Time Reborn: a new theory of time

[Write4U]

It always amazes me how little modern cosmology is discussed in this forum. Probably since most still seem to think there is a singularity at the beginning of our universe. Eternal Inflation theory changed everything. Cosmology became a testable science. Over the last 40 years the advances in theoretical and experimental cosmology have been very revealing about the origin of this universe. Maybe even some physical evidence for the Eternal Inflation multiverse.

Wow, can you direct me to some reliable narratives?

As I stipulated before I am not a scientist and only rely on narratives by reliable sources (cosmologists, physicists).

I got the information about a singularity from Prof. Renate Loll's (2010) presentation on Time and the beginning from a singularity. Loll is on the cutting edge of science and a co-author of CDT, which was termed "very promising" by her peers as it does not conflict with either GR or QM.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACS1_5jyvHE

and from wiki,

Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) invented by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, and popularized by Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent. This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamic_triangulation

 

[Undefined]

It always amazes me how little modern cosmology is discussed in this forum. Probably since most still seem to think there is a singularity at the beginning of our universe. Eternal Inflation theory changed everything. Cosmology became a testable science. Over the last 40 years the advances in theoretical and experimental cosmology have been very revealing about the origin of this universe. Maybe even some physical evidence for the Eternal Inflation multiverse.

Hi brucep, I just popped in to catch up on what's happenin', and I noticed your (and everyone's) interesting comments.

Can you or anyone else explain how such concept as "Eternal Inflation" and "Internal Inflation Multiverse" differ from the concept of "One Infinite and Eternal Universe" with infinite many eternal regions of "Observable Universes" volumes such as the so-called Big Bang "observable universe" volume which we observe)?

Thanks. Back tomorrow.

 

[Aladdin]

So, he is essentially theorizing that the laws of physics aren't fixed? (But, rather evolving) Wow. Interesting.

Yep, that's what I got out of it, too.

So using this assumption (that the laws of physics are mutable), what is usually referred as Big Bang would be the most recent time these laws have changed. (By the way, wouldn't the Planck Epoch be a candidate for supporting evidence?

Sounds like a nice theory, IMHO. Though I have no clue how the heck it may be tested...

 

[wegs]

Yep, that's what I got out of it, too.

So using this assumption (that the laws of physics are mutable), what is usually referred as Big Bang would be the most recent time these laws have changed. (By the way, wouldn't the Planck Epoch be a candidate for supporting evidence?

Unfortunately, I don't think so. Reason being because you can't test the Planck scale in any present and/or future experiments. Planck only had meaning to decipher early moments in the creation of the universe.
The main problem in using it as evidence for what Smolin proposes, is Planck says that laws of physics are incomplete, while Smolin suggests they are unfixed.

Sounds like a nice theory, IMHO. Though I have no clue how the heck it may be tested...

I agree; I hope this man succeeds but traditional scientists don't seem enthused, from what I've read. Reason being, you can't test Smolin's theory with traditional scientific methods.

My hat is off to Smolin for shaking things up.

 

[brucep]

Wow, can you direct me to some reliable narratives?

As I stipulated before I am not a scientist and only rely on narratives by reliable sources (cosmologists, physicists).

I got the information about a singularity from Prof. Renate Loll's (2010) presentation on Time and the beginning from a singularity. Loll is on the cutting edge of science and a co-author of CDT, which was termed "very promising" by her peers as it does not conflict with either GR or QM.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACS1_5jyvHE

and from wiki,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamic_triangulation

It better be 'background independent', frame independent, dynamical and every other kind of independent from coordinate dependency. If it wasn't 'background independent' they couldn't even call it an attempt at quantum gravity. Enough of that. I think Smolin is a bit PO'd because his approach isn't getting rave reviews from his peers. I'm going to link a 2007 paper on Eternal Inflation by Alan Guth. I'll also link a discussion he had with some 'string folks' back in 2003. In 2007 the theoretical predictions that could be tested hadn't been tested yet. This happened during the great WMAP experiment and continuing in the highest resolution [CMBR] experiment ongoing. The Planck Experiment. Reading the information for 'interested layfolks' at WMAP is a great learning experience. This experiment is one of the greatest of all time. An amazing part of the scientific literature. So I'll link WMAP and I'll link the page where Professor Hawking remarks on the experiment.

Eternal Inflation and it's implications, Alan Guth
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0702178

The powerpoint discussion in 2003.
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/strings_c03/guth/

Magnificent experiment homepage
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/index.html
What is the Inflation Theory.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html

WMAP experimental team awarded the Gruber Prize for Cosmology. Professor Hawking comment about inflation is on the right hand side of the page.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

This is mind boggling.
First Observational Tests of Eternal Inflation
http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1995

A bit about what the experiment is measuring.
A CMB Polarization Primer
http://background.uchicago.edu/~whu/polar/webversion/polar.html

As we all know Professor Hawking has become a public icon. As a scientist his public image pales before his contribution to the literature which encapsulates his contribution in every phase of theoretical and experimental physics.

 

[brucep]

Unfortunately, I don't think so. Reason being because you can't test the Planck scale in any present and/or future experiments. Planck only had meaning to decipher early moments in the creation of the universe.
The main problem in using it as evidence for what Smolin proposes, is Planck says that laws of physics are incomplete, while Smolin suggests they are unfixed.




I agree; I hope this man succeeds but traditional scientists don't seem enthused, from what I've read. Reason being, you can't test Smolin's theory with traditional scientific methods.

My hat is off to Smolin for shaking things up.

There is no such thing as a traditional scientist. Some scientists, which are his peers, are disappointed with the content of his book more so than his basic ideas. He's done much scientific work as evidenced by his library of scientific papers. I've always believed what we call 'time' is associated with real natural phenomena. As a simple test I pick a universe which can be described by GR as 'dust free'. Using that metric to describe the flat universe is evolving over time.

 

[Write4U]

Thanks Brucep, for the links. looking forward to learning about the latest discoveries.

 

[wegs]

There is no such thing as a traditional scientist. Some scientists, which are his peers, are disappointed with the content of his book more so than his basic ideas. He's done much scientific work as evidenced by his library of scientific papers. I've always believed what we call 'time' is associated with real natural phenomena. As a simple test I pick a universe which can be described by GR as 'dust free'. Using that metric to describe the flat universe is evolving over time.

Yes agree, I used traditional for lack of a better word, at the moment.

 

[brucep]

Thanks Brucep, for the links. looking forward to learning about the latest discoveries.

It's really fun reading. In the early stages of inflation theory Guth wrote this great book on the inflation idea and the history of cosmology. The Inflationary Universe. That book really excited my interest in cosmology. Another fun read is Kip Thorne's 'Black Holes & Time Warps'. Basically a book on the history of gravitational physics. My two favorite physics subjects. Cosmology and Gravitational physics.

 

[kwhilborn]

Here is a thought that will raise some disagreement here regarding time.

I have come to strongly believe that time is not constant. Our past can change.

Much like the fate of Schrodingers Cat can change upon our looking inside the box, I will take that thought experiment further and claim/feel that Schrodingers Cat will live or die based upon our BELIEF/EXPECTATION.

I believe our consciousness controls our reality much more than we realize.

Imagine for a second you are swimming in the ocean with a dozen sharks circling you. You pray (/Ask Universe/Expect/Believe) for a boat to come along. A boat does come along, but had altered course for some strange reason 2 days ago. How did the prayer of now get answered two days ago by making this boat alter course?

Now I speak to those who are religious or have come to believe in the Law of Attraction. The more you think of an idea the more it comes into your life. If you dwell on debts, you attract more debts. If you dwell on thankfulness, you attract more reasons to be thankful. There are literally thousands of books on the subject so I will not dwell on the idea of it, aside from mentioning that to align your thoughts with the present the past needs to change. If you discuss shark attacks all day at work and come home and find a Shark documentary, Jaws, and a fake shark in your favorite sitcom then those tv shows were programmed in the past.

This is my view of the reality we live in, although I know many here would never accept prayer or LOA, never mind the concept our pasts can be altered.

I propose testing this could be by telling people they have a 75% chance of predicting a 50/50 outcome. i.e. Tell them the coin flipping machine chooses heads 75% of the time and then letting them use it. If the outcome favored heads then it would allow support to this theory, however the experiment itself is subject to mass consciousness beliefs as Wigner's friends - friends expectations would eventually all be factored in before collapse. This means all paranormal data can be tainted by mass belief, and would lower projected results closer to the 50/50 outcome we would expect from the machine.

We live our lives as probability waves which only collapse into reality sometime in our future.

Ignore, discuss, berate. This is the view from my pseudoscience standpoint only.

 

[Rav]

Much like the fate of Schrodingers Cat can change upon our looking inside the box

It's a thought experiment. No-one really knows what happens inside the box, and it certainly doesn't demonstrate that a cat can be both alive and dead simultaneously. In fact the sheer scale at which the events of our lives play out combined with the many billions of interactive observers makes any suggestion that our individual narratives could exist in some sort of superposition of possible states beyond ridiculous, especially when you extend that to past events.

Speculate all you like, but if you think you can co-opt quantum mechanical principles to lend credibility to your crazy ideas about the macroscopic world, you're mistaken. And you should go about making such mistakes in the appropriate forum.

 

[Magical Realist]

"The experiment as described is a purely theoretical one, and the machine proposed is not known to have been constructed. However, successful experiments involving similar principles, e.g. superpositions of relatively large (by the standards of quantum physics) objects have been performed.[12] These experiments do not show that a cat-sized object can be superposed, but the known upper limit on "cat states" has been pushed upwards by them. In many cases the state is short-lived, even when cooled to near absolute zero.

A "cat state" has been achieved with photons.[13]
A beryllium ion has been trapped in a superposed state.[14]
An experiment involving a superconducting quantum interference device ("SQUID") has been linked to theme of the thought experiment: "The superposition state does not correspond to a billion electrons flowing one way and a billion others flowing the other way. Superconducting electrons move en masse. All the superconducting electrons in the SQUID flow both ways around the loop at once when they are in the Schrödinger's cat state."[15]
A piezoelectric "tuning fork" has been constructed, which can be placed into a superposition of vibrating and non vibrating states. The resonator comprises about 10 trillion atoms.[16]
An experiment involving a flu virus has been proposed.[17]

In quantum computing the phrase "cat state" often refers to the special entanglement of qubits wherein the qubits are in an equal superposition of all being 0 and all being 1; e.g."---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat

Superposition achieved with resonating metal strip:

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ects-seen-in-visible-object.html#.Uf0l--bn_zc

Bringing Schrodinger's Cat to Life:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bringing-schrodingers-quantum-cat-to-life

Quantum Microphone puts naked eye object in two places at once:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-microphone

 

[kwhilborn]

@ Rav,

I still think I have the correct viewpoint, and likely always will. The "Multiple Worlds Theory" is equally ridiculous in my mind. The idea that we live out every decision we ever make in another reality. The idea that the Universe carries on, and is infinite in all directions also seems ridiculous. Contemplating how a nothing could exist outside the Universe or pre big bang is ridiculous. I think just about any explanation of Quantum mechanics is deemed ridiculous by some or many.

I understand the Schrodinger cat was a thought experiment and no real cats are killed, but the point is that from the timed random explosion/gas until the door opens the cat does (possible) live in juxtaposition.

many billions of interactive observers makes any suggestion that our individual narratives could exist in some sort of superposition of possible states beyond ridiculous, especially when you extend that to past events.

This is a case where the cat is living in a state of superposition until the door is opened. It is in this superposition extending to a past event (exposion/gas).

The entire concept of "Wigners friend" ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend

is based on multiple observers.

combined with the many billions of interactive observers makes any suggestion that our individual narratives could exist in some sort of superposition of possible states beyond ridiculous

Did Wigner expect the "Wigners Friend Theory" to extend only to one person, or would each of billions of observers also contribute. I think it is ridiculous (if we accept this concept) not to extend collapse to each new observer.

I am sure many here dislike Michio Kaku, however here is a clip I just found addressing your "Billions of Observers":

[video=youtube;Sh5GCwt9PDs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh5GCwt9PDs[/video]
or here is similar concept..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S3z4xpr_ww

Now if you want to ridicule Kaku for whatever reason, I am sure I can find a Quantum Physicist you respect who holds the same concept.

The point is that these concepts are valid (not disproved and held in many opinions as), but discussing them here will often bring a thread to the Cesspool.

The Schrodinger Cat in the Box thought experiment was meant to critisize the Coppenhagen Interpretation of quantum Mechanics which some say (This WILL be argued here I am sure), "Matter does not exist unless it is observed".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHwgSfJtByk

Einstein for instance refused to believe that Matter would not exist without an observer and maintained that the "Moon would exist" whether he looked at it or not.

This is a key aspect of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics - it's not just that the scientist doesn't know which state it's in, but it's rather that the physical reality is not determined until the act of measurement takes place. In some unknown way, the very act of observation is what solidifies the situation into one state or another ... until that observation takes place, the physical reality is split between all possibilities.

see ...

This is simplified idea of Double Slit ...

[video=youtube;DfPeprQ7oGc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc[/video]

Many here also dislike Fred Alan Wolf, but that is an easy to understand view of how the Coppenhagen Interpretation came into being.

There are many "rationalists" here on Sciforums who refuse to accept or believe anything that does not make sense in their heads, and there are also many conflicting views with The Copenhagen Interpretation. There are many here and elsewhere who are attempting to redefine the Copenhagen Interpretation, and it has come to mean a myriad of things at this point.


@ Rav,

My idea may seem ridiculous on the surface, but it is my view that many cannot grasp it. There are a lot of ridiculous sounding explanations out there for our existence, and this is the one I have chosen. Past must be alterable for some PSI experiments to work as well as they do (although that is only my opinion here, and will not turn this into a psi debate on this thread).

So what is your ridiculous explanation for life?

The ideas out there are already similar to what I suggested. I have only added that expectation influences collapse as opposed to just simple consciousness.


@ Magical Realist
First. Thanks for prividing evidence to Rav in support of the idea presented, but I would like to comment on one of your links.
in regards to..
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bringing-schrodingers-quantum-cat-to-life
He ends article stating ...

The question is, then, Shouldn’t measuring devices enter the same indefinite state that the quantum particles they are designed to detect do?

This is answered by Eugene Wigner with the "Wigner's Friend Theory". Someone writing for Scientific America should know that. Funny.

 

[Rav]

"The experiment as described is a purely theoretical one, and the machine proposed is not known to have been constructed. However, successful experiments involving similar principles, e.g. superpositions of relatively large (by the standards of quantum physics) objects have been performed.[12] These experiments do not show that a cat-sized object can be superposed, but the known upper limit on "cat states" has been pushed upwards by them. In many cases the state is short-lived, even when cooled to near absolute zero.

A "cat state" has been achieved with photons.[13]
A beryllium ion has been trapped in a superposed state.[14]
An experiment involving a superconducting quantum interference device ("SQUID") has been linked to theme of the thought experiment: "The superposition state does not correspond to a billion electrons flowing one way and a billion others flowing the other way. Superconducting electrons move en masse. All the superconducting electrons in the SQUID flow both ways around the loop at once when they are in the Schrödinger's cat state."[15]
A piezoelectric "tuning fork" has been constructed, which can be placed into a superposition of vibrating and non vibrating states. The resonator comprises about 10 trillion atoms.[16]
An experiment involving a flu virus has been proposed.[17]

In quantum computing the phrase "cat state" often refers to the special entanglement of qubits wherein the qubits are in an equal superposition of all being 0 and all being 1; e.g."---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat

Superposition achieved with resonating metal strip:

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ects-seen-in-visible-object.html#.Uf0l--bn_zc

Bringing Schrodinger's Cat to Life:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bringing-schrodingers-quantum-cat-to-life

Quantum Microphone puts naked eye object in two places at once:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-microphone

I'm not sure if all this is for my benefit, but if it is, perhaps you missed the part where I talked about the "scale at which the events of our lives play out"? And you know, that's orders of magnitude larger than a single person. It has to encompass the entire interactive system that all possible observers inhabit, and I sincerely doubt that you'll find a single article from any credible source that shows how a "cat state" could ever exist in such a scenario.

 

[Rav]

@ Magical Realist
First. Thanks for prividing evidence to Rav in support of the idea presented, but I would like to comment on one of your links.

He didn't provide anything that supports your assertion since "cat states" only barely encroach into the macroscopic world, and certainly can't persist amidst the myriad of observers you come into contact with in your life, which includes you by the way so we'd hardly need any others anyway.

 

[Rav]

Oh, and regarding this:

I am sure many here dislike Michio Kaku, however here is a clip I just found addressing your "Billions of Observers"

You just don't understand the subject at hand and how it relates to your crazy assertion that the present and past events of our lives are in a superposition of possible states. I mean you've actually got the cat out of the box so you and everyone else can see it. That's your life. It's on display. So how can the events that happen in it, especially the past events which have already been observed by you, and either directly or indirectly observed by countless others, be a "cat state"? They can't.

 

[kwhilborn]

@ Rav,

He didn't provide anything that supports your assertion

That depends on your level of understanding. He touched on many areas you seem to find ridiculous yet is commonly accepted by many renowned physicists.

Your following quote clearly demonstrates you have no concept of what we are discussing.

This

you've actually got the cat out of the box so you and everyone else can see it. That's your life. It's on display. So how can the events that happen in it, especially the past events which have already been observed by you, and either directly or indirectly observed by countless others, be a "cat state"? They can't.

demonstrates that you do not understand Wigner's friend. Belief in Wigner's friend is not even part of the question. If you understood Wigner's friend at all, then you would know that the "Box" can be expanded to include, your lab, your building, your street, your city, your country, or even the entire planet.

If you want to argue against "Wigner's Friend" that is fine, but you first need to understand the implications and the overall idea of it. You obviously have no clue about this concept or you would never have made the above quote. I believe it is faith/belief that affects collapse as opposed to mere consciousness, but how can you comment fairly on a subject you clearly do not understand.

 

[Rav]

If you want to argue against "Wigner's Friend" that is fine, but you first need to understand the implications and the overall idea of it. You obviously have no clue about this concept or you would never have made the above quote. I believe it is faith/belief that affects collapse as opposed to mere consciousness, but how can you comment fairly on a subject you clearly do not understand.

Keep digging that hole kwhilborn.

Even if consciousness does cause wave-function collapse (which is an idea that is taken seriously by very few physicists, although they will certainly discuss it if for no other reason than it's fun to do so) your consciousness would collapse the wavefunction of the systems you observe! And that obviously includes your own (unless, as utterly hilarious as this would be, you want to embrace some sort of reverse solipsism where your wavefunction can only be collapsed by other instances of consciousness because your own just isn't really 'present' or 'actual' enough to get the job done).

Further, other observers factor in because you interact with and share history with them. There's a feedback loop between you with respect to agreement about what has occurred. In other words, to some significant degree at least, your respective wavefunctions have collapsed in a consistent manner.

 

[Write4U]

You've actually got the cat out of the box so you and everyone else can see it. That's your life. It's on display. So how can the events that happen in it, especially the past events which have already been observed by you, and either directly or indirectly observed by countless others, be a "cat state"? They can't.

demonstrates that you do not understand Wigner's friend. Belief in Wigner's friend is not even part of the question. If you understood Wigner's friend at all, then you would know that the "Box" can be expanded to include, your lab, your building, your street, your city, your country, or even the entire planet.

If you are inside the box you are the cat, and know your state. But the observer is not allowed to see the cat and must always remain outside the box.

To an outside observer the world inside the box is Implicate. To an inside observer the world inside the box is Explicate.

 

[kwhilborn]

@ Write4U,

You also do not seem to grasp this experiment or The Wigner's Friend thought experiment. Try browsing Youtube for videos or lectures on these topics.

i.e. The cat's observation is not considered in the experiment, the Copenhagen Interpretation (or one interpretation of that interpretation as will be argued) suggests that the cat is not even really in the box until measured. This may seem hard to grasp so I suggest reviewing the second video I posted in post 33. The idea is that matter does not collapse into particles until measured/observed. This was ridiculed by Einstein/Schrodinger, and the Cat in the box thought experiment was meant to show the ridiculousness of the claim, but yet many still think The Copenhagen Interpretation to be correct. Many think that the cat is really non existent in either form until the wave is collapsed into a particle (matter/life/cat).

@ Rav,

you want to embrace some sort of reverse solipsism where your wavefunction can only be collapsed by other instances of consciousness because your own just isn't really 'present' or 'actual' enough to get the job done).

Now you are getting it. We may think we are in a collapsed state because we are aware, but are we?

if consciousness does cause wave-function collapse (which is an idea that is taken seriously by very few physicists

I will agree many here do not abide by that view but it was a view.

Wikipedia can give you rough outline of where it stands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind–body_problem

In the Copenhagen interpretation, quantum mechanics can only be used to predict the probabilities for different outcomes of pre-specified observations. What constitutes an "observer" or an "observation" is not directly specified by the theory, and the behavior of a system after observation is completely different than the usual behavior. During observation, the wavefunction describing the system collapses to one of several options. If there is no observation, this collapse does not occur, and none of the options ever become less likely.

This means that if there is no observer in your bathroom at the moment, people subscribing to this Interpretation will tell you it does not exist in the form of matter. Many people cannot grasp the Spooky thoughts we are now discussing, and very few people are even aware of The double Slit Experiment or its Interpretations.

The mainstream of the scientific community adopted an approach attributed to Niels Bohr. Bohr believed that quantum mechanics was a complete description of nature, but that it was simply a language ill suited to describing the world of everyday experience, and that in the human realm experiences were described by classical mechanics and by probability. Later an amalgamated, Copenhagen interpretation, similar to the views of Max Born, Werner Heisenberg and others, became the standard view. It requires a demarcation line, a boundary, above which an object would cease to be quantum and would start to be classical. Bohr never specified this line precisely, since he believed that it was not a question of physics, but of pure philosophy or even convenience.[14] Von Neumann, in his analysis of measurements, interpreted the demarcation line as the point where wave-function collapse occurs, and he showed that within quantum mechanics, the point of collapse is largely arbitrary, and may be placed anywhere from the first incoherent interaction with a complex enough object, to the interface of the brain with consciousness