|
Author
|
Topic: Hyperspace Symmetry
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 22. June 2003 17:42
We could say that increased dimensions, give more degrees of freedom, or more "symmetry", yet we live in a universe with breaking symmetry. There now only appears to be 3 space dimensions and one time dimension.
The brilliant mathematical genius Evariste Galois recognized the
symmetry of "groups" in his search for the solutions to certain
problems in algebra.
The genius "Einstein" recognized the symmetry of relativity and the invariance of the laws of physics for inertial reference frames.
Yes, of course, parity is violated and nature can somehow distinguish left from right. A difference from equilibrium.
We can denote parity by P , charge conjugation by C, and time reversal T.
Yes, nature also violates the combination CP with the weak interaction decay of the K meson.
There is a theorem that explains that parity, charge conjugation and time reversal may be violated to the heart's content, as one wishes, but one can never violate invariance under the combined operation CPT. This CPT theorem is one of the strangest and deepest theorems conceived-discovered-proved by the human mind
Reality could ultimately be perfectly symmetrical, but from our local
vantage we must conclude that a slight difference from equilibrium condition holds. "Broken symmetry". Remember, matter dominates anti-matter, after the initial moments of the "big-bang".
The *laws* , are symmetry relations though.
Here is an *excellent* explanation of time symmetry by the genius
William James Sidis:
http://www.sidis.net/ANIMContents.htm
If it is discovered that a mathematical structure corresponds exactly to reality, what is the most basic aspect? Reality? The mathematical structure? The morphism between the two? The mathematical structure is mental or "of the mind". The reality that the mathematical structure corresponds *with* is equivalent TO the mind.
Max Tegmark's "Ensemble Theory".
http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.html
It seems that the correspondence is more basic. The morphism relates the two.
An invariance principle.
Ultimately, reality is perfectly symmetrical, as the brilliant genius
William James Sidis realized. Thus what appears as the difference from equilibrium, is actually counterbalanced. John Archibald Wheeler's order from chaos, law from no law.
Very interesting
Yes, as a thought experiment, if we have an undisturbed{placid} pool of water, with no surface irregularities, it can be represented as a type of groundstate or homogeneous self cancellation.
{2^aleph} waves moving in opposition, 180 degrees out of phase, are "self cancelling".
---/\/\/\/\/\/\/\--->
<--\/\/\/\/\/\/\/---
A perfectly symmetrical groundstate?
{2^aleph} waves, in phase, moving in opposition
are "re-enforced"
---/\/\/\/\/\/\/\--->
<--/\/\/\/\/\/\/\---
Standing wave resonance
Reality has asymmetric aspects, or it is a difference from equilibrium condition.
The question becomes, what exactly are waves? If waves have no real , complement, or could we say that waves form their own complement with other waves.
Something comes from "nothing" where nothing is defined? as an infinite? homogeneous self cancellation. The infinitely symmetrical
"ground state" of existence?
The mathematician Roger Penrose investigated the enigmatic properties of "five-fold" symmetry. It seemed that in nature, two fold, three fold, four fold, or six fold symmetry could exist. Physicists and mathematicians knew this. Crystals grow by having the same figure repeated over again. It appeared to be impossible for a five fold symmetry lattice to be a growing "object", because the five fold shapes did not have the necessary congruence, i.e. they did not quite fit together.
Penrose discovered an interesting way to combine these five fold symmetries such, that they don't overlap, and they could congruently "fit together". The patterns based on five fold symmetry that can grow without limit are called "quasi-fivefold lattice symmetry".
Then in 1982 physicists discovered that a crystal of aluminum-manganese alloy had the quasi-fivefold symmetry. The symmetry is called "quasi" because the patterns do not exactly repeat.
The global structure of the whole pattern is more complex than the usual types of n-fold symmetries.
So the global pattern is somehow instantaneously communicated to the entire crystalline lattice!
Penrose's quasi-crystals points towards an idea of space-time, where all distant points are somehow directly connected, so that within each local region, there is somehow encoded, the "global" order.
Yes, very interesting, the universe could be type of a crystlline lattice structure .
My primitive diagrams are just a rough approximation, for a gistful interpretation Really, the waves don't move through a fixed background, they ARE their own background. The waves ARE space-time.
{2^aleph} space-time wavefunctions 180 degrees out of phase are "approximately" zero spatial extension, zero temporal duration.l i.e. quantum fluctuations. A homogeneous potential, free of physical law. No background metric. An infinite symmetry would mean zero constraint, because, increased symmetry gives more degrees of freedom.
There will be slight perturbations and fluctuations in this un-real form of non-distinctional groundstate. Brief flashes, or "sparks" of existence? ...interesting.
Are they crystallizations or *seeds* of informational potential? Mathematical structures that can, or cannot, sustain their own existence?
Yes, a non-linear time would be an accelerated process and need not be multidimensional. Time is rate of change
IP: Logged
|
|
Alix Nenuphar
Member
Member # 686
|
posted 22. June 2003 19:02
Russel:
Could you, perhaps clarify the precise relevance of this to intelligent design? I admit that I do not immediately see any applicability or constructive use that can be made of this concept.
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 22. June 2003 22:21
Discussions at Brainstorms need not be relevant to intelligent design, and thus Russell does not need to draw the connection.
If there were three main guiding principles for a new topic at Brainstorms they would be:
1. Creativity
2. Relevant to the very broad topic of complex systems
3. Respect for and familiarity with the disciplines to which your thread applies
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 25. June 2003 06:41
Yes, to clarify, we should say that a "crystalline lattice" is really a rough analogy ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
A logical, and more importantly, a symmetrical spacetime topology, with a possible Penrose fivefold symmetry gives space the ordered structure.
We could say that locally, time is linear. Globally, time is non-linear.
Russ
IP: Logged
|
|
Joy Busey
Member
Member # 610
|
posted 25. June 2003 19:19
quote:
Russell said: Reality could ultimately be perfectly symmetrical, but from our local vantage we must conclude that a slight difference from equilibrium condition holds. "Broken symmetry". Remember, matter dominates anti-matter, after the initial moments of the "big-bang".
Some interesting conjectures, Russell. If I am following (and that is certainly not assured), it seems that you are postulating an ultimately symmetrical ground state - which must be unmanifest in space and time because of its perfect symmetry - as sort of potentiality-well from which asymmetrical manifestations arise and draw their attributes. Asymmetrical attributes being relative departures from the symmetry that is unmanifest because it’s symmetrical. Am I getting anywhere close to your thinking is on this?
quote:
The mathematician Roger Penrose investigated the enigmatic properties of "five-fold" symmetry. It seemed that in nature, two fold, three fold, four fold, or six fold symmetry could exist. Physicists and mathematicians knew this. Crystals grow by having the same figure repeated over again. It appeared to be impossible for a five fold symmetry lattice to be a growing "object", because the five fold shapes did not have the necessary congruence, i.e. they did not quite fit together.
Penrose’s fascination with tiling is something he came by honestly from his own father, who had a similar passion for geometric shapes that could be fit across spatial dimensions to delineate the structure of that dimensionality. And by so delineating the dimensional structure, to formalize the degrees of freedom allowed by the dimension relative to the dimensionality from which it is is an angular departure.
This is a version of geodesics (by Wolfram), which Buckminster Fuller took to such architectural heights. Later discovered in nature, as your example was, in the form of carbon molecules we now call “Buckey Balls.” The laws pertaining to the degrees of freedom allowed by the dimensionality seem specific to the “gaps” or odd inserts that serve to fit the primaries to the Rienmannian metric. We can do this for spatial dimensions all day long, and find no constraints imposed by nature on the possible number of spatial dimensions we can generate into workable manifolds. Yet all possible spacetimes we can quantify mathematically in this way contain only one directional time constraint. They are all n+1.
So it’s logical for us to attempt to quantify time. What is it really? If it were a tile-able metric (dimensionality) there could be angular departures from its directionality, and there would be more than just one linear dimension of time. Yet all we know so far is that we add time in linear fashion to all the spatial dimensionalities we configure as if time could never be anything else than what it is here. Against what do we measure it to assure ourselves it’s linear, and what makes its directionality singular (forward)? Where are time’s degrees of freedom?
quote:
Penrose discovered an interesting way to combine these five fold symmetries such, that they don't overlap, and they could congruently "fit together". The patterns based on five fold symmetry that can grow without limit are called "quasi-fivefold lattice symmetry".
Then in 1982 physicists discovered that a crystal of aluminum-manganese alloy had the quasi-fivefold symmetry. The symmetry is called "quasi" because the patterns do not exactly repeat.
The global structure of the whole pattern is more complex than the usual types of n-fold symmetries.
It’s the “not exactly” repeating part that enables departures from symmetry, thus manifestation. We have at one end of the scale an infinite potentiality that is unmanifest because it is perfectly symmetrical, and at the other end an infinite power that is “supermanifest” because it is perfectly non-symmetrical (like a singularity in spacetime, a gravity well). Everything else is somewhere in between, giving us a beautiful universe, a nifty little planet, and a diversity of life forms. Reminds me of a verse -
“A handful of Nothing is all that I need, it contains plus and minus Everything. It’s the odd combinations that serve to make up all that you see before you.”
quote:
Penrose's quasi-crystals points towards an idea of space-time, where all distant points are somehow directly connected, so that within each local region, there is somehow encoded, the "global" order. // Yes, very interesting, the universe could be type of a crystlline lattice structure .
This almost fractal-like linkage might go far in helping to explain non-locality, as counterintuitive a phenomenon as we’ve ever run across, for sure. Again, the odd tiles or gaps might allow for just this sort of thing between regions of a dimension and between dimensions themselves. Like tunneling or gap junctions, the “rules of order” defined by that which holds the orderly lattice together.
Do you keep up with lattice physics on the arXiv or LANL preprint servers? It’s primarily theory at this point, but tied in with zero-point and various other postulated scalar fields necessary to prop up our so-precious Standard Model and its multimensional offshoots at this point in scientific time. You might be inspired by some of that work.
quote:
Yes, a non-linear time would be an accelerated process and need not be multidimensional. Time is rate of change
Really? Is that all time is? I believe this subject is primary to our understanding of all sorts of things, from the nature of the universe to the nature of life in time (and however many spatial dimensions life is free to straddle). I’ve heard time be described as movement, as entropy, as relativity and as psychology. Seems that your view of time is intimately connected to your philosophy or scientific field of interest. Are we describing time, or just aspects and/or measurements thereof?
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 28. June 2003 07:37
Good point Joy.
The old cliche goes something like:
"The more things change, the more they stay the same".
Time could ultimately be a symmetry, which is invariant.
if my understanding is correct, dark matter is presently a hypothesis, used to explain galaxy rotation and accelerated universal expansion.
http://www.learnaboutenergy.org/Matterrific/whatdark.html
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit6/dark.html
This caught my attention:
quote:
A (Very) Radical Suggestion:
Maybe Dark Matter doesn't exist!
Is our theory of gravity wrong on large scales?
Problems:
None of the alternative theories of gravity have survived tests of detailed predictions.
Hard to reconcile these theories with the observed gravitational lensing.
While still a possiblity that a few astronomers are exploring actively, so far this line of inquiry has been less fruitful than others.
If our universe is a self projecting computer simulation within a simulation within... within a simulation, which is a process, it would need to be an accelerated process.
locally, as the distance between two objects approaches zero, and velocity is low, space-time is a Euclidean geometry.
As the distance between two objects increases, space-time is a "non-Euclidean" geometry.
This non-Euclidean geometry uses a Euclidean tangent vector space to approximate its
curvature properties. "tangent vectors".
Is it possible to derive Einstein's field equation strictly in terms of quantum mechanical operators? using n-dimensional cross sections of cotangent vector spaces? Near a massive object M, the *isobar* cross sections increase in density, as wavefunction density gradients, a possible solution? to Hartle and Hawking's "wavefunction
of the universe"?
There is the Schrodinger equation:
H(psi) = E(psi),
where H is the Hamiltonian operator, the sum of potential and kinetic energies, and "psi" is the wavefunction. E is the energy of the
system. The square of the wavefunction, is the probability of the position and momentum for the system.
The Wheeler DeWitt equation is the Schrodinger equation applied to the
whole universe. Since the total energy of the universe is postulated to be zero(even though the Hamiltonian for the universe isn't quite defined) the Wheeler DeWitt equation is:
H(psi) = 0
There is a complementary path integral approach for this equation. Stephen Hawking derived the wavefunction of the universe as a path integral, for a complex function of the classical configuration space:
psi(q) = integral exp(-S(g)/hbar) dg
The problem is that "dg" is not well defined either
exp is the base of the natural logarithm "e" raised to a power. The power in this case, is the quantity -S(g)/hbar, where S(g)
is the Einstein Hilbert action.
The Einstein Hilbert Action:
The Lagrangian, which is the difference of kinetic and potential
energies, has a formulation in general relativity:
Lagrangian = R vol
R is the Ricci scalar curvature of the metric g, derived by contracting the Ricci tensor and "vol" is the volume form associated to g. The Einstein Hilbert action then becomes:
S(g) = integral R vol
"c" is the rate of self configuration of the universe. Spacelike hypersurfaces are endomorphically projected. A self embedding of surface integrals. This gives continuously increasing density
gradients, as matter-energy is quantum mechanically re-scaled. What
appears as universal expansion with radius R, is actually matter-energy contraction with radius 1/R. Total spacetime is
constant. A quantum theory of gravity. A Dual universal "Euclidean" formulation.
As an analogy, if the universe is a movie projector, the projections themselves cannot outrun the rate of projection. A photon does not move in a background of space, but rather, space and the photon are
both holographically projected from a previous iteration of space processed by time.
If nature has found a way to "square the circle", the fundamental forces are aspects of one unifying symmetry principle.
According to relativity, the ratio S/T must always be invariant for the velocity of a photon of light. Yet S and T can both be changing such that their ratio S/T is a constant "c".
Take a space-axis divided by time axis for the total spacetime of the
universe, and the ratio must be a constant "c" for a photon of light.
S/T = c . Total spacetime would be a constant.
If "c" is a rate of acceleration, then we must invert the expansion
model of spacetime such that matter-energy is condensing-shrinking at
the uniform accelerated rate "c".
According to string theory, from the principle called "T-Duality", the physics for a circle of radius R is the same as the physics for a circle of radius 1/R. So if total spacetime is a constant, and matter-energy would be shrinking at a uniform accelerated rate, it would appear to the shrinking beings in the universe, that their universe's spacetime was expanding and matter energy is the constant.
Fascinating...
Maxwell's equations and relativity explain a reverse temporal direction.
For relativity t = t'/sqrt(1-B^2)
Also t = -t'/sqrt(1-B^2)
Anti-symmetry:
AB = -BA
Russell E. Rierson
analog57@yahoo.com
[ 28. June 2003, 08:25: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Joy Busey
Member
Member # 610
|
posted 28. June 2003 12:31
quote:
Russell said:
quote:
[citation] Is our theory of gravity wrong on large scales?
Problems:
None of the alternative theories of gravity have survived tests of detailed predictions.
Hard to reconcile these theories with the observed gravitational lensing.
While still a possiblity that a few astronomers are exploring actively, so far this line of inquiry has been less fruitful than others.
If our universe is a self projecting computer simulation within a simulation within... within a simulation, which is a process, it would need to be an accelerated process.
locally, as the distance between two objects approaches zero, and velocity is low, space-time is a Euclidean geometry.
As the distance between two objects increases, space-time is a "non-Euclidean" geometry.
This non-Euclidean geometry uses a Euclidean tangent vector space to approximate its curvature properties. "tangent vectors".
I am attempting to follow without having to get too technical on the formulae... I gave that stuff up for Lent decades ago (very much on purpose), and have stuck with garden plotting and costume/staging design ever since. Went back to school for the UA Consciousness Studies course a few years ago, and still have the stack of “required reading” that made me cross-eyed trying to reconnect whole relational synapses that have, I’m afraid, been too long neglected. So at this stage of my life I’m looking more for the ‘big picture’ than for the math. So please forgive my simplistic prose and avoidance of neat formulations.
That said, you just might be onto something here. Einstein’s brilliant general and special theories were and are wonderfully explanatory of that which we observe and measure about our universe, and quantifies the relative symmetries quite well on the classical level. His equations are still highly predictive of things not observed until long after he died! However, two predictions that we have thus far been unable to observe or measure as “real” are gravity as a quantifiable field (propagated at light speed) and “white holes” to compensate for information [matter/energy] loss to gravitational singularities. Which break all the rules, all by themselves.
These shortcomings (and the unitary crisis they generate in QFT and the Standard Model) are telling us something all by themselves. We just haven’t yet figured out what they’re telling us. How relatively ‘important’ it may or may not be for us to understand the nature of the universe is a matter of opinion, of course, though it does have specific bearing on whether or not we can understand the nature of who and what WE are. Since we’re the one’s asking questions and looking for answers, after all. We know enough about ourselves to know we’re insatiable information processors!
I think you are correct to postulate that close up, spacetime is Euclidian. In two of my personal favorite models of consciousness (Penrose and Pitkanen), the interior re-projections are very much Euclidian spacetime “sheets” that come separate and must be “collapsed” into representational reality.
Here it’s illustrative to consider the nature of time itself as something with a degree of physical reality, thus with varying phase states that can be analogized by the phase states of water. The future exists at a critical distance (these are analogies, not exact representations) from both our immediate coordinates and our conscious processing. It’s “misty,” like vapor. Thus while we can intend to move our coordinates from ‘here’ to ‘there’ in time, we might get sidetracked, roadblocked, or even trip over the cat and break our leg before we get there. The future’s vaporous nature is not actualized until it gets close enough to be “now.”
The present is a series of “now” discrete divisions of time, each bordering on the next - a sort of boundary phenomenon analogized by liquidity. As if the vaporous future approaches the present and changes phase as the disparate molecules of possibility are actualized. Actualization being the collapsing process I mentioned in consciousness of the separated spacetime “sheets.” Penrose theorizes a single step process involving an extremal of gravity. Pitkanen theorizes a two-step process (at least), involving an extremal with a ‘hedgehog’ vector that requires more than one realignment to the prevailing “now” vector.
To keep going with the analogy, as the present fluidly slips into past tense, another phase change occurs and the past become a done deal, solid as ice. This is the actualization of “irreversibility.”
Dim as my elementary analogies may be, it’s helpful for me to grasp things in this way. To treat the time factor as if it were something more than a mere side-effect of movement or speed or distance or perception helps. Looking at it this way, time becomes less an incidental of geometry and more a specified modifier of reality itself. And if it can be thought of as an active modifier, it can also be conceived as “embedded” in something that is an angular (or tangental) departure from itself, just like spatial dimensionalities.
quote:
"c" is the rate of self configuration of the universe. Spacelike hypersurfaces are endomorphically projected. A self embedding of surface integrals. This gives continuously increasing density gradients, as matter-energy is quantum mechanically re-scaled. What appears as universal expansion with radius R, is actually matter-energy contraction with radius 1/R. Total spacetime is constant. A quantum theory of gravity. A Dual universal "Euclidean" formulation.
The duality you mention is actually closely akin to Penrose’s formulation (also an endomorphic projection). Are you familiar with it? This concerns Mind (consciousness), but I’ve always had the strong suspicion that the most ancient formal metaphysic is the most essentially accurate as a guide to what we should be looking for - “As above, so below.” A rather striking allusion to what we now call fractal or scale-relative manifestation, as old as the pyramids in relative time...
quote:
As an analogy, if the universe is a movie projector, the projections themselves cannot outrun the rate of projection. A photon does not move in a background of space, but rather, space and the photon are both holographically projected from a previous iteration of space processed by time.
If nature has found a way to "square the circle", the fundamental forces are aspects of one unifying symmetry principle. According to relativity, the ratio S/T must always be invariant for the velocity of a photon of light. Yet S and T can both be changing such that their ratio S/T is a constant "c".
Again, I think you’re onto something. It’s the relativity - the ratio - that gives birth to the appearance. Manifestation. We could be assuming the appearance is the entire story, when it’s all relative to a much broader reality - scale relativity. We can’t physically put ourselves “outside” the universe [spacetime] to observe the ‘big picture,’ but we can transcend physical limitations by virtue of mind.
I can send my mind all the way back in space and time to the Big Bang in a fraction of a second. High energy physicists do this a hundred thousand times a day! We may never physically quantify what we can theorize about things like WHAT space and time is embedded in, but if broader theory - ways of thinking about reality - prove useful here FAPP, there’s no good reason to arbitrarily limit our spacetime-transcendent flights of fancy. We have the innate ability. It’s there for us to use.
In line with this, have you been following the recent incoming evidence of an inconstant alpha? Paul Davies and several other astrophysicists are asserting that it is likely the speed of light that is variable rather than the e charge (which, if it were different in the past, would not give us the universe we currently observe/measure). To 300,000 years from the BB, that is. Before that we can’t be sure.
Deal is, a variable c would contribute to the appearance of expansion (red-shifting). If the evidence continues to be confirmed, we will definitely have to re-assess expansion. It could be an illusion. What you say here seems to coincide.
quote:
According to string theory, from the principle called "T-Duality", the physics for a circle of radius R is the same as the physics for a circle of radius 1/R. So if total spacetime is a constant, and matter-energy would be shrinking at a uniform accelerated rate, it would appear to the shrinking beings in the universe, that their universe's spacetime was expanding and matter energy is the constant.
I think I’m getting close to following you. A question - if matter energy is the constant, what does the loss of matter energy into gravitational singularities do to this “flat” (zero total energy) constant you propose?
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 28. June 2003 18:05
quote:
I think I’m getting close to following you. A question - if matter energy is the constant, what does the loss of matter energy into gravitational singularities do to this “flat” (zero total energy) constant you propose?
Stephen Hawking derived black hole thermodynamics, which explains how the matter falling into a gravitational singularity, could eventually be returned to the universe as radiation. The formula for black hole entropy points toward the possibility that the information that falls into a black hole, may be stored, similarly to the way information is stored on a phonograph record, then it gets played back as the black hole evaporates.
Professor Hawking's entropy formula:
Entropy = [Area of event horizon]*[Boltzmann's constant]*[speed of light^3]/4*[Planck's constant/2pi]*[Newton's universal gravitational constant]
S = [A*k*c^3]/[4*hbar*G]
Quantum gravity and thermodynamics are related.
The R - 1/R duality of string theory and the CTMU, gives two ways of looking at the world. Which way is correct? R with spacetime expansion? Or 1/R with matter-energy requantization?
Both could be correct, depending on the perspective of the observer.
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 29. June 2003 06:56
Big bang-------->Inflation
Chaos---------->Order
Freedom-------->Constraint
Greater(infinite)symmetry-->lesser(finite)symmetry
Which one of the above logical implications is the most "general" ?
I say the symmetry definition is the most general and also the most fundamental. The universally distributive laws of nature are explained in terms of symmetry. Also, Cantor's "alephs" could be explained as cardinal identities, akin to "qualia" from which, elements of our
finite reality can be derived.
I suppose we could say that the completed infinities of Cantor are distributive in nature, similar to the way that a set of "red" objects
has the distributive property of redness. Predicates like "red" are numbers in the sense that they interact algebraically according to the
laws of Boolean algebra. Take one object away from the set of red objects and the distributive number "red" still describes the set. The
distributive identity "natural number" or "real number" describes an entire set of individual objects.
The Cantorian alephs can be set into a one to one correspondence with a proper subset of of themselves. So we see that these infinite
Cantorian alephs are really distributive.
Yet, if we have a finite set of 7 objects, the cardinal number 7 does not really distribute over its individual subsets. Take anything away
from the set and the number 7 ceases to describe it.
We also see that symmetry is self evident and therefore distributive via the laws of nature, and is distributed over the entire set called
reality. Symmetry appears to be a stratification of Cantorian alephs with varying degrees of freedom. More freedom = greater symmetry = higher infinity-alephs. So the highest aleph, the "absolute-infinity" distrubutes over the entire set called reality and gives it "identity".
Total nothingness would be this highest infinite symmetry. A distributive mathematical identity.
This fact is reflected in part, by the conservation laws.
So if an unbound potential and a constrained "bound" potential are somehow different yet the same, this difference and sameness relation is a symmetry and we see that freedom and constraint form a relation that can be described by an invariance principle.
Symmetry.
Russ
IP: Logged
|
|
Joy Busey
Member
Member # 610
|
posted 29. June 2003 11:58
quote:
Russell said: Stephen Hawking derived black hole thermodynamics, which explains how the matter falling into a gravitational singularity, could eventually be returned to the universe as radiation. The formula for black hole entropy points toward the possibility that the information that falls into a black hole, may be stored, similarly to the way information is stored on a phonograph record, then it gets played back as the black hole evaporates.
Actually, Hawking is talking virtual particles generated at the event horizon from the zero point field. Most will annihilate back to zero, but it’s possible a pair might separate to become “real,” one inside the hole to negatively effect mass, one positively escaping into the universe. One particle at a time, out of billions generated from the field (NOT the hole) that never become “real.” Nothing that goes in ever comes out. It’s just entropy.
A hole with a basic mass (enough to become a hole from a star in the first place) would have a temperature of ~1 ten-millionth of a degree above absolute zero from this radiation. The cosmic background is nearly three degrees ABOVE that, so the hole absorbs more than it emits by entropy from its boundary. And that’s an isolation scenario, where there is no gas or dust or other matter/energy in the vicinity of the hole to be sucked in to increase itself. Just cosmic background.
This basic hole would never radiate itself away, though in isolation it may stabilize when the universal background gets to ~1 ten-millionth of a degree. This is why Hawking and Penrose have that “End Time” model of the universe depicting heat death and a bunch of big black holes and nothing else.
Holes such as those we call “Galactic Engines” are certainly hot, but that’s not virtual particles becoming “real.” It’s the violence of a million suns a second torn apart by tidal forces and disappearing into the maelstrom. Never to be seen or heard from again.
That’s loss of matter/energy - the info-units of our universe. They aren’t recycled, and they aren’t “replayed.” The universe has evolved in time and generated these holes, so the universe’s information constant cannot be zero. That’s why I mentioned the conspicuous absence of “white holes” to compensate the loss by the creation of matter and energy. Which should be there if the constant is zero.
Matter/energy is not created anywhere that we can find. It changes form in lots of places. And it is lost down gravity vacuums that sweep our timespace clean. It goes away. We don’t know and can’t know if it’s destroyed, but we do know it’s gone forever. We also don’t know where it actually goes, because time ends at the boundary.
Our universe is timebound, as all things manifest in our universe are timebound. It began, and it will end. It’s constant wasn’t constant in the beginning, it’s not entirely constant now, and it won’t be constant in the end, if constancy is a meaningful concept to existence, or even just to life. Material manifestation is a sub-set of totality. It is not the totality.
In my thinking (which can of course be readily ignored), it all boils down to time. Which in case you haven’t noticed, we know very little about. I do not believe it’s just a side-effect, and I don’t believe it’s a full dimensionality. I believe it’s a singular, discrete symmetry (a “grain” of infinite time - eternity - in the Planck level lattice) that deflects matter and energy - a boundary phenomenon. Timebound manifestation is deflected along a trajectory of “least resistence” point to point, moment to moment, determined by the previous directionality - the collective sum over histories of that which is deflected. Like inertia.
And only that which is not materially manifest (is not matter, EM or exchange force) can escape the inertia of time. Our consciousness is not timebound. There will come a time for all consciousness when it separates from its material housing. The housing goes on, atoms and molecules of timebound matter, but the consciousness “goes away.” Where does it go?
This is a boundary phenomenon too, I believe. The consciousness, separated from the inertia of matter, takes a different trajectory. Eternity surrounds us and permeates us. All around us, all the time. Manifestation here in 3+1 cannot access eternity directly. What participates in 3+1 (for a time) but is not materially manifest, can access eternity directly.
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 30. June 2003 22:46
quote:
Actually, Hawking is talking virtual particles generated at the event horizon from the zero point field. Most will annihilate back to zero, but it’s possible a pair might separate to become “real,” one inside the hole to negatively effect mass, one positively escaping into the universe. One particle at a time, out of billions generated from the field (NOT the hole) that never become “real.” Nothing that goes in ever comes out. It’s just entropy.
Thanks Joy, for the interesting discussion. Yes, you gave the heuristic explanation of some advanced math for black hole thermodynamics. It seems that the matter falling into a black hole gets recycled as radiation but the original matter that falls into the hole can never escape. No one really knows what happens to it, according to the writings of Stephen Hawking and others.
What is the symmetry between "extrinsic" and "intrinsic"? How can the two be explained in terms of one concept or identity? It then becomes a natural resolution to the "power set of all sets" paradox.
Symmetry = Invariance = Identity
Just as water is an ontological groundstate for a chunk of ice floating in it, and the two quantities ice and water, are really just two aspects, or phase changes of the chemical compound identity "H20", the concepts of extrinsic and intrinsic are really two aspects of a more fundamental symmetry. The identity.
So there exists a correspondence with reality and its ontological groundstate, where the self binding syntax inherits its freedom from its own groundstate. Thus, the syntax has varying degrees of freedom or symmetry.
Symmetry in and of itself, is not a "container" in the set theoretic sense. To discover a formalism that explains the universe in terms of symmetry, could resolve the many paradoxes associated *with* set theory.
Paradoxes are not necessarily a bad thing. It seems that a lot of interesting mathematics is created by trying to resolve paradoxes
[ 30. June 2003, 22:56: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Joy Busey
Member
Member # 610
|
posted 01. July 2003 13:41
quote:
Russell said: Thanks Joy, for the interesting discussion. Yes, you gave the heuristic explanation of some advanced math for black hole thermodynamics. It seems that the matter falling into a black hole gets recycled as radiation but the original matter that falls into the hole can never escape. No one really knows what happens to it, according to the writings of Stephen Hawking and others.
I gave the information about black hole entropy described by Stephen Hawking in “A Brief History of Time.” The matter falling into the hole does NOT get recycled as radiation, the radiation involved in black hole entropy is generated from the exterior zero point field near (but not on) the event horizon.
What happens to the matter that does fall into the hole is not an issue. That it is removed from 3+1 spacetime is the issue. Outside the event horizon only the gravity associated with the swallowed mass remains to warp the fabric. This represents information loss, and we know of no region of space where raw information is being created. We could argue that life creates information (and it might at least create order so that information is meaningful), but since ours is the only planet we know of with complex life, it cannot offset the loss of entire star systems.
Given the situation, the total information content cannot be static at zero. This is actually a pretty good hint that there are more than 3+1 dimensions in the totality of reality, if we are to insist on the conservation laws remaining inviolate.
quote:
Symmetry in and of itself, is not a "container" in the set theoretic sense. To discover a formalism that explains the universe in terms of symmetry, could resolve the many paradoxes associated *with* set theory.
Paradoxes are not necessarily a bad thing. It seems that a lot of interesting mathematics is created by trying to resolve paradoxes
How does your mathematics account for non-zero information content? Do you rely upon “renormalization” to blink those pesky singularities away? I am a little confused by some of the assertions you’ve made - presumably related to how your math has described for you the nature of reality - which apparently relies upon assumptions that cannot be considered evident.
The zero constant is one such assertion, and I have left you wide open to counter with extradimensionality to account for it. Yet you haven’t done so, you just keep describing some perfect symmetry that cannot exist in an unbalanced [asymmetrical] universe.
If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, gravitational singularities represent a conundrum that’s got to be accounted for. Hawking has tried very hard to do this by entropy, but it doesn’t balance the scale and it doesn’t account for information loss. And if we were to assign to volitional life forms the ability to create information and order it, we’d have to account for death as the black hole into which that information and order falls out of 3+1.
I thank you as well for the interesting discussion, Russell. I have been intrigued for awhile with CTMU, mostly because I strongly suspect that consciousness is tightly woven into the fabric of spacetime itself, and represents the “intelligent” aspect of ordered manifestation all around - from the comprehensible laws governing manifestation itself to the high-end volitional information processors we ourselves represent.
You seem to grasp some of the obscure details of this Theory of Everything (or a version thereof). I hope you will consider the evidence that information is in fact removed from our spacetime both by gravitational singularities and by the death of high-end information processors - living beings. I would tend to think that in a perfectly symmetrical totality, it’s all got to be conserved somewhere. It’s okay to speculate on where “somewhere” might be.
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 01. July 2003 18:06
An interesting book that updates the "Brief History of Time" is "The Universe in a Nutshell".
also by Stephen Hawking. Very heuristic
In that book the area for the entropy(number of internal states) of black holes suggests that information falling into the hole may be stored like the information stored on a record and it is played back as the hole evaporates. Another explanation is that a particle falling into a black hole can be a closed loop or "string" hitting a p-brane, with the p-branes explaned as sheets that move through three dimensions of space and 7 extra unseen dimensions. The particle will excite waves on the p-brane then waves can come together and cause part of the p-brane to break off as a closed string. The partice emitted by the black hole.
On a flat Euclidean surface, the three angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees. On the curved surface of a sphere, the three angles add up to more than 180 degrees. The two types of surfaces are not equivalent.
There is a rotational invariance that seems to hold for both types of surface though.
ABC = BCA = CAB = CBA = BAC = ACB
Does this rotational invariance hold for all geometries? I say yes, but I am not 100% sure yet.
An interesting idea for a new "theory", which is, that symmetry, not logic, forms the basis of truth.
Truth = Invariance principle.
Symmetry = invariance = identity
Aristotle's law of excluded middle is really an invariance principle, which is a symmetry.
A V ~A
(T|F) = (F|T) = T
Russ
[ 05. July 2003, 17:37: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 03. July 2003 23:29
Certain "invariants" are true for all(or most) geometries.
Let "I" stand for the generic invariant
E and N can be functions of the invariants.
For example E could stand for Euclidean geometry and N could be "non-Euclidean" geometry.
E(I) = N(I)
So it could be possible to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics with *symmetry*? The duality of circle and square.
Russ
[ 03. July 2003, 23:35: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 05. July 2003 17:33
If math only agrees with the macro and micro reality ..."approximately", then the mathematics of probability agrees with the micro and macro reality ..."exactly". Can we say that math has a one to one correspondence with the universe?
Interesting...
You could say that there is something called "classical reality" which of course, is the mathematical ideal.
Then there is the "quantum reality" which is totally probabilistic. It seems that the probabilistic microscopic quantum reality, must conform to the classical laws, as we approach a certain "macroscopic limit".
Russ
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic