, the transmission mechanism is a mathematical function.

As for the rest of your *point* go argue with the people who's business is the study of spacetime, people like Einstein. Of course, if he still lived he would not give you the time of day. However he and Bohm discusssed Bohm's work for six monhts, face to face, and by Einsteins own admission influenced his *worldview*.[/quote]

 

That was not The God"s original position.

I agree

I am not qualified to answer that question.

 

But if you hold that view, how can you propose *predeterminism* instead of *probabilistic*?

 

That's a very good question, Write4U!

If you read Sir Karl Popper's works you will find that while he acknowledges Einstein's worldview to be deterministic he also has to admit the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. He presents this composite view as the type A quantum interpretation or 'Local Realism'. What he means by 'probabilistic' is an entirely SUBJECTIVE interpretation i.e. the probability merely refers to OUR KNOWLEDGE rather than a 'probabilistic interpretation' referring to HOW NATURE REALLY IS. In other words, nature may be entirely deterministic (i.e. predeterminism) but we mere humans can only detect probabilistic occurrences.

This is why, in Local Realism, the quantum object demonstrates "uncertainty" in position and momentum. Only our probabilistic experiments find this, whereas, according to Local Realism, the position and momentum are entirely precise, absolutely sharp, the determinism of nature hidden in the Local Realist interpretation i.e. there are 'really' entirely precise positions and momentums for quantum objects in Local Realism but our crude humanly instruments find only probabilistic phenomena. I.e. Popper's ideas are a form of doublethink, of complementarity.

In this way - using complementarity but interpreting the quantum question very differently to Niels Bohr - Popper could claim both a probabilistic AND a deterministic interpretation for quantum theory. The probabilistic interpretation APPEARS to be true but underneath determinism still rules - according to Local Realism. Read his Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics. More informative and more fun than replying to p-----y's schismatic commentary, I'd say

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

!

My own interpretation of QT follows type B - nonlocal hidden variables. Nature is disordered but there is causality - but not complete determinism by any means. Chance & disorder are fundamental parts of nature, a position absolutely denied by Popper or Einstein - or Bohm's Implicate Order unfortunately.

FOLZONI

 

Write4U coined a word *Consensus Science* as if Science is driven by Democracy / Majority.....

The OP is such that a classification of posters is really called for, it will be great if we could honestly associate ourselves with one of them which matches our profile.

I am at #5...... and I put my old pal at #8(Extreme), write4U = 10 ?, Folzoni = 5?

1. Specialists with sound knowledge of GR and related subjects supporting mainstream without any compulsion and working on issues……Cool Guys, like status quo.

2. Specialists with sound knowledge of GR and related subjects supporting most of the mainstream without any compulsion but having certain silent objections…..Key to progress, dynamic guys.

3. Specialists with sound knowledge of GR and related subjects supporting mainstream due to contractual compulsion….. balancing the sins of life with professional life, practical but dishonest approach.

4. Specialists with sound knowledge of GR and related subjects, openly questioning some of the major mainstream theories…..May be termed as fools or cranks, pariahs. May or may not see turnaround in one’s lifetime, tough life.

5. Graduates in Physics or other related subjects, pulled towards cosmology due to shear interest and not able to appreciate some of the non intuitive / apparently incorrect looking concepts of cosmology and became vociferous on such forums after acquiring some half cooked knowldege….. May be termed as cranks, nuts, trolls, in general not very effective, but life is ok as compared to #4 due to other interests/profession, may move towards #4 if obsession continues.

6. Graduates in Physics or other related subjects, pulled towards cosmology due to shear interest and not bothering about issues present, just comfortable with the mainstream explanation and objections as well …..Cool Guys, who cares, lets enjoy.

7. Graduates in Physics or other related subjects, pulled towards cosmology due to shear interest and acquired some specific knowledge and started acting as messiah of mainstream….. Resident or local area expert, generally arrogant and nuisance to many.

8. Non Graduates /lacking in formal education in Physics or other related subjects, pulled towards cosmology due to shear interest and die hard supporter of mainstream….Least knowledgeable and of variable nuisance value from small to extreme.

9. Non Graduates/lacking in formal education in Physics or other related subjects, pulled towards cosmology due to shear interest and not bothering about issues present, just comfortable with the mainstream explanation…..Just curious fellows.

10. Retired Guys, not from the field, lot of reading, but sometime cannot resist the urge to act as knowledgeable man in the field......Still Deserve Respect.

 

It sure looks to me like you love doing it or maybe you just love seeing yourself in print. All the guy was saying is that we use nowns as the explanation for some phenomena we don't really understand, like spacetime or gravity or charge.

 

I have also read Eric J Lerner's "The Big Bang Never Happened" and had it totally and summarily dismissed as the nonsense it is by a real professional not a "once a layman" but now I've seen the light, type of crank.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

My only request is for folzoni and the many other cranks, and Tom, Dick, and Harry's we have with inflated egos and associated delusions of grandeur, driven by religious zealous, to realize that the Universe is a weird and wonderful place, and which we are able to discertain to some extent, by the knowledge, and genius of Einstein and others that have gone before. [Obviously that will not happen for many reasons]
The one obvious fact though, is that the discipline of science has pushed the need for any magical pixie in the sky, or any similar deity, back into near oblivion.
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

A Universe from Nothing
by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff

Insights from modern physics suggest that our wondrous universe may be the ultimate free lunch.

Adapted from The Cosmos: Astronomy in the New Millennium, 1st edition, by Jay M. Pasachoff and Alex Filippenko, © 2001. Reprinted with permission of Brooks/Cole, an imprint of the Wadsworth Group, a division of Thomson Learning.

In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.

What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.

Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.

If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours.

 

lol, the only thing you have done is prove its existence.

 

Only in the eyes of gullible fools.

 

Yes you are a gullible fool!
When you figure out there is no free anything in this universe... and Im not implying you are capable of figuring anything...

 

Your whole argument falls under the umbrella of humanism. The belief that psychology and psychiatry can explain certain metaphysical disorders of the mind along with demonic possession. This is false. According to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, it is impossible to determine certain pairs of properties of particles simultaneously. This is not due to any shortcoming of human scientific prowess, but in fact quite the opposite. Uncertainty is a reality which is why free will exists which is why the psyche or soul holds sway over local reality. The common denominator of evolution is the increasing intelligence of lifeforms globally and locally so.

Common CTMU Objections and Replies.

 

[1]Let me explain a few things. What is now accepted as mainstream theories, was once just a collection of ideas and hypotheticals, before they were accepted by weight of evidence as proper scientific theories.
[2]What is generally accepted as mainstream theories is also logically the opinions held by the majority at a certain point in time, based on the experimental and observational evidence available.
[3]Opinions expressed on a science forum, do not constitute science and how it is conducted...They are simply a collection of opinions and open for all and sundry, cranks, pseudoscientists, anti mainstream brigade and nuts in general.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yet it is your past threads that have ended up in the fringes.
If you read the "ultimate free lunch"you will see that they admit it is still speculative, but at least far more logical than some religiously driven propaganda and magic pixy in the sky rubbish.
Take it easy ol chum. You appear rather excited.

 

Paddoboy,

God is not a magic pixie in the sky. The relationship between God and man is recursive. God is just like His creation, which includes man. In other words, He is not some infantile figment of your wet dreams. You need to study science as a whole and in part.