Higgs boson?

[theutvolunteers]

The problem with multi strata fossils and inverted petrified trees is that they supposedly stood this way for millions of years while the coal seams or limestone around them was formed. Right? Wrong. Of course that's absolutely impossible so millions of years can't have passed while the tree stood upside down. My ten year old can figure that out, yet the opposite is assumed to be fact because the geologic column ranks right up there with evolution as the best ways for scientists who don't believe in the God of the Bible to convince themselves that they're not going to spend eternity in hell. One example of circular reasoning on this matter is when scientists use limestone to date index fossils, then use those same fossils to date limestone. There are many, many examples of outright lies and circular reasoning in CSE videos entitled "lies in the textbooks" and "dinosaurs and the Bible" they provide specific examples of modern textbooks used along with page numbers and pictures of the covers. Children in America are being force fed absolute bullcrap science on a daily basis. I spend more money on Christian school every month than I do on my mortgage to keep this garbage out of my kids heads.

Is this real or a troll? You have no grasp of science at all. I feel sorry for your children.

 

[Thrasher865]

It is simple but whichever you choose has major philosophical implications. We either discovered the laws of nature and mathematics meaning they were/are in effect over everything or we invented such notions to grip with the apparent phenomena of our external world.

There are strong cases on both sides of the fence. If they are not a figment of our imagination (invention), then they were in existence long before our arrival. It begs the question, where did they come from? Who or what created them? Why?

Well, I believe in trying to "discover" these laws, we have "created" many. For instance, Newton's laws perfectly describe physics on the macro level. It turns out, that these laws are created, and they are simply a means of explaining the behavior of extremely large groups of particles, so you cannot exactly claim that these laws are perfect.

You're talking philosophy, and you should know by now I hate philosophy. I can stomach it sometimes when you're dealing with a scientific topic, but to me, this is just semantics.

Have we developed a theory that completely explains everything? No. So, since it's not perfect, I would have to lean more towards us "creating" laws that happen to explain certain behavior.

Space-time is a single entity. One does not exist without the other. To say that space did not exist before the Big Bang but time could have is an oxymoron. Either both existed or both ceased to exist.

Hence the "at least not space as we know it." Now you get into trying to figure out the distinction between our universe and any possible parent universe. Just because space didn't exist in our universe, does that mean you are going to say time didn't exist? Or is our universe a part of something greater, meaning time existed prior to the Big Bang, and the space which our universe fills wasn't created until the Big Bang?

Time is a function of space. I think time is nothing more than a figment of our imagination. I do not believe time is real. To be more specific, I think the "flow" of time is just an illusion. I view time as an illusion much like a movie reel. At it's most fundamental level, I think reality is static. Reality is nothing more than an infinitude of slices of space time which is experienced like a movie to us (humans and other life forms). Our perspective of this experience is what we deem as "time" or more specifically, the "flow" of time.

The best possible explanation I've heard is that time either follows, or arbitrarily our interpretation of time follows, the second law of thermodynamics. That is, time follows toward positive entropy.

Whether this is how time is structured, or simply how we interpret it, is at this point philosophical, and we have no better understanding of time than we do of "God."

It is pretty straightforward to assume that time is non-linear, though. Physicists have understood this concept for some time.

Hence the cosmological argument is alive and well.

My point was that saying the universe has to be finite is fallacious. We may never have an answer to the argument over First Cause.

There is a difference between implicit and explicit evidence. Your right, there is not explicit evidence for the multiple world interpretation; but neither is there explicit evidence for collapse theory or anything to counter the multiple world interpretation. However, there is a decent amount of implicit evidence for the multiple world interpretation; at least more than collapse theory imo.

There is not any substantial implicit or explicit evidence for either. That's why it is an "interpretation." Please point me to some of this implicit evidence.

From your posts, it seems like you give zero credence to implicit evidence. That is fine. Sometimes, in my opinion, you have to take implicit evidence where explicit evidence is not possible.

If there is no explicit evidence, then you can lean toward one theory over another based on implicit evidence. However, MWI does not have enough implicit evidence to favor it over collapse theory.

 

[Thrasher865]

So if our universe is creating other universes right now through "bubbling off," are we to say that time did not exist before these universes?

Here's one interesting theory on time:

What Is Time? One Physicist Hunts for the Ultimate Theory | Wired Science | Wired.com

Carroll: Even in empty space, time and space still exist. Physicists have no problem answering the question of “If a tree falls in the woods and no one’s there to hear it, does it make a sound?” They say, “Yes! Of course it makes a sound!” Likewise, if time flows without entropy and there’s no one there to experience it, is there still time? Yes. There’s still time. It’s still part of the fundamental laws of nature even in that part of the universe. It’s just that events that happen in that empty universe don’t have causality, don’t have memory, don’t have progress and don’t have aging or metabolism or anything like that. It’s just random fluctuations.

Carroll: The arrow of time doesn’t move forward forever. There’s a phase in the history of the universe where you go from low entropy to high entropy. But then once you reach the locally maximum entropy you can get to, there’s no more arrow of time. It’s just like this room. If you take all the air in this room and put it in the corner, that’s low entropy. And then you let it go and it eventually fills the room and then it stops. And then the air’s not doing anything. In that time when it’s changing, there’s an arrow of time, but once you reach equilibrium, then the arrow ceases to exist. And then, in theory, new universes pop off.

Does the Early Universe Harbor Evidence of Time Before the Big Bang? (Today's Most Popular)

Professor Carroll urged cosmologists to broaden their horizons: "We're trained to say there was no time before the Big Bang, when we should say that we don't know whether there was anything - or if there was, what it was."

So, you cannot simply assume that time did not exist prior to the Big Bang, because you don't know.

 

[Thrasher865]

What about this thought:

Similar to collapse theory, kind of, but it's internal to the observer. Nothing forces the waves of potential to collapse to a specific point, but rather the observer gathers the information and assigns a location to the particle. Then, you might think that two different observers could assign two completely different locations to the particle at the next instant.

If you observe the mathematics involved in Schrodinger's time-dependent equation, you realize that due to the multiplication of complex numbers, the probability of a particle's location is pretty localized to its previous position, because over larger distances, the potentials cancel out.

Many Worlds followers like to explain how a particle can be right here one instant, and on the other side of the universe the next instant, but as you get to large distances away from the previous location, the potential in the wave is infinitesimally small. Not only that, but as the particle/object has greater mass, the possible distances traveled over short time spans shrink even smaller. It gets to where the wave potential for something even the size of a proton is extremely localized.

Then, if a proton can only move inside a tight window, obviously objects on the macro level are extremely constrained. So, you will never see visible objects bouncing about due to this "quantum jiggling."

There are many other holes in this way of thinking, but if you want to point some out, I'll try to address them. There may be some glaring error that is simply explained in quantum physics that makes this an impossibility, but I haven't really looked into this all that well. Hell, it could be one of the many interpretations of collapse theory, and I just haven't encountered it.

 

[Thrasher865]

In Googling for references, I stumbled upon this:

First quantum jiggles detected in solid object - physics-math - 28 January 2012 - New Scientist

First time I've heard of it. Pretty amazing.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Well, I believe in trying to "discover" these laws, we have "created" many. For instance, Newton's laws perfectly describe physics on the macro level. It turns out, that these laws are created, and they are simply a means of explaining the behavior of extremely large groups of particles, so you cannot exactly claim that these laws are perfect.

You're talking philosophy, and you should know by now I hate philosophy. I can stomach it sometimes when you're dealing with a scientific topic, but to me, this is just semantics.

Have we developed a theory that completely explains everything? No. So, since it's not perfect, I would have to lean more towards us "creating" laws that happen to explain certain behavior.

Yes, but reality is either governed by inexorable natural laws defined in mathematics or it does not. If it is, then we are discovering them regardless of our difficulties. However, there are plenty of those within philosophy of science which believe there is no true rhyme or reason to the universe. Our (humans) biological instinct of finding patterns (useful to stay alive) is responsible for our hapless attempt to assign order and structure to our external world (universe). Such people cite the scientific paradigm shifts throughout the years as evidence of this. They would emphatically say, 'does the number three exist? If so, prove it.' Such as task would seem intuitively obvious; however, if you are up against a philosopher (who supports such a view) that knows their stuff, it is actually quite a difficult task.

Either way holds profound philosophical implications.

Hence the "at least not space as we know it." Now you get into trying to figure out the distinction between our universe and any possible parent universe. Just because space didn't exist in our universe, does that mean you are going to say time didn't exist? Or is our universe a part of something greater, meaning time existed prior to the Big Bang, and the space which our universe fills wasn't created until the Big Bang?

First, the part in bold. Space-time is a single entity. Time is a function of space. One does not exist without the other. Either both existed or both ceased to exist. I dunno how to articulate that any clearer.

To the second question, space-time could have existed prior to the Big Bang in another universe (D Brane). I think the real crux of your question rest on whether such a continuum is fully continuous or not. If so, everything we the thought about the Big Bang is wrong.

The best possible explanation I've heard is that time either follows, or arbitrarily our interpretation of time follows, the second law of thermodynamics. That is, time follows toward positive entropy.

Whether this is how time is structured, or simply how we interpret it, is at this point philosophical, and we have no better understanding of time than we do of "God."

It is pretty straightforward to assume that time is non-linear, though. Physicists have understood this concept for some time.

As far as I know, the Second Law of Thermodynamics analogy of time is only used to explain the seemingly forward movement of time when the equations of physics describe time as being able to proceed both forward and backwards.

My point was that saying the universe has to be finite is fallacious. We may never have an answer to the argument over First Cause.

I obviously disagree with the former statement for reasons previously discussed. The latter statement leaves the door open for the existence of God via the Cosmological Argument.

There is not any substantial implicit or explicit evidence for either. That's why it is an "interpretation." Please point me to some of this implicit evidence.

If there is no explicit evidence, then you can lean toward one theory over another based on implicit evidence. However, MWI does not have enough implicit evidence to favor it over collapse theory.

The apparent unitarity of the natural laws and mathematics through experimentation.

The experimentally verified Decoherence in Quantum Mechanics.

Mathematical Occam's razor in comparison to collapse theory.

 

[PKT_VOL]

So if our universe is creating other universes right now through "bubbling off," are we to say that time did not exist before these universes?

Here's one interesting theory on time:

Carroll: Even in empty space, time and space still exist. Physicists have no problem answering the question of “If a tree falls in the woods and no one’s there to hear it, does it make a sound?” They say, “Yes! Of course it makes a sound!” Likewise, if time flows without entropy and there’s no one there to experience it, is there still time? Yes. There’s still time. It’s still part of the fundamental laws of nature even in that part of the universe. It’s just that events that happen in that empty universe don’t have causality, don’t have memory, don’t have progress and don’t have aging or metabolism or anything like that. It’s just random fluctuations.

If we are talking about time being a function of space, then time exists regardless of whether someone is there to perceive it.

If we are talking about the "flow" of time, then no, it does not exist if nothing is there to perceive it.

Carroll: The arrow of time doesn’t move forward forever. There’s a phase in the history of the universe where you go from low entropy to high entropy. But then once you reach the locally maximum entropy you can get to, there’s no more arrow of time. It’s just like this room. If you take all the air in this room and put it in the corner, that’s low entropy. And then you let it go and it eventually fills the room and then it stops. And then the air’s not doing anything. In that time when it’s changing, there’s an arrow of time, but once you reach equilibrium, then the arrow ceases to exist. And then, in theory, new universes pop off.

Professor Carroll urged cosmologists to broaden their horizons: "We're trained to say there was no time before the Big Bang, when we should say that we don't know whether there was anything - or if there was, what it was."

Pretty weak case in my opinion. It has more to do with the direction of time; not time itself.

 

[PKT_VOL]

What about this thought:

Similar to collapse theory, kind of, but it's internal to the observer. Nothing forces the waves of potential to collapse to a specific point, but rather the observer gathers the information and assigns a location to the particle. Then, you might think that two different observers could assign two completely different locations to the particle at the next instant.

If you observe the mathematics involved in Schrodinger's time-dependent equation, you realize that due to the multiplication of complex numbers, the probability of a particle's location is pretty localized to its previous position, because over larger distances, the potentials cancel out.

Many Worlds followers like to explain how a particle can be right here one instant, and on the other side of the universe the next instant, but as you get to large distances away from the previous location, the potential in the wave is infinitesimally small. Not only that, but as the particle/object has greater mass, the possible distances traveled over short time spans shrink even smaller. It gets to where the wave potential for something even the size of a proton is extremely localized.

Then, if a proton can only move inside a tight window, obviously objects on the macro level are extremely constrained. So, you will never see visible objects bouncing about due to this "quantum jiggling."

There are many other holes in this way of thinking, but if you want to point some out, I'll try to address them. There may be some glaring error that is simply explained in quantum physics that makes this an impossibility, but I haven't really looked into this all that well. Hell, it could be one of the many interpretations of collapse theory, and I just haven't encountered it.

The first part is what makes quantum mechanics so difficult to study on an experimental level. It also makes collapse theory hard to believe because it has to collapse the same way, to different observers at all times.

The rest of your post is mostly mathematical. I will say that it sounds like they are assuming the branching is within our universe. If it was within another universe, I am not sure how distance would play a role; being they are not within the same four-dimensional frame (x,y,z, time).

 

[Thrasher865]

It's getting frustrating talking with you, because you continue to take things as absolute, when there is absolutely no way you can do that.

 

[Thrasher865]

Yes, but reality is either governed by inexorable natural laws defined in mathematics or it does not. If it is, then we are discovering them regardless of our difficulties. However, there are plenty of those within philosophy of science which believe there is no true rhyme or reason to the universe. Our (humans) biological instinct of finding patterns (useful to stay alive) is responsible for our hapless attempt to assign order and structure to our external world (universe). Such people cite the scientific paradigm shifts throughout the years as evidence of this. They would emphatically say, 'does the number three exist? If so, prove it.' Such as task would seem intuitively obvious; however, if you are up against a philosopher (who supports such a view) that knows their stuff, it is actually quite a difficult task.

Either way holds profound philosophical implications.

I don't care about the philosophical implications. Philosophy is a waste of time.

First, the part in bold. Space-time is a single entity. Time is a function of space. One does not exist without the other. Either both existed or both ceased to exist. I dunno how to articulate that any clearer.

To the second question, space-time could have existed prior to the Big Bang in another universe (D Brane). I think the real crux of your question rest on whether such a continuum is fully continuous or not. If so, everything we the thought about the Big Bang is wrong.

Everything we thought about the Big Bang? Everything who thought about the Big Bang???

We have never claimed to know much about the Big Bang, so I have no clue what you're talking about. The best we can know is up until instants after the Big Bang, but we've never understood the true nature of the Big Bang.

As far as I know, the Second Law of Thermodynamics analogy of time is only used to explain the seemingly forward movement of time when the equations of physics describe time as being able to proceed both forward and backwards.

No, once again you're using the inability to disprove something as proof positive. Physics doesn't "describe time as being able to proceed both forward and backward." It simply allows for the possibility.

I obviously disagree with the former statement for reasons previously discussed. The latter statement leaves the door open for the existence of God via the Cosmological Argument.

You refuse to accept that the universe is flat, as well, when it has been essentially proven.

The apparent unitarity of the natural laws and mathematics through experimentation.

The experimentally verified Decoherence in Quantum Mechanics.

Mathematical Occam's razor in comparison to collapse theory.

1) You're going to have to be specific. Unitarity in no way implies any truth to the MWI that I can see.

2) Decoherence would not be evidence of MWI. In fact, it could simply reinforce the theory I stated yesterday.

3) Okay, if you want to talk about Occam's razor, then I will submit a simpler theory to the argument and that has to be the correct one... Everything has always existed, exactly as it does right now. Done.

Using Occam's razor to distinguish between two competing theories is about the stupidest thing in Science, and it's not what is intended by the principle at all.

I could argue against MWI with it. If the other universes aren't necessary, they shouldn't be added. Therefore, MWI is incorrect according to Occam's Razor.

A variant of collapse theory that meshes well with decoherence would be preferred.

 

[Thrasher865]

If we are talking about time being a function of space, then time exists regardless of whether someone is there to perceive it.

If we are talking about the "flow" of time, then no, it does not exist if nothing is there to perceive it.

You're once again making assumptions and stating them as fact. Congratulations.

I tend to lean toward time being non-linear, but this absolutely cannot be proven. And it's really interesting to think of the implications of not just conscious beings, but the entire wave function following along time in a single direction.

It doesn't make much sense to the human mind, but then again, not much in physics does.

Pretty weak case in my opinion. It has more to do with the direction of time; not time itself.

Pretty weak case, how? Has at least as much evidence to support it as MWI.

And I thought the direction of time was what was up for debate. Was it not?

 

[Thrasher865]

The first part is what makes quantum mechanics so difficult to study on an experimental level. It also makes collapse theory hard to believe because it has to collapse the same way, to different observers at all times.

The rest of your post is mostly mathematical. I will say that it sounds like they are assuming the branching is within our universe. If it was within another universe, I am not sure how distance would play a role; being they are not within the same four-dimensional frame (x,y,z, time).

You clearly didn't read or didn't comprehend my post, because the mathematical part of the post is meant to explain the bolded statement.

Yes, we all see our own interpretation of the universe. However due to the mathematics involved in Schrodinger's equation, our interpretations would be indistinguishable from one another at a macro level.

 

[Thrasher865]

I addressed quantum jiggling, but then you could say that one person interprets a particle as being a slight distance away from what the other person perceives, and this starts a chain reaction, where it is then further away at the next instant.

This, of course, would also be wrong. The evolution of the quantum system would be dependent on the state of the entire wavefunction at the instant prior. The localized point that the particle is perceived at has no bearing. Therefore, the system would evolve exactly the same for all of us, it would just be up to our minds to interpret it at each instant.

If you want a very good explanation of the mathematics behind it, you should read The Quantum Universe by Brian Cox.

 

[Thrasher865]

Let me add, I think the reason we have long assumed time is non-linear, is because the 3 spatial dimensions we are most familiar with are obviously non-linear. Therefore we assume all dimensions are non-linear.

Let me just point out that time-space may indeed be linked as one, but man is the one that defined time as a "dimension." I think it's rather obvious that it doesn't have to follow the same set of laws that spatial dimensions operate under, because it is not a spatial dimension.


Also, I'd like to point out that everything I post is for the sake of discussion, and I do not take any of the theories that I have argued for as absolutes. I simply argue the point counter to yours to further the discussion.

Like I already said, I like to think of time as non-linear, and there is some support for this as you would say implicitly. If you believe that virtual particles are composeed of regular particles following a path backward in time, or rather a path through time that is opposite the direction we are perceiving it through.

 

[PKT_VOL]

It's getting frustrating talking with you...

My apologies.

...because you continue to take things as absolute, when there is absolutely no way you can do that.

I am actually very much against absolutes. I am very much an 'everything is relative' guy (Leon Trotsky). Hence, I am against the concept of true infinitude and an infinite universe.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I don't care about the philosophical implications. Philosophy is a waste of time.

Interesting. It is unusual for someone so interested in theoretical physics (and how the world works in general) and be so against philosophy. They go hand-in-hand. In fact, for most of history there was no difference between natural science and modern philosophy.

Science (theoretical physics) and philosophy tend to be intermingled.

Everything we thought about the Big Bang? Everything who thought about the Big Bang???

We have never claimed to know much about the Big Bang, so I have no clue what you're talking about. The best we can know is up until instants after the Big Bang, but we've never understood the true nature of the Big Bang.

1) The fact that it was the beginning of everything.
2) The fact that it came from a random infinitely small cluster of supersymmetry and mass.

Those are at the heart of the Big Bang, the creation of the universe. Our assertions of something, possibly another universe, before the Big Bang would change the fundamental concepts of the Big Bang theory.

No, once again you're using the inability to disprove something as proof positive. Physics doesn't "describe time as being able to proceed both forward and backward." It simply allows for the possibility.

There is no direction of time via physics equations. Direction of time is our, the human, perspective. The Second Law of Thermodynamics analogy is a way to cope with our perspective.

You refuse to accept that the universe is flat, as well, when it has been essentially proven.

The concept of a flat universe and an infinite universe are not inextricably linked.

1) You're going to have to be specific. Unitarity in no way implies any truth to the MWI that I can see.

2) Decoherence would not be evidence of MWI. In fact, it could simply reinforce the theory I stated yesterday.

They are necessarily for MWI to be true. I believe (I could be wrong) that unitarity as we know it and collapse theory are at odds on a mathematical level. Implicit not explicit evidence.

3) Okay, if you want to talk about Occam's razor, then I will submit a simpler theory to the argument and that has to be the correct one... Everything has always existed, exactly as it does right now. Done.

Preposterous given your apparent view on time. With my view on time, you might be correct.

Using Occam's razor to distinguish between two competing theories is about the stupidest thing in Science, and it's not what is intended by the principle at all.

I could argue against MWI with it. If the other universes aren't necessary, they shouldn't be added. Therefore, MWI is incorrect according to Occam's Razor.

A variant of collapse theory that meshes well with decoherence would be preferred.

It's mathematical simpler than collapse theory. Implications of MWI are much more complex.

 

[PKT_VOL]

You're once again making assumptions and stating them as fact. Congratulations.

Which assumption specifically? And no need to be a smartass (congratulations).

I tend to lean toward time being non-linear, but this absolutely cannot be proven. And it's really interesting to think of the implications of not just conscious beings, but the entire wave function following along time in a single direction.

1) What implications do you have in mind?
2) If you think time is non-linear, do you believe in eternal return?

Pretty weak case, how? Has at least as much evidence to support it as MWI.

Purely speculative, in my opinion.

And I thought the direction of time was what was up for debate. Was it not?

I am not sure the direction of time is up for debate. Mathematically, there is no direction.

Our perspective clearly has time moving forward to the future.

Now, why time seemingly moves forward for us is debatable; as is the essence of time itself.

 

[PKT_VOL]

You clearly didn't read or didn't comprehend my post, because the mathematical part of the post is meant to explain the bolded statement.

Yes, we all see our own interpretation of the universe. However due to the mathematics involved in Schrodinger's equation, our interpretations would be indistinguishable from one another at a macro level.

Yep, but such is the difference between the macro vs micro level. Such is the difference between mathematics and experimentability (I think I just made that word up).

 

[PKT_VOL]

I addressed quantum jiggling, but then you could say that one person interprets a particle as being a slight distance away from what the other person perceives, and this starts a chain reaction, where it is then further away at the next instant.

This, of course, would also be wrong. The evolution of the quantum system would be dependent on the state of the entire wavefunction at the instant prior. The localized point that the particle is perceived at has no bearing. Therefore, the system would evolve exactly the same for all of us, it would just be up to our minds to interpret it at each instant.

If you want a very good explanation of the mathematics behind it, you should read The Quantum Universe by Brian Cox.

The only thing that matters.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Let me add, I think the reason we have long assumed time is non-linear, is because the 3 spatial dimensions we are most familiar with are obviously non-linear. Therefore we assume all dimensions are non-linear.

It depends on what you mean by "linear". If you mean non-bendable then I would agree.

I tend to think the "linearness" (I think I just made that word up too) of the spatial dimensions as rooted in their perpendicular relation to one another rather than their "straightness" if that makes sense.

Let me just point out that time-space may indeed be linked as one, but man is the one that defined time as a "dimension." I think it's rather obvious that it doesn't have to follow the same set of laws that spatial dimensions operate under, because it is not a spatial dimension.


Also, I'd like to point out that everything I post is for the sake of discussion, and I do not take any of the theories that I have argued for as absolutes. I simply argue the point counter to yours to further the discussion.

Like I already said, I like to think of time as non-linear, and there is some support for this as you would say implicitly. If you believe that virtual particles are composeed of regular particles following a path backward in time, or rather a path through time that is opposite the direction we are perceiving it through.

From your posts, you obviously feel the spatial dimensions and time are decoupled.

What exactly is your philosophy time? What do you feel time is? Its essence? etc.

 

[Thrasher865]

Interesting. It is unusual for someone so interested in theoretical physics (and how the world works in general) and be so against philosophy. They go hand-in-hand. In fact, for most of history there was no difference between natural science and modern philosophy.

Science (theoretical physics) and philosophy tend to be intermingled.

Physics does tend to lead to philosophical questions, but they are not intermingled. They are completely separate subjects. I will talk to you about the philosophical implications of a discovery in physics, if it's related to a specific theory.

That specific question, however, did not interest me. I don't care whether these laws are intrinsic to the universe or they simply explain the behaviors if it's just semantics.

Now, if you're asking whether we are actually describing what is going on with subatomic particles, or only creating clever theories that explain observable behavior and don't represent the actual inner-workings of the atom, then I don't know.

Just look at Newton. His laws perfectly describe the behavior of objects at a macro level. And yet, he doesn't explain why. So it's a bit of both. There will always be something that we have yet to observe, so we will never fully describe the behavior of the universe in one united theory, I'm afraid.

1) The fact that it was the beginning of everything.
2) The fact that it came from a random infinitely small cluster of supersymmetry and mass.

Those are at the heart of the Big Bang, the creation of the universe. Our assertions of something, possibly another universe, before the Big Bang would change the fundamental concepts of the Big Bang theory.

As far as I know, the scientific community has never asserted that they know the Big Bang is the beginning of everything. They use that term in science channel documentaries for the layman, because it's where our universe as we know it came from.

Also, we don't know that the Big Bang arose from an infinitely small point of supersymmetry. We have never observed any anti-particles, and that theory was created to fill holes in our understanding.

There is no direction of time via physics equations. Direction of time is our, the human, perspective. The Second Law of Thermodynamics analogy is a way to cope with our perspective.

Like you said earlier, though, our equations were created to explain observed phenomena. I really don't understand what you mean by "there is no direction of time in physics equations." There is no direction to anything in equations.

There is nothing that says that time cannot progress forward on its own, independent of any consciousness observing it. There is also nothing saying that it can't be a non-directional dimension.

The concept of a flat universe and an infinite universe are not inextricably linked.

I didn't mean to imply they were.

They are necessarily for MWI to be true. I believe (I could be wrong) that unitarity as we know it and collapse theory are at odds on a mathematical level. Implicit not explicit evidence.

I remember reading a different possible explanation in a book recently. I will see if I can find it tonight.

However talking about decoherence. That is essentially another form of wave function collapse. It does not at all imply any truth to the MWI. It is an interpretational collapse, similar to the one I outlined in an earlier post.

Preposterous given your apparent view on time. With my view on time, you might be correct.


It's mathematical simpler than collapse theory. Implications of MWI are much more complex.

My point here was that Occam's razor is a ridiculous argument. Any physicist would agree. Occam's razor is strictly intended to say that you don't add unnecessary processes to a theory. It absolutely does not say that the simpler theory is the correct one.

I was not arguing that everything has always existed as it does right now. I was saying that was the simplest theory. So if you wanted to argue Occam's razor in the manner that you were, then that would be the correct theory.

 

[Thrasher865]

Which assumption specifically? And no need to be a smartass (congratulations).

That the "flow" of time does not exist when it is not observed. It seems logical, but does not have to be true.

1) What implications do you have in mind?
2) If you think time is non-linear, do you believe in eternal return?

1) Sorry, not implications. It's just interesting to think about.
2) No. Not necessarily, anyway. I cannot discount it.

Purely speculative, in my opinion.

That was my point. Purely speculative, just like MWI and string theory... String theory at least has implicit evidence.

I am not sure the direction of time is up for debate. Mathematically, there is no direction.

There you go again saying "mathematically there is no direction." Do you know what that means?

Our perspective clearly has time moving forward to the future.

Now, why time seemingly moves forward for us is debatable; as is the essence of time itself.

It is debatable. And nobody has any clue as to whether time moves independent of us, or whether we are observing a fourth dimension, that is in fact non-directional.

 

[Thrasher865]

Yep, but such is the difference between the macro vs micro level. Such is the difference between mathematics and experimentability (I think I just made that word up).

But that was my point. Your interpretation of the universe could be completely different than mine, but we wouldn't know it. We only think on the macro level, but as far as the macro level is concerned, there is basically a 99.9999999999999999999% chance that any object is going to be located within a range where we could not observe a difference.

Yes, I did completely make up that probability. The true probability is probably far greater.

 

[Thrasher865]

The only thing that matters.

Precisely what I'm saying. I don't understand. Are you changing your tune?

There doesn't have to be an infinite number of universes, and there doesn't have to be a wave function collapse. We can take in the information provided by the universal wave function and create the universe in our minds.

 

[Thrasher865]

It depends on what you mean by "linear". If you mean non-bendable then I would agree.

I tend to think the "linearness" (I think I just made that word up too) of the spatial dimensions as rooted in their perpendicular relation to one another rather than their "straightness" if that makes sense.

Sorry, I didn't mean non-linear. I meant... Hell, I don't know what term I meant. We'll call it non-directional, though that doesn't fully explain what I meant.

Obviously time is not "linear." Einstein has said this since general relativity. If two people can experience a different journey through time, that would be non-linear, wouldn't you say? I would.

From your posts, you obviously feel the spatial dimensions and time are decoupled.

What exactly is your philosophy time? What do you feel time is? Its essence? etc.

No, I'm not arguing that they are separate. I'm arguing that time is obviously something different than the 3 observable spatial dimensions. Just because we choose to classify it as a "dimension," doesn't mean it shares anything in common with the spatial dimensions. And that certainly doesn't mean that we can travel forward or backward in time.

I have long believed, as you do, that time is a non-directional dimension. But, lately I just don't even pretend to know. When you start thinking hard enough about time, it's really hard to say that we know much, if anything, about it.