Thinking Straight About Curved Space

[Obvious Leo]

P.S. To go back to the OP. Thinking straight about curved space is a question of thinking straight about the existential nature of time and I am by no means the only one who holds this view.

[nix]

In general it is considered ungentlemanly in philosophy to reject a person's argument without first reading it.

You keep telling me I didn't read it. I did but found it full of statements like those debated between us in this thread and for which I can make no sense....

For example

"in a spaceless universe, time and gravity can be quantized..." but what is gravity in a spaceless universe? How do I even assign meaning to the term?

"the universe creates meaning at the speed of light.." Eh? How do I go about unpacking this claim?

You hold my comments on models and their use to the most rigourous logical scrutiny but exempt your own statements from this same treatment.

As for your rejection of "time being a Cartesian dimension" there are two different things going on here:

1. Time at the plank scale 10^-44 s is expected to no longer be a continuum, but at the scales of 1s ( containing 10^44 such instants) it is so closely approximated to a continuum that the assumptions of relativity are not invalidated by this granulation of time. a similar granulation of space is expected to occur at the planck length 10^-35m, but we are happy with a continuum of space on every day scales.

2. In relativity for a single observer time and space coordinates are never mixed up, it is only when two relatively moving observers compare their measurements of the same events that the concept of spacetime is needed and this is because all observers measure the same speed of light (an empirical fact). If you say that spacetime cannot exist because it is metaphysically bogus then there is something wrong with your metaphysics.

Quantum weirdness is not a result of relativity or the spacetime paradigm as you call it! Non relativistic QM in which space and time are never mixed up has all the weirdness in it! So changing time in the way you propose wont get rid of it; it wont go away with the granulation of time, in fact it will get worse because if the current thinking about using non commutative geometry in the unification of QM and GR is correct space and time themselves become non local.

I can only conclude that you do not understand the physics you have been reading.

[Obvious Leo]

"in a spaceless universe, time and gravity can be quantized...

You are not an honest debater nix because you left off the one crucial word which makes this statement meaningful.

What I said was that time and gravity can be quantised EQUIVALENTLY. The reason for this bloody obviously because in a continuum of gravity and time these are simply two different expressions of the same thing.

"the universe creates meaning at the speed of light..

I never made this statement and I defy you to show me where I did because I refute it utterly.

What is said was is that the universe creates REALITY at the speed of light. Meaning is solely an observer construct. The universal Turing Machine is the reality maker but it is the observer who is the meaning maker.

I can only conclude that you do not understand the physics you have been reading.

Naturally you are free to conclude what you wish but you are not free to misrepresent my words.

[nix]

"In a spaceless model the continuum of time and space is replaced by a continuum of time and gravity which means time and gravity can be quantised equivalently in a single fundamental unit of reality."....The universe is simply defined as that which is continuously coming into existence at the speed of light so my model is specifically an information theory which defines the universe as a reality MAKER.

Apologies for paraphrasing; the above is what you wrote.

I still maintain that it is meaning free:

What is "a continuum of time and gravity" in a spaceless universe. "gravity" has no meaning in a spaceless universe!

"time and gravity can be quantised equivalently" what does that even mean? simultaneously in the same mathematical process? By similar approach? How do you know? Has anyone done it - No!

I fear you may mean "time is just gravity". That makes even less physical sense! It would be a major category error.

I might accept the notion of the "universe is simply defined as that which is continuously coming into existence" but to claim it is doing so "at the speed of light" makes no physical sense. What is the claim? That the hubble expansion is the speed of light- No. That time passes at the speed of light? That doesn't make physical sense, speed has dimensions length/ time. Time passes at one second per second! Or are you asserting there is a universal time ticking away independent of all possible physical clocks? -No I don't think so.

As for the universe as a turing machine : "my model is specifically an information theory which defines the universe as a reality MAKER." What is the claim? The universe is real? The universe is evolving? OK. You talk of "my model is .. an information theory" In fact you haven't an information theoretic model as such - you have a vague connection to the second law and the notion that the universe evolves as it expands...

The language you use misleads the uninformed reader into thinking you have a coherent physical model which resolves some of the problems of physics. You do not.

[Obvious Leo]

Time will tell.

[Scott Mayers]

You seem to be saying that the modification required to get a unified theory cannot assume that planck's constant is non zero in the unified theory.

What I assert is that the unified theory will be a mathematical structure that gives us back standard QM in the approximation of distances comparable to atomic sizes and masses comparable to atomic masses, and will give us back GR in the approximation of macroscopic length scales and masses comparable to planetary masses.

This is how the mathematical structure of physical models change: The mathematical structure of GR gives us back the mathematical structure of Newtonian gravity when we have the approximation of weak gravity and small velocities. the mathematical structure of QM gives us back Newtonian mechanics as an approximation when planck's constant is zero, large distance and momentum.

If this were not the case, then the predictions of the unified theory, would not agree with the predictions of GR or of QM in those physical situations where GR and QM currently give accurate predictions. What the unified theory will do is give us the almost negligible corrections in these situations, and allow us to make predictions where current theory breaks down.

That is why the founders of quantum mechanics were able to use concepts from classical mechanics (cf Bohr's use of the correspondence principle, Dirac and Schroedinger's use of Hamiltonian dynamics) in the construction of Quantum Dynamics.

That is not to say that quantum dynamics is just Newtonian mechanics in a new dress! It isn't. New concepts were invented by these pioneers, guided by both experimental results that didn't fit classical expectations and theoretical insight (inspiration) and opportunistic tinkering with equations until something emerged that gave sensible predictions; but the ultimate criterion of whether they are acceptable or not is whether the theory gives predictions which agree with empirical measurement. If it doesn't then it has to go, (but see below for exceptions) if it does then it might be ok; we continue testing its predictions about different phenomena until such time as it fails. So it is provisionally ok. That is all we are entitled to claim. However:-

Some theories have passed so many tests that we gain confidence that they accurately reflect how nature behaves. Logically it is always possible to doubt and say that no test will determine if" the map represents the territory accurately" for there always exists the logical possibility of a failure. But pragmatically confidence grows in the theory,with the number of tests passed. If nature is a logically self consistent , law abiding thing, then we would expect that our approach would eventually give us a faithfull image. (However it is logically possible to doubt even that nature has these self consistent properties. If you are that skeptical, your project to understand nature cannot even start! and it will be difficult to account for the success of science in such a universe).

Certain concepts have been tested so many ways that we are confident that "nature behaves that way". Conservation of energy is one such. At the present time this is so well established that experiments which suggest it is not conserved will be doubted before we conclude that the idea is wrong. The experiment will come under extreme scrutiny for all possible causes of error and in all cases of the claim so far, errors have been found. This is not because some priesthood of true believers are defending their turf (nobel prize to any physicist who can definitively show a process in which energy is not conserved) but because we can have confidence in this "scientific method" to approach nature. Our confidence can even get to the point where if energy is not conserved in some process involving observed particles then hypothetical unobserved particles may be invented to account for the missing energy (beta emission and Pauli's explanation in terms of missing energy carried off by hypothetical nutrinos, much later shown to be correct).

Physics has built up a whole structure of such tested concepts, so any account of new physics has to be self consistent with the already existing structure, unless there is some very good reason to question a part of it (extraordinary evidence needed for extraordinary claims to be taken seriously). It is more than just a tautology to say new physical ideas are invalid if they violate well established physical principles.

I'm so in opposition with you here, especially with regards your exceptions to allow intoleration against certain past views and to rely on the latest evolution of credibility given to professorships within educational institutions. All social structures based upon such expedient measures evolve to become a future's churches no matter how well the endeavor intentionally began. We need to question old theories if only to how I notice you yourself seem to ignorantly presume upon those questioning certain ideas.

What I underlined and made blue above is where I find you presume something in error with regards to consistency. Our own existence BEGS us of the idea that all of reality is consistent. Note the origins of the terms to get my point. The roots of "consistency" and "existence" forms around "(s)is" which comes down to us from an origin meaning both "that which is" and "that which stays what it is: namely it's sameness qualifier". Thus "consistent" means, "with sameness". Yet, just as you share with me the understanding that we cannot do without models to defined reality, anything that has the property of "sameness" MUST have some quality of "difference" too. Therefore, we need to include a means to interpret reality as being a product of both consistency and inconsistency.

My mention of "existence" here relates to the direct meaning of the originators of the term. "Ex-" means 'outside'; "-is" or "-(s)is" comes from meaning what remains the sameness in action (now we use "persistence" for this); and "-tence", a term used to define a stance to what is normally considered a verb or action. Thus this points out how we understood "existence" to mean the objective world apart from our individual subjective consciousnesses. So in this way, the term simply refers to reality regardless of our personal capacity to be conscious as it doesn't impose that we must be alive to witness it.

You cannot maintain an appropriate right to close any old topic within science just because it appears to be effective even with predictability as this also leads to potential confirmation bias. The differences between SR, GR, and QM demonstrate real evidence of incompatibility which implies that something is wrong with some of the premises that make up all of physics. And yet, the establishment of the educational institutes have closed off our capacity to question the underlying premises regardless. We don't usually 'care' only because each of them (Relativity and QM) are subjects in distinctly opposing extremes (the very large and the very small). This could be (and I believe, IS) due not necessarily to major operational applications of the theories but rather to specific and variable interpretations within them that have been permanently locked in to preserve the credibility and integrity of the methods as practiced through institutional and/or political powers.

To me, I believe that modern science is in a paradigm that favors nouns over verbs. I understand that Obvious Leo takes the exact opposite. What I am certain of is that both are necessary. Unification of theories (including a search for unified theories) requires a step back to logic with a need to include an allowance for a totality (ultimate universal) that includes meaning to nothingness/non-existence/inconsistency/etc AND a procedural function using "contradiction" as a motivator within logic itself. Then we can actually solve the problems in science.

[nix]

I am all for questioning past and present presuppositions; but one does need a way of proceeding which accounts for past successes and identifies current failures ...

I only advocate "closing down" views which have already been shown to lead to predictions which disagree with empirical fact. Often many apparently new, off the cuff proposals for new ways of seeing things, were discussed fully long ago by the founders of the current view and experiments were designed and performed to test the view and conclusions come to. This is the point: there are some scientific principles (like energy conservation , the existence of atoms, etc) which act as foundations. It is not confirmation bias to doubt any claim that violates these principles. It just means any such claim is subject to great skepticism and will be tested with great rigour.

This doesn't stop people investigating possible failure of these foundations, but success there is expected to be very rare. (Eg quark confinement, no free quarks exist, is one such theoretical principle: this doesn't stop respected physicists looking in funded experiments in universities (so far with no success at all after 25 years). )

Scientific advance (in the physical sciences at least) is not just a con trick by university professors and academic elites done on the poor benighted rest of us...

It is in the university physical science research departments that the attempts to question the current orthodoxy is at its most intense. But the questioning occurs within a framework of well founded concepts.

[Obvious Leo]

But the questioning occurs within a framework of well founded concepts.

One such well founded concept is that the motion of every physical entity in the universe with mass will causally affect the motion of every other physical entity in the universe with mass. This principle applies as much to Einstein's model for gravity as it does to Newton's and to my knowledge is still accepted as mainstream science.

Q. Why is this foundational principle of physics being ignored in the Standard Model?

A. Because it is ignored in SR, on which the Standard Model is predicated.

[Scott Mayers]

I am all for questioning past and present presuppositions; but one does need a way of proceeding which accounts for past successes and identifies current failures ...

I only advocate "closing down" views which have already been shown to lead to predictions which disagree with empirical fact. Often many apparently new, off the cuff proposals for new ways of seeing things, were discussed fully long ago by the founders of the current view and experiments were designed and performed to test the view and conclusions come to. This is the point: there are some scientific principles (like energy conservation , the existence of atoms, etc) which act as foundations. It is not confirmation bias to doubt any claim that violates these principles. It just means any such claim is subject to great skepticism and will be tested with great rigour.

This doesn't stop people investigating possible failure of these foundations, but success there is expected to be very rare. (Eg quark confinement, no free quarks exist, is one such theoretical principle: this doesn't stop respected physicists looking in funded experiments in universities (so far with no success at all after 25 years). )

Scientific advance (in the physical sciences at least) is not just a con trick by university professors and academic elites done on the poor benighted rest of us...

It is in the university physical science research departments that the attempts to question the current orthodoxy is at its most intense. But the questioning occurs within a framework of well founded concepts.

Well, to give you an example of this, one thing I believe in is a type of Steady State universe such that expansion of space itself acts as the cause to derive what will become matter and energy. This view was and still is resisted precisely on what you mentioned regarding conservation. It is presumed that this could not be without violating conservation. Yet I don't see it this way. As expansion adds new information into reality, conservation holds with respect to including that addition all the time.

To me, the traditional BB explanation only presumes a magical original fixed quantity of energy that just appears and then 'decides' to stick with that quantity for equally no justification. It's a God-favoring belief that's been used to frame how science will politically act to preserve them along-side a secular interpretation.

Science CAN and WILL act as a 'con' even though it had original good intentions simply because the institutions they represent become political. I perceive much of all religions originating as actually secular descriptions that have become perverted through just such political changes through time. Given any significant loss of original meaning, old secular terms become names of gods for a future society to interpret the past as being in error. Thus we need to continue raising questions of the past 'heroes' and their theories in order to continuously be certain they didn't err by default of explanations that just happened to fit at the time but don't provide closure in today's world. I find it insulting to ones' intellect to assert that science asserts eternal non-closure and a permanent tentative state without recognizing that this requires one to distrust they also are being hypocritical when they also opt to assert a right to bring closure on any subtopic within science. If you want to save your cake and eat it too, while normal, it means that you're interpretation of your own belief in science is immune to be challenged. I already accept contradiction as a function of logic and reality. So I'm not being hypocritical as it already consists with my view. But if you hold that science is innocent from abuse by its empirical-only paradigm, you're betraying what you claim to stand for by dictating what should NOT be open for discussion within it.

I'm also not arguing here for 'equal time' for anyone's views like the Creationist might do. But if and where it is only about practical limitations only, this would be stated as such rather than declaring all alternate views as garbage. I happen to see evolution as a FACT in contrast to even most within the scientific community who might feign the theory as being falsifiable. But I also believe in closure as a reality along side of things without the capacity of such closure. Again, I'm not being hypocritical because I accept reality as having both by contrast.

[nix]

Well, to give you an example of this, one thing I believe in is a type of Steady State universe such that expansion of space itself acts as the cause to derive what will become matter and energy. This view was and still is resisted precisely on what you mentioned regarding conservation. It is presumed that this could not be without violating conservation. Yet I don't see it this way. As expansion adds new information into reality, conservation holds with respect to including that addition all the time..

A good example of my point:

Fred Hoyle was all for this steady state universe as i'm sure you know. He created a consistent theoretical model of it within the framework of GR. It was a plausible scientific theory which made a number of predictions. (Though energy conservation was always a problem). One of these predictions was about the numbers and types of galaxies which should be observed in any survey of the sky. The failure of the steady state model was not just the result of one consideration about energy conservation. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965, and its explanation in terms of radiation from a hot BB (actually 300,000 yr after the BB when plasma and radiation decouple), and the quantitative agreement between what radiation from such a BB will look like and what is actually observed ended the steady state model as a serious contender. The galaxy survey also does not agree with a steady state model but is consistent with a hot BB model. So several lines of independent evidence contribute to the confidence in the BB model.

[nix]

[
To me, the traditional BB explanation only presumes a magical original fixed quantity of energy that just appears and then 'decides' to stick with that quantity for equally no justification. It's a God-favoring belief that's been used to frame how science will politically act to preserve them along-side a secular interpretation.

That is to misunderstand the BB model. The BB model is understood using known physics back to about a time of a fraction of a second BUT between that time and time "zero" we get into physics at the planck scale where quantum-gravity principles are essential to understand what occurred. We do not have this unified theory yet so can only speculate about causes of the origin of the BB, and give plausible arguments in terms of physics we know.

See Horizon program "What happened before the BB?" for all sorts of speculations by theoretical physicists.

God is not necessary as an explanation of the B. (nor is God ruled out if you like that sort of thing!). For example one possibility is that a quantum energy fluctuation from zero energy gives all the mass-energy of the universe (a + energy contribution) offset by the gravitational potential energy (a - ive energy contribution) of all that compressed matter in the small region of space (the singularity predicted by GR?). But in the absence of a Unified theory we are only speculating.

[nix]

But the questioning occurs within a framework of well founded concepts.

One such well founded concept is that the motion of every physical entity in the universe with mass will causally affect the motion of every other physical entity in the universe with mass. This principle applies as much to Einstein's model for gravity as it does to Newton's and to my knowledge is still accepted as mainstream science.

Q. Why is this foundational principle of physics being ignored in the Standard Model?

A. Because it is ignored in SR, on which the Standard Model is predicated.

And that is OK for the standard model of particle physics because at the scales of mass, energy, length encountered in particle physics, at any energies we will ever be able to achieve in accelerators on earth and even in the highest observed cosmic radiation observations, the gravitational interaction is thirty orders of magnitude smaller than the electromagnetic interactions and even smaller than that for the strong nuclear interactions. We only need to take gravity into account in particle physics at the planck scale.

[Obvious Leo]

We only need to take gravity into account in particle physics at the planck scale.

The point I'm making is that the Standard Model ignores gravity altogether. If you've got a suite of particles with mass whizzing around inside the atom at close to the speed of light then the motion of each of these particles will be gravitationally affected by the motion of all the others. This is an unassailable FACT. What you're doing is getting cause and effect back to front because electromagnetism is not a cause but an effect of this sub-atomic process and the same logic can be applied to the strong and weak nuclear "forces". These so-called "forces" are EMERGENT.

Instead of wasting another century trying to force a square peg into a round hole by making GR conform to QM why not try a bit of lateral thinking instead and make QM conform to GR? Since physics is all about "what works" this must be the preferred approach for simple reasons of Occam economy. It works.

[Scott Mayers]

Well, to give you an example of this, one thing I believe in is a type of Steady State universe such that expansion of space itself acts as the cause to derive what will become matter and energy. This view was and still is resisted precisely on what you mentioned regarding conservation. It is presumed that this could not be without violating conservation. Yet I don't see it this way. As expansion adds new information into reality, conservation holds with respect to including that addition all the time..

A good example of my point:

Fred Hoyle was all for this steady state universe as i'm sure you know. He created a consistent theoretical model of it within the framework of GR. It was a plausible scientific theory which made a number of predictions. (Though energy conservation was always a problem). One of these predictions was about the numbers and types of galaxies which should be observed in any survey of the sky. The failure of the steady state model was not just the result of one consideration about energy conservation. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965, and its explanation in terms of radiation from a hot BB (actually 300,000 yr after the BB when plasma and radiation decouple), and the quantitative agreement between what radiation from such a BB will look like and what is actually observed ended the steady state model as a serious contender. The galaxy survey also does not agree with a steady state model but is consistent with a hot BB model. So several lines of independent evidence contribute to the confidence in the BB model.

Fred Hoyles' own contingent claims may appear to be dislodged but the nature of he interpreted what follows Steady State too may have been simply the error. My own 'Steady State' type of theory fits with the present observations using different interpretations of them. But just to defend what I DO understand of SS, I know that it does NOT logically break any rule of conservation with respect to the evident expansion of the universe! The expansion of space itself breaks the rule of conservation with respect to BB, however. This is because they propose this 'expansion' of space while simultaneously denying its existence. This is merely clever language to dismiss what they don't see as being conserved by declaring it unreal!!?? By contrast, although new sources of energy enter indirectly through expansion, it doesn't require that this originates as functional energy at first.

I don't believe the observation of what is called, Cosmic Background Radiation, IS cosmic background radiation, either. Its based on a missing interpretation of what light actually is and how it travels in long distances in space. All light requires a precondition of matter to create it. Even from our own experience locally, we cannot interpret any energy without matter as an a priori assumption to measure it. While most already agree that matter and energy are exchangeable, what isn't understood is that each point in space as it comes about from expansion represents the source to which matter is derived and only then light is a product of released energy of matter through vibration when momentarily destabilized. Also, with regards to light from distant objects, the missing factor relates to the actual nature of a 'real' amplitude component to the dimensions of light. While it is proper to think of Doppler as a result of stretching light in the direction of its path, it ignores that the actual path of light is literally as a two or three dimensional alternating path. So this stretching occurs in the path of the literal sine wave not just the translational vector direction of the wave as a whole.

There is too much ground to cover to attempt a disproof of all the problems with the accepted models and why I prefer my positive theory which DOES have unification. But it begins with my appeal to logic using contradiction as a source or 'cause' of change itself.

[nix]

We only need to take gravity into account in particle physics at the planck scale.

The point I'm making is that the Standard Model ignores gravity altogether. If you've got a suite of particles with mass whizzing around inside the atom at close to the speed of light then the motion of each of these particles will be gravitationally affected by the motion of all the others. This is an unassailable FACT. What you're doing is getting cause and effect back to front because electromagnetism is not a cause but an effect of this sub-atomic process and the same logic can be applied to the strong and weak nuclear "forces". These so-called "forces" are EMERGENT.

Yes the standard model ignores gravity completely. It is justified to do so.

"If you've got a suite of particles with mass whizzing around inside the atom at close to the speed of light then the motion of each of these particles will be gravitationally affected by the motion of all the others." This is simply not true, or rather the effect of the mutual gravitational forces is so small compared to the other forces that it is negligible by thirty orders of magnitude.

Unless you are referring to the increasing mass of the particles as they approach light speed...In that case ask yourself the following: at what speed would they have to be going to have a mass so large that the gravitational forces become significant with respect to the electromagnetic forces? What energy does this correspond to? You will find that this energy is way above that required to blow apart any atoms into a plasma of electrons and other fundamental particles and in fact will be close to the big bang energies. i.e electrons in atoms do not go around at light speed (far from it in fact).

The three fundamental forces (electromagnetism, strong nuclear and weak nuclear) do not emerge out of gravity as you seem to think. That is a misconception. How could they even emerge from gravity since gravity is a force that acts on all stuff in the same way (always attractive forces between masses) while electromagnetism has both attractive and repulsive forces two types of stuff.

Theories of unification of forces in physics have all four forces as emergent from something different from each of them, this unification only acts at energies close to that of the big bang. Particle interactions at energies comparable to the highest that will ever be even conceivable in colliders the size of a solar system, do not get anywhere near this and so we can ignore the gravitational interaction in particle interactions until we get to collision energies so high the particles can approach each other to within the plank length.