|
Author
|
Topic: Is 'Matter' Contracting As Space Expands?
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 29. October 2003 04:59
quote:
Perhaps Russell could comment on whether conspansion is a uniform shrinking of all distances across reality or whether it is a non-uniform gravity-induced contraction.
The Pixie
Continuing iterations of universe are hologically replicated and endomorphically projected, via the mechanics of conspansion. ![[Wink]](wink.gif) . So it becomes a nesting of universes. Rotate the diagram 90 degrees, so the z-axis no longer artificially separates mind from reality.
In another thread, Jacob correctly pointed out that the artificially expanding balloon model is not necessary, since the infinitesimally distributed tangent vector space can be be seen as being intrinsic to the manifold without a need for embedding it in a higher dimensional space. The tangent vectors are defined such that they only refer to the intrinsic structure of the manifold, not to its possible embeddings in R^n.
The expansion cannot be in any absolute sense, because there is no external frame of reference, only local observations, which can be explained as relative perspective effects. So it is equally valid to explain a relative shrinking of matter and corresponding increase of the spacetime density, while from another perspective, matter and forces are constant while spacetime expands. If relativity is to be taken seriously, both explanations are correct. "Duality" is a very useful concept in theories.
So the realization that the surface area of the horizon surrounding a black hole measures its entropy, leads people to derive a relation explaining that the maximum entropy of any closed region of space can never exceed one quarter of the area of the bounded[circumscribing] spacetime surface.
A generalized entropy law is also given:
S' = S_m + [1/4]A
If the universe is closed, the "information" or entangled quantum states cannot leak out of the closed system. So the density of entangled quantum states, continually increases, as the entropy must always increase. While to us, it is interpreted as entropy or lost information, it is actually recombined information, to the universe.
Spacetime memory.
In a nutshell, conspansion is a rescaling of [space/time] that preserves Lorentz invariance, if my interpretation is correct.
[ 29. October 2003, 06:27: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Aliet Jacob
Member
Member # 908
|
posted 29. October 2003 06:56
Russel,
You are coming through. Those were very good answers. I am impressed ![[Smile]](smile.gif) .
However...
Self-containment is a state. It cannot be a process whichever way you want to twist it. Unless in the CTMU, one word has many meanings.
quote:
The expansion cannot be in any absolute sense, because there is no external frame of reference, only local observations, which can be explained as relative perspective effects. So it is equally valid to explain a relative shrinking of matter and corresponding increase of the spacetime density, while from another perspective, matter and forces are constant while spacetime expands.
There has been no observation that any part of the universe is shrinking. So it is not valid.
quote:
"Duality" is a very useful concept in theories.
It has to be observed or derived from the theory, not massaged into the theory. A theory can be dressed up to have duality, but that is not the same as a theory that demonstrates duality.
quote:
If the universe is closed, the "information" or entangled quantum states cannot leak out of the closed system. So the density of entangled quantum states, continually increases
This should show you that CTMU is wrong because if the universe is self-contained, it will self-destruct in the end and all its infocognition will decay to nothingness.
The self-aware designer will not be able to recognize syntax from state and will be incapable of realizing maximal cosmic utility.
The Big Crunch is coming. The intelligent designer will self-destruct...
There is no evidence that entropy is actually informational recombination any more than entropy is antigravity.
quote:
Spacetime memory.
Some evidence would be delightful. I can also state that spacetime is emotional.
Are you about to bring in Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment and quantum entanglement?
quote:
In a nutshell, conspansion is a rescaling of [space/time] that preserves Lorentz invariance, if my interpretation is correct
Your interpretation seems fine. But there is need for supporting evidence even for newfangled theories.
Some mathematical model, some predictions, how to falsify it etc.
quote:
Can we assume that reality or the "real universe" is the basic medium and the largest set. There may be a paradox there, and the CTMU may or may not resolve that paradox.
It is anthropocentric and naive to believe that the visible universe is the power set.
If it is expanding, it simply means there is 'room' for expansion. We have to figure out why it is expanding and into where. Not state that we are having illusions. If we are deluded about the expansion, we are equally deluded about the contraction.
Reality is not subject to logic.
Its logic that should explain reality. Attempting to straitjacket the universe using logic is what brings the paradoxes Langan is grappling with.
quote:
And I will further agree that an expanding universe, where length, time, mass, energy and force are constant is equivalent to a contracting universe in which length, time, mass, energy and force are all changing in step with one another.
One has been observed. One hasn't.
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 29. October 2003 08:56
A universe in which matter stays a constant size while space expands between it is indistinguishable from one where matter shrinks and space stays the same size. They are indistinguishable because size is a relative measure. What we really observe is that (size of universe)/(size of proton) appears to be increasing. Maybe both are shrinking, but matter shrinks faster; or both are expanding, but space expands faster; or matter is shrinking while the universe is expanding. None of these really say different things; there is no is about it. They're different interpretations of the same physical situation.
That said, some interpretations are vastly more convenient than others. For example, constant-matter expanding-universe has the nice property that the speed of light stays constant with time (at least approximately; there is some evidence that this may not quite be accurate). Constant-universe shrinking-matter annoyingly has the speed of light as something like 1/(time since beginning of universe).
There's nothing wrong with the latter perspective, it's just inconvenient. It's a lot easier to remember than the speed of light is ~300000km/s than ~0.0000000000000000021 universe-diameters/second. Personally, I'll stick to the convenient, useful interpretation.
[ 29. October 2003, 08:56: Message edited by: Rex Kerr ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Aliet Jacob
Member
Member # 908
|
posted 29. October 2003 09:09
quote:
Personally, I'll stick to the convenient, useful interpretation.
Interesting.
Rex, lets assume everything is shrinking.
What would make it shink?
Are we talking about 'Pushing Gravity"?
Assume a television set on a desert. What would make it shrink, and how?
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 29. October 2003 10:00
There has been discussion in physics community of some evidence of some relation of previously thought fundamental constants were changing (possibly distributed across far away places). This is a matter of observation, and can be verified by observation (as far as practical). I’m going to ignore that issue for the moment, and anyone with information about that issue should present it in relation to what I am commenting here.
If everything shrunk in such a way as to not be observable in any degree, that is a meaningless statement (as Rex has mentioned). Distance per se is measured relatively, e.g. one sets a standard in some manner and then compares other aspects in the real world. Relative comparison is what is meant by "measurement" of distance. One could use the distance between galaxies as the measurement standard, as proposed in the OP.
So it is one thing, almost meaningless, to say that everything is shrinking in a way that is not measurable. Quite another is to note some things shrinking relative to others. But get back to my parsimony argument, if some relative quantities are changing.
One simply chooses the simplest system definition as most useful, if multiple relationships are changing in relation to each other. For example one can measure distance in terms of atomic distances, wherein some regular crystal lattice might be repeatable feature of the real world, and at standard temperature and pressure might provide a measurement basis. Then if several other near-'constants' were observed to change, that would be set as the standard. Or one might use some other relative measure. Speed of light, over a constant time interval might be a suitable reference. Since time and frequency can be interrelated, then a wavelength can be made as a standard. It matters not which of these standards are chosen, if other originally thought 'constants' seem to be changing.
But one must first observe that these interrelationships of formerly thought constants are in fact changing! For if they are not, then we have a large set of interrelated constants all of which establish our distance reference. We have a more parsimonious measure system which is useful in many areas of application.
For example, what does it mean to have an "inertial" reference frame? For one, if the scale reference were to be changing in an otherwise 'classical' world, that would not be an 'inertial' reference frame. It would not be inertial because objects moving past us without gravity or other forces (or calculating and eliminating such effects) would be seen as accelerating, simply due to the scale change.
In other words an object which classically was at rest, but at large distance XL away, would with scale change appear to be moving. But that same object, up close Xs, would appear to be moving much more slowly, simply due to scale change.
Remember I am positing a 'classical' reference frame with constant true inertial characteristics, then overlaying our measurement frame as one that scales. Let's consider a one dimensional classical view:
X1, X2, are positions of objects "1" and "2" in a classical one dimensional view.
But X'1, X'2 are positions under scaled view, such that
X'i = Xi * K
Where K is varying in a manner assumed linearized with time for simplicity,
say K = K0 + S*t,
So X'i = Xi * (K0 + S*t)
and our particular reference frame X=0 is point of commonality of the scaled view and inertial classical view. For simplicity, let’s set K0=1, so that X'i(0) = Xi(0), and time zero is also a commonality of the scaled an original inertial view.
But Xi(t) = Vi*t+Xi(0)
for inertial objects (please let’s consider only these for simplicity, and assume we can calculate more complex versions of same equations to consider inter-object forces and expected motions, using integrals).
What is X'i(t)?
X'i(t) = (Vi*t + Xi(0))*(K0 + S*t)
Now what is Xi(0) mean in our modified reference frame? Actually this is a constant, a measurement taken at time “0”, so I will not vary it. The reader should note that an object at rest at that position in the original inertial or un-primed frame will be at a different position later in the “prime” frame, but let’s not worry about that for the moment, just remember that in our model if we actually observe the motion starting at time “0” we took a measurement of Xi(0) at that moment. Remember also that X'i(0) = Xi(0).
Multiply terms
X'i(t) = Vi*t*K0 + Vi*S*t^2 + Xi(0)*K0 + Xi(0)*S*t
Combine terms linear in 't':
X'i(t) = Xi(0)*K0 + (Vi*K0 + Xi(0)*S)*t + Vi*S*t^2
We have a constant, a linear in t, and an acceleration term! The velocity has changed, of course, but that is not important. The important aspect is the apparent or measured acceleration, measured according to the relative measure system used.
In other words, the relatively varying scale measurement system gives an apparent non-inertial reference frame. This is not a real non-inertial reference frame, simply that using the scale varying from a distance that is measured properly and “inertially” (if that is a word) would show this varying scale way of looking at the universe to be weird with respect to cases that reduce to high degree of accuracy as classical mechanics cases. The measurement of the inertial world would be upset with this scale factor change.
But Alliet, the notion of relative measure was proposed. If the distance between two galaxies was used as your standard of measure (and the dimension of a “television” was this extremely small fraction) then later with the galaxy moving “away” in different reference measure systems would in this measure system show the “television” to be shrinking relative to your system of measure. (I thought you proposed it or relayed another’s proposition yourself, this is a consequence.) But you are exactly correct, that our normal, even classical measure systems would not show the “television” to be shrinking, and these most parsimonious systems of measure are probably the most useful! Especially since the relatively time scaling measure system makes it difficult to determine an inertial reference frame in a useful way, we loose easy representation of all of classical mechanics.
Now it is also important to not get confused with any special relativity scaling by Lorenz terms, as we have made all of our measurements in “our” reference frame.
Another point to consider is whether the scale change is so slow (say over eons) that it would not be measurable. But then simply look at large distances over long periods of time, and consider the galaxies themselves as in a semi-classical frame. The degree of approximation error would need to be considered with regard to the degree to which a “classical” frame per se is relevant in the first place. But even there, the usefulness of “classical” frame is sufficient that by parsimony the classical frame could be chosen as reference, thus implying that atomic distances are not changing in any reasonable choice of frame!
[ 29. October 2003, 11:07: Message edited by: gedanken ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Richard
Member
Member # 857
|
posted 29. October 2003 13:57
To all,
A few comments. Scientists demand observational and/or experimental proof of a theory. Without it they consider the theory to be just philosophy. They will demand this proof from shrinking theorists, and it is necessary for us to provide it if we expect the theory to be considered scientific. This burden of proof, however, does not determine whether or not the theory is correct, but only determines whether certain people believe that it is correct. For me pilosophical proof is enough to convince me of the value of the shrinking approach and this has led me to look for implications derived from this approach which can be mathematically described and connected, which in itself might convince some people of it's validity, but which might also lead to observational and experimental predictions that will convince scientists of it's validity. As for my own work, The Big Shrink, the most important step after realizing the importance of the space/c ratio was to apply the shrinking principle to special relativity concepts and this made it clear to me that space-time should be considered to have an expanding-contracting nature, and this then led to the possibility of describing viable mathematically describable accelerated states for space-time and mass-energy. To me, the observable evidence of these acelerated states is quantum phenomena, though experimental proof will require experimental prediction unattainable through conventional quantum theory.
The other area where I believe evidence will be observed is in the structure and development of the Universe. The recent recognition by Moffat et al of the usefulness of an expanded velocity of light in the early Universe may well lead to this evidence. Here I'd like to point out that what we observe has a lot to do with how we approach the observing, and philosophical beliefs can influence what we find because they determine what we look for. Thus, the philosophical acceptance of the possibility of an expanded velocity of light could lead to observational confirmation of shrinking theory.
Finally, scientists are great for dismissing the value of philosophical truth as inconsequential because of a lack scientific proof, but then try to dismiss philosophical concepts with philosophical arguments which are devoid of scientific proof. The fact is, there is no scientific proof that shrinking theory is invalid, so it would be foolish to dismiss it without exploring it.
Richard Quist
[ 29. October 2003, 14:50: Message edited by: Richard ]
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 30. October 2003 04:26
quote:
Richard:
A few comments. Scientists demand observational and/or experimental proof of a theory. Without it they consider the theory to be just philosophy. They will demand this proof from shrinking theorists, and it is necessary for us to provide it if we expect the theory to be considered scientific.
Excellent point Richard. It seems that the [Space/Time] contracting model is a dual theory, that possibly gives new insights into the structure of reality itself. It definitely ties in with "T-duality" of M-theory and it resolves quantum nonlocality, because the quantized nature of "shrinking" spacetime naturally describes a quantized gravity, along with a type of spacetime memory storage. Events are recorded in the 2 dimensional boundary of space, and the information expands at the speed of light as spacelike slices are internally projected, or embedded into previous layers of 3+1 space + time. There would be no instantaneous wave function collapse as the information increases the density of spacetime, and would be within the initial event's light cone along with the second distant observer.
Spacetime would be successive embeddings of quantum entangled states and Boolean functions would be the laws of physics in their most fundamental form.
If spacetime has memory, then the universe is analogous to a computer simulation that is self embedding.
I searched the internet and discovered yet another shrink theorist called Rodrian
http://physics.sdrodrian.com/
quote:
...in absolute terms the universe is NOT
really expanding but shrinking. However, in its inner-
relationships it "but appears" to be expanding (galaxies
really ARE flying away from each other with greater
velocity the farther away from each other they are;
but this is only because of a quirk inherent in the
shrinking of the universe...
I agree that it should be possible to derive new predictions from this concept. It is only a matter of time.
PS, here is another theory called universal relativity. Will the CTMU be left out in the cold if another "less tautological" theory, makes testable predictions?
http://freespace.virgin.net/roland.t/Shrinking.htm
[ 30. October 2003, 04:53: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Aliet Jacob
Member
Member # 908
|
posted 30. October 2003 04:52
I must say its great Richard is here because I would like to understand how this contraction happens.
Langan has three formulations of conspansion:
1. Material contraction qua spatial contraction, which is in line with Sir Arthur Eddingtons statements that the 'expansion' of the universe is caused by galactic contraction.
2. Undetectable changes in size: he writes "Consider a simple arithmetical analogy: 1/2 = 1000/2000 = 1(10 )/2(10 ) = (…).
Where the numerator and denominator of a fraction are both multiplied by a given number, the
value of the fraction does not change; it is independent of distinctions involving the size of the multiplier. Similarly, the intrinsic proportionality of a self-contained system is independent of distinctions involving any external measure. This implies that with respect to a self-contained universe for which no external measure exists, no distinction can be made between the expansion of the system with respect to its contents, and the shrinkage of its contents with respect to it."
i.e ERSU + USRE
3. As represented by his Venn diagrams, certain objects conspand into each other, each object having syntax and state and their mutual absorption results in requantization of systax and state resulting in maximization of the generalized utility.
There is no way of distinguishing systemic expansion and shrinkage.
I see these three conceptualizations of conspansion in the CTMU paper.
quote:
This burden of proof, however, does not determine whether or not the theory is correct, but only determines whether certain people believe that it is correct.
You dont have to provide proof. Just outline how your theory can be tested. And provide the predictions it makes. If it can't be tested and falsified it is not scientific, pure and simple.
quote:
For me pilosophical proof is enough to convince me of the value of the shrinking approach and this has led me to look for implications derived from this approach which can be mathematically described and connected, which in itself might convince some people of it's validity, but which might also lead to observational and experimental predictions that will convince scientists of it's validity.
For anyone coming up with a new theory, convincing scientists or not convincing them determines, to a large extent, the future of the theory. Even plate tectonics and other theories given by Dembski in his "Myth of Scientific Juggernaut" had to make their predictions and be supported by observations before it was accepted.
The strength of philosophical proof alone cannot be a measure of the validity of a scientific theory.
Proponents of Aquatic Ape Theory and Panspermia have equally strong convictions.
quote:
To me, the observable evidence of these acelerated states is quantum phenomena, though experimental proof will require experimental prediction unattainable through conventional quantum theory.
You have to try harder.
Personally, I think your work looks great. Convincing. Well thought out. But inadequate. Not conclusive.
What I would like to know is, why should we share your convictions? What observable phenomena supports what you are arguing?
What would be the causative agent/mechanism for this shrinking and expanding?
What would cause the shrink - gravitational attraction?
What is the rate of the shrinking?
Is its rate consistent with what has been observed in the form of gravitational redshift?
It has been argued that if galaxies were contracting at the rate the universe has been observed to be expanding, they would have all collapsed. What is your response to that?
quote:
The fact is, there is no scientific proof that shrinking theory is invalid, so it would be foolish to dismiss it without exploring it.
I agree. We have to explore it just like every new-fangled theory.
But then again the lack of disproving evidence does not lend any credibility to the theory.
Conspansion is a description. You need to provide an explanation of the mechanism. The energy, how the contraction and expansion are triggered, by what, provide a mathematical model etc.
And account for CMBR etc.
I think its a bit misleading to call your Hypothesis a Theory yet it has not been proven. Remember, the fact that you dont have proof does not mean there is no proof, or that there is no way of proving it.
Scientists are likely to dismiss a 'theory' (like the one Russel has linked to) if it is being fronted as a theory yet it falls short of standard requirements for ideas to qualify as theories.
Anyone who respects the scientific method would disdain a hypothesis that is masquerating as a theory. If its presented as a hypothesis, it will be treated as a genuine attempt at adding to scientific knowledge.
Unless you mean to use the word 'theory' in a non-scientific sense?
[ 30. October 2003, 05:38: Message edited by: Aliet Jacob ]
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 30. October 2003 23:31
Aliet, I wonder about your request for a "causitive agent" for these relationships of size.
For example the Lorentz contraction of special relativity is not described in terms of any "causitive agent". (Any more than some further causitive agent for gravity was knowable to Newton, though the relationships were still of valid study, whether philosophical or scientific.)
But the Lorentz contraction is a symetric relationship, in which each party sees the other party (moving at high speed) as contracted. These wind up being relative measurements, however, there is no "absolute" standard (as you mention in other contexts). But the key in special theory of relativity is that each party can map his experience into the other party's experience (so to speak with regard to carefully defined observations). Thus for each the contraction is defined, yet there is no "absolute" standard.
Likewise for "mechanism", there are variants of understanding of what 'mechanism' means. I take it generally in science to mean a robust explanation of relationships of operation, as in interrelationships of the aspects being well described. But other views might take "mechanism" more like the devices of a clock, what is the physical cause as extrinsic to the event in question--taking that cause in physical terms as the "mechanism". In special relativity, the presence of the robust theory of relationships can serve as description of "mechanism" in one meaning, but lacking in "mechanism" in the other. Likewise Newtonian theory of gravity.
(A slight warning about "Lorentz contraction"--this is not what viewers actually see with vision. The light traveling different distances from different events that were simultaneous on the time line of the person's reference frame do not typically arrive at the same time, and thus one's vision is a conglomerate of events of different time frames, just as is our view of the "stars".)
[ 30. October 2003, 23:42: Message edited by: gedanken ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Richard
Member
Member # 857
|
posted 31. October 2003 00:32
Aliet,
I don't disagree with anything in your reply; it reflects a point I was trying to make. I had noticed in the posts that some don't seem to differentiate between a concept, a theory, and as you made clear, a proven theory. It's as if we're all looking at a basket of fruit, and your saying all you see are oranges (concepts) but no apple (theory), while others are saying that they clearly see an apple among the oranges, with some mixing apples and oranges in their explanations. I say that there are good oranges, and an apple seed, or maybe sapling, but that also, good oranges will help bring about an apple. As for me, I think I'm better at growing oranges than apples.
I'll first address the thought that if shrinking galaxies cause the increase in space between galaxies, they'd collapse. This reflects a lack of understanding of what I, anyway, mean by shrinking. Even if there were no galaxies in the Universe, the points in space where their centers would be if they did exist would still appear to move apart from one another simply because our standard of measure would be shrinking. If you measure a constant sized space with a shrinking measuring stick, successive measurements taken with the stick will increase. Also, if you break up space into tiny same sized units and each unit contracts at the same rate, with new space emerging between the units, the greater the distance between two points in space, the faster those two points will appear to separate. Thus, while the shrinking radius of a galaxy would contribute something to the apparent increase in space between galaxies, as time goes by they contribute less and less as compared to the contribution of the shrinking units of space which lay between the galaxies.
As for what causes contraction, time itself is defined by the contraction of space. Anti-gravity as I conceive it would cause time to accelerate (contract), just as gravity causes time to dilate (expand). A pulse of anti-gravity uniformly applied to all points of space would have initiated the contraction that defines the passage of time within the Universe. The contraction would have it's own inertia (thus the passage of time within the Universe has inertia), and would continue at a constant rate unless altered by an added force. If it is true that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating then this means that a weak anti-gravity field is still uniformly affecting the space-time of the Universe.
A simple conception of this description is had by imagining a sufficiently strong anti-gravity pulse applied to a black hole. The gravity of the black hole would have almost stopped time before the application of the pulse, and the pulse would accelerate time, or un-dilate the space-time of the black hole. This would cause a dismantling of the black hole and a dispersal of it's content through space. This is not exactly the same as what would occur to the initial singularity of the Universe if a sufficient anti-gravity pulse (self-generated) were applied to it since a black hole is perceived by us from the outside, while the dispersal of the Universal singularity is perceived by us from the inside.
The relative size of the hypothetical event horizon of the Universe's initial singularity is also an issue. I see this and all the energy within it, and the speed of light, as initially expanding at a very rapid rate. Though we could say that this expansion occurs for an initial singularity as is conventionally conceived of today in big bang theory, we could also say that the singularity springs from nothing and expands in the manner just described. Either way, at some point during the expansion a pulse of anti-gravity emerges from the primordial energy of the expanding singularity, and this begins the contraction of space-time, energy. and the speed of light within the singularity, though the event horizon, this representing the overall size of the Universe, could continue to expand. This conception of the creation of the Universe enables us to have contraction as the defining characteristic of space-time without the necessity of having the hypothetical event horizon of the initial singularity equal in size to the present day Universe.
In regards to the other issues I'll post again.
Richard Quist
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 31. October 2003 02:45
Richard,
If one just took a case of special relativity, one could see forshortening of a dimension in another's reference frame, as observed in our reference frame. And likewise that observer could see similar foreshortening in our frame. But one could claim that the other observer's view should be taken as our own, just to pick a standard view, and thus our world is forshortened in that dimension.
The only way to resolve this is parsimony. It does not give some absolute "correct" answer, rather each answer can be transformed into the answer another views. (That is the principle of 'invariants', that is why "relativity" is mis-named. What we see is always relative to our viewpoint--that is no new information. What is new is the theory of how that is invariant, even with such seemingly wild occurrences as foreshortening of dimension in other frames.)
With this parsimonious choice, that is no absolute. It is just simply a choice, not a statement that the other views are not equally understandable. So if our local dimension reference were "shrinking" by some outside view, but within our neighborhood we see relative sameness, choice is simply one of parsimony and not of actuality. Each view can be transformed into the other, so there is no dispute about the nature of reality no matter which scale one takes as the reference.
BUT the relative measures must in fact occur, or else the relative measures are not in fact occurring according to what is proposed. So it seems that these would be observable and thus demonstrable. By that, I mean that we take our particular reference frame, and simply transform our view to whatever other view is necessary to make a particular observation easily computed. Otherwise we make no choice of which view is 'correct' in any absolute sense.
Is your concept one in which even the relative variations spoken of cannot be measured? Or is it a dispute over which reference is to be used?
[ 31. October 2003, 02:45: Message edited by: gedanken ]
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 31. October 2003 04:31
quote:
Gedankin:
BUT the relative measures must in fact occur, or else the relative measures are not in fact occurring according to what is proposed. So it seems that these would be observable and thus demonstrable. By that, I mean that we take our particular reference frame, and simply transform our view to whatever other view is necessary to make a particular observation easily computed. Otherwise we make no choice of which view is 'correct' in any absolute sense.
True, so if the universe cannot be expanding in any absolute sense, then it cannot be shrinking in an absolute sense, because there is no external frame of reference. All relations would be intrinsic to the universe. There would be no extrinsic perspective. So the question becomes, What exactly is space? Does separation between objects exist in an absolute sense?
A metric space is a set of points such that for every pair of points, there is a nonnegative real number called their distance that is symmetric, and satisfies the triangle inequality, which states that the sum of the measures of any two sides of any triangle is greater than the measure of the third side. Space is then a tranformation rule[invariant]. Two objects with relative velocity will have a relative measure that transforms into the other. In effect, the separation does not exist in an extrinsic sense. ABC = BCA = CAB
We then realize that an absolute spatial separation cannot exist, therefore, the EPR paradox cannot actually exist. Space[distance interval] is a type of dynamic relation. As you have rightly pointed out, relativity is really a theory of invariants. Space is a set of invariance principles which, has a boundary that is zero. Yet, with the self embedding manifold[universe], information[structure-complexity] is increasing as a function of time. Information is also a type of relation, in that certain invariants must hold..
So to describe tautologies of logic e.g. X or ~X , as absolute truths would not be a complete definition. A tautology is an invariance principle. A rule that transforms according to a choice of truth value, which is an invariant, in that it is always true.
[ 31. October 2003, 04:35: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Aliet Jacob
Member
Member # 908
|
posted 31. October 2003 08:20
Gedanken,
I dont think the cause of the Lorentz contraction is a mystery. I also dont consider it a mechanistic phenomena. I treat time as an abstract entity: much as I treat centimeter. We can use decimal units for time just as much as we can use the base 60 we are using now.
I however consider contraction of matter to be a mechanistic process that must have a physical cause - precisely because its an effect on physical phenomena. By causation I am referring to contiguity and antedecence.
The mechanism (process of interaction of various entities) I am requating for must clearly demonstrate what causes the contraction and how we observe the contraction.
Your latter statements about relativity and parsimony assume the universe is shrinking - is that so?
If we are to adopt relativity and parsimony and the cosmological principle, we can argue that since we perceive the universe to be expanding, that is the view from other galaxies.
RQ,
Your post seems to make a distinction between a theory and a 'proven theory'. What would be the difference between a theory and a hypothesis then?
And if you agree with my comments, will you relabel your work as a 'hypothesis' then?
You argue that everything would seem to be shrinking because our standard of measure will be shrinking. You provide an example of a shrinking measuring stick and you provide the analogy of space broken to pieces and with each piece shrinking, new space will seem to emerge between them. These analogies assume what they are supposed to explain.
quote:
Thus, while the shrinking radius of a galaxy would contribute something to the apparent increase in space between galaxies, as time goes by they contribute less and less as compared to the contribution of the shrinking units of space which lay between the galaxies.
Please explain this. I would think the 'apparent' systemic expansion would be directly proportional to the rate of contraction of the 'galaxies'?
The important thing is that up to this point, you have not provided any observable evidence or even philosophical/logical arguments (premise, inference conclusion) that there is any contraction in the universe.
Your explanations and analogies assume the shrinking but do not show it.
Now lets look at the causes of the contraction:
You say anti-gravity causes the contraction. You caught me there. I thought anti-gravity was yet to be proven?
Also, even if it were antigravity, why would the universe expand and then contract again? Does gravitational attraction exceed antigravitational repulsion at times?
Thanks for your response.
[ 31. October 2003, 08:41: Message edited by: Aliet Jacob ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Richard
Member
Member # 857
|
posted 31. October 2003 09:54
gendanken,
Yours is a point that I make in the opening section of (a. Special relativity, II Alternative Solutions) on my sight. We can deduce what we would see from other positions (thus other velocities, since each position can be considered to be moving away the others) in the Universe, through the Lorentz- transformations, but if we attempt to assimilate all these visions from all these positions into a single vision, we find there aren't many common positions determined for each position, from each position. Thus, for example, if we combine the visions of earth from the perspective of each possible position in the Universe, the earth would be considered to be spread throughout the Universe. However, if we include the factor of position in time in our assimilation, there is a point in time where all positions have a common view of all other positions, and this is at the beginning, in the primordial singularity. Thus, by accepting positions in time as a co-ordinate, we can make the primordial singularity our preferred reference frame . We can determine relative values of this time co-ordinate for each position relative to an observer's position by assigning a value equal to the age of the Universe, t, to any observer (the non-dilated frame), with the value of other positions equal to t/u, where u is the time dilation factor associated with the velocity associated with each position in. This then makes it clear that when we observe other positions in the Universe, we are not observing the actual conditions of the entities at those positions, or even the actual past (due to the finite speed for light) condition of those entities, but instead a dilated version of the past condition, and to observe the actual condition we must un-dilate our vision. If we un-dilated our vision by applying a time-acceleration ( as I've described it) instead of simply deducing an un-dilated condition with the Lorentz- transformations, we might get a very different result.
Considering the initial singularity again, if we now expand it to the size of the present day Universe (for simplicities sake), and consider the previous example where we combine the visions of earth from the perspective of each possible position in the Universe so that the earth would then be considered to be spread throughout the Universe, it makes a lot of sense. The only difference between the earth at the beginning of time, in the expanded initial singularity, and it's existence now is that at the beginning of time it's components in primordial form are expanded in size and dispersed everywhere within the initial singularity, while now it's assembled components are manifested in our non-dilated frame here as the earth we live on, but also, as dilated versions of earth spread throughout the Universe.
Richard
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 31. October 2003 10:53
Aliet, I am trying to reason from first principles as much as possible. I depend on others to present (or link to) observed evidence and argument therefrom. My 'first principles' use of parsimony argument is that an inertial system, especially if it agrees with classical measures of other dimensions like inter- and intra-atomic and gross 'classica' measurements as well, provides a fairly useful parsimonious reference system. (However for judging the size of the universe, I would be willing to entertain other reference systems.) Whether the universe is therefore (using a given reference system) "shrinking" is something that others will have to tell, but it might be based on choice of reference system. In no case is it an a priori assumption of mine.
Russell:
quote:
True, so if the universe cannot be expanding in any absolute sense, ...
But of course my point is that there is no meaning to "absolute" when one simply has a number of relative choices, unless one can make a compelling argument for one of those choices as more "absolute" than the others. (For example if the "aether" existed as measurable.)
(I think this is relevant to my comments in other threads about the "fuzziness" of concepts with regard to the "real world", that when one looks deeply enough one finds fuzzy boundaries that cannot be resolved without combinatorial explosion of descriptions. I don't want to argue that point about "fuzziness" here, but it depends on mounting complications and is not resolved by the points you described.)
But I don't understand your comment about "EPR" paradox. These spaces are well enough defined to be meaningful, to be "very useful fictions" as I have suggested. The EPR-like experiments carried out today exist in more or less 'classical' reference frames, say with photon effects carried over thousands of feet of fiber optic cable but still within a laboratory frame. EPR so-called "paradox" only rules out certain models as being self consistent with the logic and model being taken in tandum as meaningful. There may, for example, be "fuzzy logic" expansions that are also meaningful (not necessarily well developed today) which also resolve these issues. There is no necessity to make the seemingly drastic assumptions that I see you making. For example:
quote:
We then realize that an absolute spatial separation cannot exist, therefore, ...
I do not see the consequences you list as being necessary. (Care to elaborate?) Specifically, there can be meaningful (even in useful fiction) spatial measurement in virtually each and every reference frame. That they differ (but can be transformed one to another) does not seem to provide harm with regard to EPR. Each physical (c>v) reference frame in the SR model would see the EPR experiment in somewhat similar manner. No "absolute", but a great deal of commonality.
Richard,
quote:
Thus, by accepting positions in time as a co-ordinate, we can make the primordial singularity our preferred reference frame .
Say what? That is only a momentary "reference frame", which quickly diverges into a (virtually infinite) number of different potential reference frames. So at any time later than the "primordial singularity" the questions are still meaningful. I don't follow.
But I assume you mean to take this reference "in the limit", and not as a viewpoint itself. I'll have to think about that. The problem I am having is that even as we approach the "singularity" (as towards the limit) we still have a multiplicity of reference frames.
Besides that, the question is whether the universe is exapanding now, is it not?
[ 31. October 2003, 19:11: Message edited by: gedanken ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic