Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Patrick Lockerby | March 26th 2009 05:19 PM | 33 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More The Chatter Box articles

All

About Patrick Lockerby

Retired engineer, 60+ years young.
Computer builder and programmer.
Linguist specialising in language acquisition and computational linguistics.
Interested in every human endeavour except the... Full Bio

Part 1, which begins our examination of the question 'what is time?' can be viewed here.
Part 2 Some travels through time.


This is a slightly whimsical interlude, presented as a break from the 'hard' stuff.

The first part of what follows is a speculation about a journey back through time. 
At some point in this fiction-science journey, fact begins to creep in.

"the end of our exploring,
Will be to arrive where we started,
And know the place for the first time."

TS Eliot, 'Little Gidding'

A Brief Journey Through Time

Through the ages, people find ways to know what part of the day it is. 
Nature knows, and the facts can be readily observed.  The sunflower tracks
the path of the sun.  Birds sing their dawn chorus.  Insects chirp and
fireflies flash as the last light fades.  Frogs croak.

But none of that helps when you have to pay your taxes, right?
..................................................................................................
The Beginnings of intelligence.

Let us journey together, back through time's mists of cliche to the dawn of man.  Try to imagine what life would feel like to a hominid with some human-like qualities, but lacking the gift of speech.  Like any animal, this hominid would be heavily influenced by the natural cycles of the year, season, lunar month, and day.  Let's assume that our ancestor had more than an animal awareness, a spark of what we would recognise as intelligence, and just a little curiosity - perhaps more than a little.  As we journey through time, we will encounter a small child performing typical tasks, but with a child's free time to wonder at nature.  I can never resist a pun, so let us call her Jean.  She has an older brother, Andrew.

Jean is sitting by a small stream.  She picks a flower and casts its petals into the water, watching them drift away.  From time to time she looks upstream, seeming to wonder why the petals don't come back.

Left with just a stalk, she casts it, too, into the water.  She is puzzled, but has no words with which to manipulate, master and control that puzzlement.  The sun is going down.  A tall sapling casts its shadow nearly to the stream.  Jean idly picks up a small stone and places it at the end of the shadow.  Stones stop things moving.  Jean plucks another flower and plays the same game.  She turns to the stone.  The shadow has moved.  She places another stone, a bigger one.  She looks at the low, red sun.  She knows that darkness will bring dangers. She goes home to the cave.

The social groupings  of the cave allow for little interchange of ideas or goods.  There is no money. There is no meaningful exchange of grunts.  The exchange of blows may be observed from time to time.  The group we are observing is very fortunate.  There is plenty of game, fruits and vegetables.  The stream can be fished by hand.  Accordingly, there is much free time.  In this society, free time is the only thing of real value.  It allows the group to flourish.

The next day, after Jean, and her brother, Andrew have done the chores assigned them they are free to play.  Jean tugs at Andrew and gestures towards the stream.  At the stream, Andrew tries his luck at catching fish.  Jean plucks a flower and begins her play.  She remembers the stones and casually looks at them.  For some reason she is not at all aware of she looks at the tree, its shadow, and then the sun.  She picks up a small stone and places it on the end of the shadow.

Jean and Andrew start playing a game of tag, running in and out of the trees, jumping over the stream, laughing in a gutteral kind of fashion.  These kids sure know how to have fun.  The sun is high and hot.  Some instinct in Jean makes her aware that about half of the day is gone.  She feels within herself a sense of power.  She can do things like pinning a fleece with rocks in the stream to wash it.  Jean and Andrew are having so much fun, but they know that the day will wear on.  Jean has an idea.  They must pin down the sun-shadow.  If it doesn't move ...

Jean tugs and gestures and grunts at Andrew, making him aware of what she wants to do.  He doesn't understand at all, but loves to show off his strength.  And so, just to please his sister, he places the largest rock he can on the sun-shadow.  Jean makes signs to show her intention that the rock should keep the shadow from moving.  They go off to play again.  A long time later they return.  The sun-shadow is between the large rock and the small pebble.  Jean has just learned that, whether or not you know what time 'is', you sure as shootin' can't stop it.

Over the years, Andrew puts more stone around the tree.  He comes to know when to expect winter and summer, when this plant or that plant will bear its fruits.  Andrew becomes the tribe's shaman.  Jean gets no credit.  Even before the invention of glass, that damned ceiling is there for women.

The group, and especially Andrew, gains fame as being able to know the 'when' of nature.  They grow rich in free time.  They learn that by banging two stones together you can make sharp stones.  By banging two stones together, you can also make fire.  Life goes on ...
.................................................................................................
A Few Words About Weights and Measures

It may well be that the precursor to money was the same thing as the precursor to math.  The pebble.  Pebbles are so incredibly fascinating that pebbleology should be a part of every civilised nation's national curriculum.  Perhaps not.

Things you can do with a few pebbles.

If you have a good supply of  pebbles, and a piece of wood with two holes in it, you have the foundation of a global standard system of weights and measures.  I kid you not.  The piece of wood can be as rough as you like.  The two holes must be nearly, but not quite, the same size.  This is called a go no-go gauge. It is based on the idea that a thing can be too big to go through the bigger hole, or too small to not go through the smaller hole.  A pebble which will not go through the smaller hole, but will go through the bigger hole is neither too small, nor too big, but 'just right'.  You can now select your pebbles to a close standard size by using the Goldilocks test.  If they all came from the same source then they should all be about the same weight.  We can test that with a beam balance.  Just place  equal numbers of pebbles in each bag or pan.  By careful selection and substitution you can find all the pebbles that are too heavy or too light.  Perhaps you never knew that Goldilocks was a scientist?  She was doing research into sleep therapy and the don't think a about a bear test.

Now that you have your pebbles, you can:

1 - Put them in a line, touching each other, against some other object so as to measure it.
2 - Put them on a scale and balance them against some other object.
3 -Put them in a container at a higher level and let them drop one at a time into a lower container with a very satisfying click-clonk-clink sound.  You can sell this one as a quack cure for soothing bad nerves.
4 - use them as tokens in barter and exchange.  You may need a lot of pebbles for this.  People will hoard your pebbles as a hedge against future needs.

Now you are all ready for business.  You can open a school of mathematics. 

Q: If W sells 3 pebbles of matchwood to Y at 2 pebbles per pebble, how many pebbles must Y pay.
You boy!  I did not say "Why pay?"  Now go and wait outside in the queue for ritual disembowelments.

Q: a chariot leaves Ur at 21 pebbles.  It arrives at the army barracks at 47 pebbles.  How long did the journey take?
Supplementary question:  If the distance between Ur and the barracks is 37,329 pebbles, what was the average speed of the chariot in pebbles per pebble?

Comments and End of Interlude:

Whatever we measure, the units are entirely arbitrary.  We are so used to using our weights and measures that we treat them as a part of the greater reality of the cosmos.  Velocity is just so many pebbles per pebble.  If  the ancients had measured acceleration, they just might have seen how crazy it is to measure events in time in terms of pebbles per pebble per pebble.  They might have done as we do today, and used a real person's name, an honorific.  They would probably have started measuring velocity in terms of something like  Bean units.
........................................................................................................................
From using clocks as a means to mark the hours, tides and seasons we have moved to the belief that a clock is a measuring tool.  It isn't.  It is, however complex, just a different version of the pebble counter.

But What is a clock?

All clocks relate changes of energy state to changes of physical state.  Hourglasses and water clocks relate fluid levels to potential energy states.  A candle uses chemical energy and fuel levels. A mechanical clock relates rotary orientations in pointers to potential energy states in springs or weights.  From another perspective, a weight-driven clock is an amplifier whose pointers show more accurately the vertical motion of a falling weight retarded by friction. Even a sundial conforms to the energy-physical state idea: the sun's shadow depends on the relative orientations of sun and earth's local surface.  Gnomon shadow angle and length can be viewed as pointers to the physical state of the earth's rotation, orientation and orbital location.  There have been many designs of clock, from the water-clock, or clepsydra to the caesium fountain clock.
..............................................................................................................................................
In the absence of inertia, there can be no clocks.   Absent inertia and the whole history of the cosmos unrolls in an unmeasurable instant.  That instant may be viewed as a dimensionless point.  It cannot be a point in time  since, without inertia, there is no possible way to derive the concept of time.  Imagine a world in which a mechanical clock has no inertia. Winding and unwinding would occupy the same unmeasurable instant. A cat would be a superimposition of all possible physical and evolutionary states, past, present and future, of all cats dead or alive.  It would beat Schrodinger's cat hands down in a wierdness competition.

Without inertia, we could quite literally throw a non-stop party.  The guests would all be instantly greeted, seated and sated.  The whole world could arrive, but the booze could never run out.  One bottle would be more than enough.  The booze could never run out because the guests all depart at the instant they arrive.  Also, since time doesn't exist, there is no time for them to drink before they leave. 

An absence of inertia is the direct equivalent of a superposition of all possible states and locations in the cosmos. A superposition of locations is implicit because a fundamental particle can occupy any new location instantly. A cosmos without inertia is a cosmos without time - the ultimate singularity.  That singularity cannot exist if inertia is added to the mix.

A clock, then, is a device for indicating the physical state of a system which is using or cycling energy.  Clearly, the concept of inertia is necessary to our understanding of the universe, as is the concept of energy.  Given that a change of physical state requires a change of energy state, it follows that if clocks measure anything at all, it is a flow of energy that is measured.  Any ordinary alarm clock could readily be adapted to show on its dial the amount of energy remaining in the spring.  In the case of a battery-operated clock, we could at least in principle dispense with the clock mechanism and use an electricity meter to more directly measure the chemical energy changes in the battery.

Remarks:
I cannot conceive of any experiment which could demonstrate the measurement of time without an inertial mechanism.  Thus, either we do not need the concept 'time', or we do not need the concept of 'inertia'.  Each is but a shadow cast by the other.

Continued in part 3

Edit: I will be making mention of Foucault's Pendulum in a later discussion of inertia.

Comments

Stephanie Pulford's picture
Love the pebble as the universal unit.  It reminded me of another ubiquitous measure.  When I worked for the airlines, a plane was slightly damaged in a remote place with no proper maintenance station.  In order to give the plane a thumbs-up to fly, we needed to ensure that a certain door handle could withstand a given amount of force before deploying, but the guys at the remote station didn't have any tools to test this. 

My coworker figured out the force in units of cans of Coca Cola, and had them hang Coke cans from a bag on the handle.  The plane flew, and everyone had a cold Coke to celebrate. 

In the absence of inertia, there can be no clocks.

Not true. See the Einstein light clock.

logicman's picture
Stephanie:  It's called applied pragmatics.  For every material there is an application.  You've reminded me of an article I read in a plant engineers journal - plant as in machinery, for all you wits. :)

An engineer was travelling in the desert when the gear-box lost all of its oil.  There were some bananas on board, so either the driver or the engineer, I forget which, filled the box with banana pulp.  The engineer worked at a foundry where the overhead crane kept leaking oil despite much fixing of the problem.  Filling the gearbox with grease instead of oil solved the problem.

A theory may be bananas, but if it works ...

Anonymous: are you telling me that light isn't subject to inertia?  A quantum of light crosses the cosmos instantly?

Georg von Hippel's picture
I think there is a mix-up of concepts here. A photon certainly has no rest mass (which I suppose Anonymous meant). It, however, also certainly has a nonvanishing energy. In any case, "inertia" is not a terribly useful concept to apply to photons, since as massless particles they will always move at the speed of light and cannot be accelerated or slowed down (they can, however, be deflected in a gravitational field, so you can attribute an inertia to their energy if you so wish).
I don't get why you would think that not having an inertia would equal moving at infinite speed -- massless particles always move at the speed of light, and nothing can go faster than that (and massless particles can't go slower than that, either). Relativistic kinematics can be counterintuitive. Inertia is about "resisting" an accelerating force, not about moving at a particular speed.


Gerhard Adam's picture
"Inertia is about "resisting" an accelerating force, not about moving at a particular speed."

Actually your statement is somewhat inaccurate.  "Inertia" is about resisting a change in your present state whether it be at rest, or moving at constant velocity in a straight line.

So you're correct that it's about "resisting" acceleration, but you're wrong when you require the object to be at rest (since moving at a particular speed would require acceleration to change it, it is not excluded). 

Georg von Hippel's picture
Rest and motion with a constant velocity are indistinguishable (both in classical mechanics [keyword: Galilean relativity] and in Special Relativity). Any change in velocity (note the difference between velocity and speed) amounts to an acceleration (e.g. an object moving at constant speed in a circle is continually being accelerated towards the centre of the circle). So, no, I never said anything about an object having to be at rest, and the statement you quoted is completely correct as it stands.

Gerhard Adam's picture
My apologies, you are correct.  I've been jumping in and out for the past two days, so I haven't been paying as close attention as I should. 

Once again, my mistake.


rholley's picture
In reading Sir Arthur Eddington's The Nature of the Physical World (1928, as I remember), it became clear that, although in our frame, a photon would take about 8 years to arrive here from Sirius, if one were able to ride that photon the journey would appear to take no time at all.

logicman's picture
Inertia is about "resisting" an accelerating force, not about moving at a particular speed.

General inertia:  a particle will continue unchanged in velocity and composition unless acted on by an external force.  This is true in space and in the mechanisms of a living cell.  Any change in the status quo ante requires an exchange of energy.  In the absence of inertia as here defined, no energy is required for change, and any change may happen spontantaneously from no apparent cause.

The concept of information is also to be considered:  it can explain the 'Humpty-Dumpty' effect, the arrow of time, in combination with information and causality.

I'll come back to this when I have a bit more energy.  Thanks for your input Georg.

Becky Jungbauer's picture
That's a great story, Stephanie! You should let Coke's marketing team know; make sure you get them to send some of the profits your way.

I very much enjoy your whimsical interludes, Patrick - hopefully you recover soon from your migraines. (Try triple distilled wild turkey whiskey. Might not address the underlying problem, but I can guarantee you won't care.) And to accompany your Eliot quote: "There will be time, there will be time...and indeed there will be time... In a minute there is time / For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse." Prufrock measures his time out in coffee spoons - there could be worse ways.

Gerhard asked in comments in Part One to consider how time could be measured without a clock, and what would the concept of time mean if there were no changes (and no clocks)? 
Note that in the last question, this would have to be independent of
an observer, since the observer's body itself would contain rhythms
that promote measurement.

I think that without change - be it measured by a clock, independent of an observer, or perceived by an observer as change from one moment to the next - you cannot measure our human conception of time. Measurements of a continuous variable require change, I think, and our notion of time inherently assumes there is a movement of time, or change...right?

Gerhard Adam's picture
Absolutely. So the question becomes, is this an intrinsic property of reality, or merely an artifact of human invention?

To be honest, at this point, I'm not even sure I'm not confusing myself, so I'll leave it at that until I get a chance to think this over some more.

logicman's picture
I'll keep this brief and try to address a number of points together.

Inertia is a factor in the making of all measurements.
It takes time to make any measurement, if you like.

If you measure a length with a ruler, your eye must move from the zero mark to the desired length mark.
This requires the eye to overcome inertia by the application of a force. But this is true of all observations. Einstein was absolutely correct on this point. We can never measure two things together. From the measurement of one phenomenon to the measurement of any other phenomenon requires the expenditure of energy.

You can't even see two things at once. It's impossible at the physical level of vision. The construct in the mind that we might call a landscape is built up from components observed through saccades.  If the eye is held still by some means, we see nothing.  Vision is a dynamic analytic process, the retina requires a moving image in order to discriminate shapes.  The eye moves from the hill, to the tree, to the stream, to the sky.  The landscape is a construct.  In a real sense, our present moment is already a memory.
"We live forwards, but understand backwards."

Henry Jackman


In order to properly understand the cosmos, we must first understand ourselves, our cognitive mechanisms, our in-built biases and our neural blocking filters.

“Know then thyself, presume not God to scan; The proper study of mankind is man”

Alexander Pope




Gerhard Adam's picture
Some points I've been considering:

First, it is axiomatic that there is a real universe with a separate real existence whether "we" are there to observe it or not (forget quantum phenomenon for the time being).  This subject has certainly been explored philosphically, but my reasoning goes to the point that we have evolved organs (as have other animals) that explicitly filter out the data to be able to respond to electromagnetic waves or pressure waves, etc.  Therefore it makes no sense to talk about the evolution of the eye without there being something there to evolve to detect.  Simlarly, this process isn't constrained to the visual spectrum since there are animals that can process the ultra-violet, infrared, as well as animals that can process sounds outside the bounds of human hearing and so on.

This leads me to surmise that there is a separate set of phenomenon that conveys environmental information which has been important enough to exert a selection pressure on the development of organs within species for which such information is useful and provided survival advantage to those that possess it.

Therefore in that sense that phenomenon is "real" and measurable. 

Similarly if such a reality exists, then it follows that we may be able to detect ALL, SOME, or NONE of the underlying reality that is being presented and while the measurement units themselves have no intrinsic meaning (beyond those we have assigned), the phenomena being measured is, in fact, real. 

It does not seem unreasonable to assert that the universe is asymetric with an "arrow of time" that allows us to experience cause and effect in a particular direction.  However, this doesn't mean that our perception of time is all-inclusive any more than sight is all-inclusive regarding electromagnetic waves (or photons).  While I may not be able to view x-rays directly, that doesn't negate their existence.  Similarly, because I perceive a "flow" of time, doesn't preclude it moving forwards and backwards. 

While it is true that a "second" is nothing more than an arbitrary unit of human measurement, it would not be true to suggest that it isn't a measurement of a real interval of time. 

So how can we know that time truly exists?  In one instance, I would argue that the oscillatory nature of many natural phenomenon give rise to a rhythm which suggests that a measurement such as a clock provides a real measure of change.  While I am aware that time doesn't exist for the photon itself, it is important to remember that there are phenomenon for which there is no specific "real" existence beyond the inescapable fact that we actually experience them.  An example of this is colors.  If we consider the color red, there is no fundamental property of the universe that deals with "redness", yet it is something which can be experienced by those with the appropriate sensory organs to detect a particular wavelength of light.  The wavelength for which this is experienced is certainly "real", but in the absence of the observer, the color "red" has no meaning (except insofar as it represents the particular wavelength, but then it just becomes a word). 

In the same vein when time dilation can be demonstrated to occur for particles (that are clearly not conscious), then we must conclude that we are witnessing an event for which our measurements provide a real interpretation of what is occurring.  In other words, for me to require "time dilation" means that the phenomenon of time must exist independent of my reference frame, such that it requires me to adjust it to remain accurate in my predictions.

Another part of this discussion focused on models and there is no question that models may emphasize certain features while neglecting others in an effort to describe a particular phenomenon.  Therefore I think it is overstating the case, to suggest that anyone seriously considers models to be "real".  However, when they work to predict outcomes, then we are drawn to the conclusion that something within the model must reflect a "real" mechanism and therefore offers, at least a partial explanation, of how things actually work. 

While it is true that mathematics is not "reality", it is a logical system that provides us a means by which we can extrapolate results that do reflect the real world.  By analogy, it is like flying an airplane in a dense fog using instruments.  The instruments are not "reality", but they certainly reflect the real world in which we are flying and one ignores their data at one's own peril.  In effect, flying an airplane on instruments is akin to navigating reality using mathematics.


logicman's picture
Gerhard: you are way ahead of the game here.  You might almost have been reading my rough notes.  :)

In the matter of 'reality' versus 'perception' - this has to be gone over in depth.  Very briefly, taking John Locke's speculations as a starting point, and adding in what we now know about the nervous system: human awareness is simply a matter of using higher level neurons NH to monitor lower-level neurons NL.  When NL consists of a system such as the eye-brain system, then NH is the 'mind's eye'.  But NHis itself a mode of perception with its own filtering mechanism.  There is no real and separate 'higher function' independent of perception - each aspect of cognition is but another mode of perception.

However much we want to believe we 'know' what reality is, the bottom line is, I submit, that we are are, by our very nature, destined forever to accept that the 'reality model' on which we depend for our very survival is but a sketch, an outline, a model created by each of us in the mind.  But pragmatically it makes good sense to assume an external reality as having caused us to evolve so as to be able to grasp at least some aspects of that reality. This fits nicely with both the scientific and the philosophic notion that causality is fundamental to our understanding of the cosmos.

I will skip over what you say about clocks - my next blog on this is in process and will return to the theme of clocks and inertia.

As to models: if we could ever make a perfect model of anything then we would be infallible.  But our models must always be imperfect.  That is why we must accept the tragic consequences of our frailty.  We can never build an unsinkable ship or an uncrashable aeroplane.  By the same token we can, I suggest, never build an unassailable theory of how the cosmos works.  We can only build ever better models incrementally.  Sometimes we see that the model has become less useful to us than it was to former investigators.  This is when, as Arthur Koestler put it, we 'recouler pour mieux saulter' - rewind, the better to spring forward.

In effect, flying an airplane on instruments is akin to navigating reality using mathematics.

This is a very insightful analogy.  Flight instruments are precision tools engineered to a high standard using well-known mathematical procedures.  These instruments are so accurate that pilots are trained and over-trained to trust the instruments.  But what happens when different instrument makers use different instrument languages?
The Sperry F3 gyro also provides a direct reading indication of the bank and pitch attitude of the aircraft, but its pictorial presentation is achieved by using a stabilized sphere ... with a sensing
exactly opposite
from that depicted by the conventional artificial horizon ...

my emphasis. Source: the day the music died.

Even a paired fail-safe system can fail:
The flightcrew may have received conflicting pitch and roll information from the two approach horizons as they attempted to recover from an unusual attitude.

Source: aviation-safety.net

Sometimes even precision instruments fail to model the real world.  But in the 'dense fog' of mass and energy that we inhabit, they are all we have.


Gerhard Adam's picture
I would agree.  Taking a "precision instrument" like mathematics, it is always interesting to ask what "infinity" actually means (i.e. does it have a real world corrolary).

It is my contention that reality is bounded and therefore the traditional view of infinity doesn't actually apply when looking at the "real" world.  However, I would also suggest that infinities in mathematics, don't necessarily imply a physical reality, but rather they indicate that the process being mathematically represented is consistent through all known or possible values (i.e. infinity).

Nature would place an upper or lower bound on what could actually occur, but mathematics helps us determine whether the process (or model) that we are employing is consistent in its predictions or results.  Just as division by zero is undefined, approaching the limit of zero (0) is entirely legitimate and can be quite insightful.

logicman's picture
When I ponder the infinity of space, I often wonder if there might be a planet at the farthest reach of our instruments in space, but not time.  A place where aliens are looking our way and seeing what we see - a whole mess of energy.  Are they even now  deducing therefrom that our part of a finite cosmos is a remnant from the big bang?

Perhaps the cosmos is truly infinite, filled with ever larger clusters of astronomical phenomena.  The anthropic principle does not preclude that, due to the general turbulence of space, we might see an apparently expanding universe where others, sufficiently far off might see a contracting one.  Have you ever seen a video of an implosion?  After the bits have passed each other at the centre of implosion, the picture cannot be distinguished from the results of an explosion.  Perhaps it is the same with the cosmos.

Note: the term 'implosion' is often used to describe controlled demolition.  The sense in which I use it here is a movement of particles with mass towards a common central region, due to gravity.   It is clearly illustrated by two galaxies moving first towards each other, then through each other and finally away from each other.
The space between stars is so vast compared to their size that during a
galaxy collision no individual stars actually collide with one another.

Source - enjoy the visual poetry of the cosmos!

Gerhard Adam's picture
"Perhaps the cosmos is truly infinite..."

I don't think so, since it can't be infinite and expanding at the same time.  Similarly the concept of infinity is based on the principle of being able to take any value and add 1 to it to obtain a higher number.  So since matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed, then we cannot perform the "add by one" operation at the universe level.  Therefore whatever matter exists represents a "finite" universe, albeit one that is expanding, but finite all the same.

logicman's picture
we cannot perform the "add by one" operation at the universe level

But what about the equivalent - adding diopters and/or aperture increments, or any instrument's equivalent measure of power?  In that sense, is there a fundamental limit to cosmic knowledge?  What if, beyond what we see at present, we find, in the future, zones where the cosmos appears to be contracting towards us?

According to Einstein, we should not be able to calculate Earth's velocity relative to the universe.  But the cosmic microwave background radiation anisotropy allows that calculation to be made.  So is this a WYSIWIG finite universe, or was Einstein correct?

Gerhard Adam's picture
Actually Einstein said that there is no preferential reference frame from which to measure absolute velocity.  Relative velocities are all we have.  Therefore we can calculate Earth's velocity relative to the microwave background radiation.

Gerhard Adam's picture
"But what about the equivalent - adding diopters and/or aperture increments, or any instrument's equivalent measure of power?  In that sense, is there a fundamental limit to cosmic knowledge?" 

Not sure where you're going with that question.  Since the point is that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed, I'm not sure what measuring instruments would have to do with it.

There is certainly a limit to knowledge in the quantum world, and there's equally no reason to believe it isn't limited at the "universe" level.  In other words, since the universe is expanding, a question that may be asked, "what is it expanding into?", but there is nothing there, so the universe is simply expanding into itself.  (It is meaningless to discuss any "region" of the universe that contains neither matter or energy, since by definition, it doesn't exist).

logicman's picture
since the universe is expanding, a question that may be asked, "what is it expanding into?", but there is nothing there

Only from a perspective that over-simplifies the anthropic principle.

I am suggesting that beyond the little bubble that we anthropocentrically assume to be the entire universe is an infinite actual universe filled with matter and energy.  Look up at any cloud.  Within that cloud you will find parts that appear to be contracting (to raindrops) and parts of the cloud that appear to be expanding (to invisible vapour).


Now imagine a metacosmos stretching as a cloud from beyond horizon to beyond horizon.  It is infinite in the sense that infinite means 'unmeasurable'.  Its size is NaN.  Its mass content is NaN, its energy content NaN. Somewhere in that cloud, one microbe in a warming raindrop is arguing that the universe is expanding.  Meanwhile, a microbe in a cooling raindrop not very far away is arguing that the universe is contracting.

Fortunately, not being microbes, we have developed the anthropic principle.  Don't you think it's about time we started applying it?

Definition of 'infinity' as applied in my theories:

When 'infinity' means some size, measure or dimension beyond human comprehension, such as the size or content of the metacosmos, then it is Not a Number.  inf = NaN. Any attempt to asign a value to NaN, or any portion thereof,  returns NaN.

How big is the metacosmos?  NaN.
How old is the metacosmos?  NaN.
How much of the metacosmos is visible to the bipeds on Terra ? 8.80 x 1026 meters.
What percentage of the metacosmos is visible to the bipeds on Terra ? NaN

How old is the portion of the metacosmos that is visible to the bipeds on Terra ? NaN


I shall develop the 'age - NaN' argument in the context of a theory of time part 3 or 4.

Gerhard Adam's picture
"I am suggesting that beyond the little bubble that we anthropocentrically assume to be the entire universe is an infinite actual universe filled with matter and energy."

Be that as it may, it is absolutely impossible to know any such thing, so you can actually claim anything you like.

The reason I'm using the term "infinity" as I have, is to avoid confusing it with the mathematical concept of infinity.  While something may be "unmeasurable in a practical sense", that isn't specific enough to warrant using the word "infinity".  Bear in mind that the size of the universe has certainly been calculated to account for its behavior, so I would question what you mean by "unmeasurable"?

logicman's picture
the size of the universe has certainly been calculated

The size of the observed universe has certainly been calculated.  But our current view leads us to assume that we are approaching a cosmic viewable limit, as we do with absolute zero in the lab.  I have given a definition of infinity which is not the same as used in mathematics. 

Let me use a new term: metacosmic infinity.  (This is on the border between science and philosophy.)

It is undefined because undefinable in the same way as 1/0.  In metacosmic theory, metacosmic infinity expresses any measure of a region of the cosmos which will always and forever be larger than any measure of the part of it that we inhabit.

The anthropic principle is founded still in anthropic assumptions - there is something about us that makes the universe the way, or seem the way it is, or vice versa.

Let's try to develop the unanthropic principle:
From Copernican ideas -
Premise: we must not presume to inhabit an exceptional place in the cosmos.
Observation: we seem to be occupying an exceptional place.
It follows: every part of the cosmos must look the same to all observers.
From this, it is necessary to move well away from simple concepts in order to formulate equations that satisfy this conclusion.

The unanthropic principle: we have no cause to assume that every observer in the cosmos will, or will not see anything like our parallax, human oriented view.  This is a matter of observation in the 'big picture' sense. The foundational assumption that the laws of physics remain constant for all observers is still a requirement.  But the notion that a particular interpretation of those laws of physics 'proves' a constancy of observation for all possible observers doesn't hold.

If the cloud model, above, doesn't cut it, just think of a volume, any size volume of gas molecules. The brownian motion, if it could be plotted for each molecule, would show that the pressure in the gas, although isotropic on average, is anisotropic within small sub-volumes.

Try to imagine a Euclidian, 3-dimensional volume of extent beyond human comprehension within which all matter and energy is isotropically distributed.  Now zoom in.  Treat this as something like a fractal image. What you see is a sequence of isotropies and anisotropies.  We inhabit a part of that fractal that happens to look like the remnants of a big bang.  Out at the edge of what we call the cosmos is a civilisation looking back at our region.  What do they see?  Is it a universal imperative that they must see exactly what we see?  From whence comes that imperative, if not our anthropic interpretation of our mathematical models?  Anthropocentricism is incredibly difficult to elude, because its presence in our own thinking processes is so elusive.

I don't know for sure, but I would expect most fish, even surface feeders, to have an air-water cosmic horizon.  But the archer fish is different.  In my view of the metacosmos - not a mathematical  hypercosmos - I want to escape the illusory and see, perhaps, a little further than the archer fish.

Gerhard Adam's picture

I don't draw the distinction between "observable" as being separate from some other existence.  This becomes especially important when we consider the behavior of quantum phenomenon.  In other words, there can be no "edge" to the universe from which we could launch a particle into the "abyss", so therefore whatever we can observe, must by definition, be the only universe that exists (by which we can have an interaction).  Anything outside of this must be in communicado and therefore incapable of making itself known or of being detectable (in other words, there can be no one looking in from the outside).


The anthropic principle doesn't need to be modified since it isn't actually extraordinary.  This is akin to someone making the observation in watching a movie or television program that the hero never dies.  However, this isn't a stretch, but is actually a requirement of the story.  In other words, stories are never told by non-survivors, but rather they are told by those that lived throught the ordeal.  Therefore, there is nothing implausible in a story that suggests that a hero must survive it to be the hero.  It doesn't make it hero-centric any more than a universe in which we can observe it makes it implausible that it be anthropic.  We wouldn't expect it to be otherwise.

However, you are correct (or at least on firm ground in my opinion) when you suggest that other civilizations wouldn't necessarily see the universe in the same way (scientifically speaking).    This clearly goes back to the problem of science using models and the role they play in describing "reality".  In that respect, I agree completely that our description of natural processes is entirely anthropic and reflects our own human bias' and culture in "defining" and "interpreting" what we consider the behavior of the universe to be.  An example is "wave-particle duality" where we suggest that something can behave as a particle or as a wave depending on what the experimenter has chosen to measure.  But this is clearly wrong, since what we are measuring is, by it's own definition" neither one individually but both.  Therefore what we are actually describing is something that behaves like a wave or a particle, but in fact represents a third type of entity which we are incapable of testing for.  Why are we incapable?  Because our world view only allows us to draw the analogy (at this point) between waves and particles.  Therefore as long as we insist on using that description we will be stuck with the contradiction.  We may measure particle-like behavior, or wave-like behavior, or even both together in a single experiment, but in the end we still don't know what "wave-particle duality" actually means.

So in that sense, I agree that another civilization might well have other analogies or worldviews that it can apply to its own understanding of the universe and therefore the interpretations of what the principles of physics means might be vastly different.



First time on this site, rather interesting "time" discussion.
However, NOBODY mentioned that the "time" becomes relevant ONLY when a photon interacts with a mass particle (did I overlook a comment like that?). Simply there is NO TIME seen by a photon until it interacts, i.e. it scatters on mass particle, changes into another photon via an emission of a mass particle(s) or simply gets absorbed by a mass particle. A "time" stands still for all photons unless they interact. So the notion of time is ONLY related to mass particles. Therefore, a photon that left the edge of our universe did not exist / experienced ~13 billion years in its moving frame. That notion becomes meaningfull ONLY after it interacts with a mass particle of our detector. In the same vein --> its trajectory has no meaning unless it interacts with a mass particle.

Gerhard Adam's picture
I also think that the concept may actually be extended to include ALL such interactions.  After all, what does it mean to say that an electron experiences time?

Reply to Gerhard's: After all, what does it mean to say that an electron experiences time?

Electron has finite rest frame mass, so one can attach a time to it. The same for other mass particles. Electron will not experience time only when accelerated to c, that is when it has "infinite" mass (not possible). That's the way I would distinguish photon vs. electron "time" non-experience.

So if I take my first approach (photon does not experience time), then the notion of "time" becomes a serial photon - mass particle(s) interactions. Our brain registers them as a "continuous" fluid like flow of electrochemical consequences. Here one can get into biochemistry, etc. My approach to notion of "time" is based just on photon - mass particle interactions that yield measurable sequence of events.

Gerhard Adam's picture
I understand what you're saying, but take a step back and consider whether it is even meaningful to discuss time in the sense of particles.

If time is NOT a fundamental property of the universe, then there is no reason to associate time with any elementary particle and therefore whether they "experience" it or not is irrelevant.  The only thing that is really stated by relativity theory is that:

1.  If we insist on measuring such interactions then
2.  We must take into account OUR time experience in the proscribed manner.

There is nothing in the universe itself that actually requires the existence of time for its continued operation.

Cont'd reply to above --> There is nothing in the universe itself that actually requires the existence of time for its continued operation.

Interesting!
OK, let's consider "very early big bang situation" when ALL energy resides in photons. Time does not exist! Photons cannot "register" time until they begin to create mass particles. So the "time" begins when non-zero rest frame mass is created, i.e. photon --> electron + positron, etc. To enhance this idea --> the "space" gets created when mass particles are created. Then the gravity kicks in as well and it all gets "complicated".

Gerhard Adam's picture
There's no question that events occur as a result of these interactions, however does this necessarily indicate that time is a property of the universe?  I'm beginning to think that time is a property of "measurement" and therefore only a means by which we categorize events, but nothing more fundamental than that.

In other words, despite the success of using calculus, vectors, tensors (and all of mathematics), these are not properties of the universe but only useful tools for describing and measuring the universe.  If time is more appropriately placed in the domain of mathematics rather than physics it could explain a great deal.

logicman's picture
Vlad: thank you for you contribution to this discussion.  I like your observation about photons.  I have covered this, but not in your words.  A photon carries information about the chemical nature of its source.  It has no clock.  It doesn't seem to suffer natural decay, but continues across the cosmos until it reacts with something. My theory of time suggests that our concept of time derives purely from observations of causal chains as memories. Our ability to extrapolate these chains so as to predict results gives us a sense of futurity, but time has no function to perform in the physical world that is not already performed by inertia.
You may be interested in the continuation of this theory of time  in part 3 etc.  Each part has a link at the foot to the next.


Gerhard, you wrote:
There is nothing in the universe itself that actually requires the existence of time for its continued operation.

... time is a property of "measurement" and therefore only a means by which we categorize events, but nothing more fundamental than that.

In other words, despite the success of using calculus, vectors, tensors (and all of mathematics), these are not properties of the universe but only useful tools for describing and measuring the universe.  If time is more appropriately placed in the domain of mathematics rather than physics it could explain a great deal.

Yes, yes and yes!  I like the way you phrase these ideas.  In fact, this way of putting things has helped me to clarify my own thoughts - thank you for that.  If you just add in the idea of energy states as information states, which require energy to modify them, then that is sufficient, I am sure, to explain the idea of time.  Even the idea of inertia is just a way of saying that all change requires the use of energy.

I'm currently doing some work on language acquisition.  After that, I'll be posting a new article on the theory of time.


Gerhard Adam's picture

I think that this may have a significant implication with respect to the "action at a distance" problems that are raised.

In particular, I'm thinking that the issue of quantum entanglement and how two separated particles "know" how to behave is got a faulty premise.  In the first case, it is presumed that the act of measuring one particle must result in the "transmission" of that information to the second particle so that it "knows" how to behave.  In the second case, it is understood that the state of each particle is not determined by their initial entangled state, but only established once one is measured.

However, to require the "transmission" of information to establish the state of the second particle cannot be correct since there is no interaction between particles once they have been separated (no photon emissions, etc.).  In the absence of an interaction there can be no time (and also no distance).

In other words, it strikes me that this question is almost like asking how photons manage to maintain a uniformity of motion in a straight line and synchronized in such a way that there are no leaders or laggers in the transmission.  How do the photons communicate with each other to maintain such order?  In truth, the question is meaningless because we don't know and can't know how the individual photons behave because they are experiencing no time and therefore no distance.  The only way we know something about them is when we measure them and force them to interact which is, by definition, disruptive (and introduces OUR sense of time).


Anyway ... I'm once again finding myself starting to just babble, so I'll have to give this some more thought.



I am digesting those three yes / yes / yes as stated by Patrick and Gerhard. Tend to "almost" agree. If so, then the "time" is just a human abstract creation and useful for our mathematics of the description, BUT the universe can get without it. Then we (... perhaps I only ...) may have to rethink a lot of "things". Vow!

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.