MATHICALITY:
The Universe is not a bubble. Not a balloon. Not flat. Does not have a center. Nor an edge. EMR is not a wave. Nor a set of particles. There is no ultimate particle-in-itself. Those ideas/models serve calculations for some purposes that often turn out to be extremely practical. But they do not put us closer to understanding infinity or eternity. Nor do any such models consistently serve every practical need.
There abide various overlapping and fluxing frames of commonizing reference which tend to avail unfolding communication and evolution among inhabitants acculturated to them. But there is no universal Nowness that is fathomable to any particular mortal, nor any universal model or frame of reference, nor any ultimate explanatory TOE.
METAPHORS: Can any model for science function other than as a metaphor, to really explicate a precise correlation with so-called Reality? Science uses a model or metaphor of a Big Bang, entailing a somewhat spheroidal explosion outward from a point. Like a water balloon expanding outward as a hose pumps water into it. But that kind of model does not work by itself as any kind of precise correlate with Reality. Rather, a different metaphor is applied to imagine how stars and matter may tend toward equal diffuseness in all directions from every perspective. That metaphor invites one to conceptualize stars as blots painted on the outer membrane of the balloon. Then, as the balloon is pumped up, the space accelerates in expansion between each and every star. The first metaphor imagines a diffuse explosion within the balloon. The second imagines a surface increase on the membrane for the balloon. These are, of course, contrivances to try to explain a 4-D expansion of space-time in 2-D or 3-D terms.
Which begs a question: Can any material-based model explicate that kind of Big Bang and subsequent Expansion, or must it only be imagined in Math? IOW, to what extent is the material appearance of our World an illusion secondary to a math-based Algorithm that, per Godel, must forever remain beyond our complete or unifying explication?
As a mental experiment, suppose Consciousness-Substance-Information is entangled. Then, what could be expected as bits of such entanglements are brought into aggregation: Would they begin to harmonize, as if on the same page of music?
Would Consciousness thus express itself harmonically, throughout the aggregated and entangled pattern?
Over time, may clumps of such aggregates become organized, eventually as cells, functioning to sustain or replicate the organism --- perhaps even fractals in respect of it (like "turtles all the way down")?
As such cells got more and more "on the same page," may super-cells more likely begin to organize, to facilitate the sustenance of the aggregate form of which all the cells were parts?
Were cells to organize to guide cells to guide cells, and so on, would that not mark when they began to send and receive information that would more directly attract similar aggregates of forms?
At some point, would this not describe a process wherewith consciousness of consciousness emerges, i.e., sentient self-awareness?
Would not some expressions of such sentience tend to become more attuned to sending and receiving information to and from their niches within niches within niches?
Among the persons we have called prophets or geniuses, were they, in themselves, the authors of their work --- or were they carriers of information being guided or availed for them from deep within the math of the cosmos?
After much tinkering, how many received what they considered their most important insights, in a flash, or after having slept on concerns they had pushed into their subconscious? How many then turned from the Source, preferring instead to say, "I did that"? What peace of mind is availed for those that practice listening, praying, and meditating? What may it mean to say, "Ask and it shall be given"?
**********
MATHICALITY--
We don't have a complete math-based explanation of the system. We have no reason to believe the past (previous) continues to exist in any qualitatively experience-able way. When we look at what is re-presented by light from a distant star, we are not looking at the past per se, but at a record of the past. I doubt any person continues to re-live the past over and over in any qualitative sense. If the past does not continue to exist in that sense, then an idea of travel to it (or travel to a time to prevent your parents from meeting) is vain.
What is presented to us seems to exist as an eternal present, wherewith unstable equations of math-based sequences are continuously re-balanced. If our universe is more math-based than physical-based, then our experience of time is more like an experience of a preservation and protection of math-based sequences than of time as an independent reality. Our interpretation of time is an artifact of math-based chronology protection. Perhaps space-time would better be thought of as a sequence-recordation-renormalization web.
Allowable sequences have a forward vector, regardless of the part of the universe in which they occur. I think of a Swiss clock with many varieties and sizes of spinning gears. The smaller gears may spin, revolve, erode, and age faster than the larger gears. But all the gears will spin in respect of a common forward vector of "chronology (sequence) protection."
So, is what we interpret as space-expansion a necessary artifact of a forward cumulation of information concerning previous records of motion and change? Would space-contraction necessitate a loss of informational records and memory? If so, perhaps we could not be having this conversation if space were contracting.
************
Is what we interpret as space-expansion a necessary artifact of a forward cumulation of information concerning previous records of motion and change? Would space-contraction necessitate a loss of informational records and memory?
Space expansion seems to have to do with accumulation of Information concerning sequential relationships among particular expressions of Stored Information. The increase in space between galaxies and the vibrations flowing through space seem to go with the accumulation of Information that accompanies the vectored motions of galaxies.
May the increase in information in space reach a limit, so that further increases would be stored in an increase in black holes, perhaps eventually leading to a reversal of the expansion of space, an increase in smudged-out information, and a decrease in locally focused information? That is, a big collapse, under cycles of rinse and repeat?
************
It was explained. Simply and clearly. But you cannot understand. I wonder what that means?
I'll try again:
- Science works with hypotheticals that are selected and meant to be testable with data that is MEASURABLE.
- Everything that is manifested to physical measurability necessarily conforms with limits allowed under laws of physics.
- Whatever may become measurably manifest within the rules of physics cannot be measured to be outside the rules of physics.
- So long as an event conforms to math-based rules of physics (or statistics), it cannot be evidenced to have been decided or CAUSED outside of physics.
- However, quantum mechanics does not specify every precise unfoldment within any system of math-based laws.
- This is why many physicists resort to an idea of a multiverse. In that way, they try to preserve their idea that every event that occurs is entirely consistent with natural (non-god reconciled) "causation."
- Under their causation-faith, a metaphysical idea of a multiverse somehow saves their idea that every event in our universe is entirely ruled (pre-determined?) by natural "causation." IOW, by imagining a metaphysical multiverse, some shout as a kind of fundie dogmatic belief that they have disproven or dis-evidenced any idea of a causal role for a metaphysical Reconciler.
- However, a god-believer can just as validly say that his belief in a metaphysical Reconciler is no more metaphysically unreasonable than a belief in a metaphysical multiverse "where every event that is possible is made to occur in some universe."
- In both cases, the meta-god believer and the meta-multiverse believer will observe the same QM evidence, but will INTERPRET THE EVIDENCE as supporting his faith as being the more reasonable (and parsimonious) "explanation of how causation is reconciled."
- In neither case could such evidence falsify the main assumption (untestable postulation), because both are based on assumptions that are beyond physics, i.e., metaphysical.
- At that point, what "should" (in any principled sense of science and/or morality) tip the belief scale?
Whatever it is, I would call it intuition, introspection. Maybe even good faith empathy, conscious self-evidence, or common sense. If both belief systems are equally non-hindering to science, but one better avails a more consistent, coherent, and complete assimilation of civilizing mores, then which belief system would make the most common sense?
Bottom line: It is stupid to complain that a system of physics based on measurables cannot be dis-evidenced based on evidence that is measurable. Rather, the only "evidence" consists in evidence and experience that no math-based system explains all of causation in our universe.
You are committing the fallacy of mis-interpreting the role of evidence, to complain as is there were no evidence. But there is evidence that the "explanation" of that which is naturally non-predictable but multi-possible is beyond physics, that is, metaphysical.
So what you seem really to be complaining about is that such evidence cannot sustain proof or falsifiability concerning the character of that metaphysics. IOW, you are simply complaining that your unprovable postulation of a meta-multiverse is somehow (unprovably) "more evidenced" than the postulation of a believer in a meta-Reconciler. IOW, you are merely complaining about the interpretation of the EVIDENCE, which is equally available to both meta-assumptions. To argue as if faith in a meta-Reconciler is less evidenced than faith in a rationalization of a meta-multiverse is simply silly.
**************
REGARDING THE SENSE OF CAUSALITY:
ARE ALL POSSIBILITIES "CAUSED" TO MANIFEST IN SOME UNIVERSE: Some theorists hold that each new event that actually manifests is only one among perhaps innumerable possible events. In that case, causation would mean that every possible event occurs in some part of the multiverse. To me, that sounds less like causation than correlation.
IS TIME MERELY AN ACTIVATION OF MATH: So I think more in terms of sequences that happen to be allowed and protected to follow sequences than in terms of causation. To me, an idea of allowable sequences implicates math more so than real time.
FORWARD VECTOR: I would agree that allowable sequences have a forward vector, regardless of the part of the universe in which they occur. I think of a Swiss clock with many varieties and sizes of spinning gears. The smaller gears may spin, revolve, erode, and age faster than the larger gears. But all the gears will spin in respect of a common forward vector of "chronology (sequence) protection."
ETERNAL PRESENT: Perhaps the only "real time" is the eternal mathematical presentation of the present appearance. (When we look at light from a distant star, we are not looking at the real past. Rather, we are looking at a real present record of the past. IOW, a real presentation of an appearance as interpreted by a local recorder or perspective.) I understand that the numerical rate at which a local recorder may record events may differ from the rate recorded by remote recorders. But that does not mean that a super-observer, were he able to observe all possible perspectives, from outside our universe, would not sense our universe as presenting a common now-ness.
UNIVERSAL NOW-NESS: According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, it is impossible for a mortal to say in an absolute sense that two distinct events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space. But I do not think that consequence would necessarily apply to a super-being that was able to observe our universe from without or from a parallel dimension.
TWIN "PARADOX" AND TIME TRAVEL (IN REVERSE?): According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, it is impossible for any mortal to say in an absolute sense that two distinct events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space
The stay-at-home twin remains in a steady inertial frame of reference. The rocketing twin changes inertial frames, such as upon accelerating away, and upon turning around to return. This produces asymmetry in their perspectives of events unfolding in space-time.
The relativity of simultaneity means that switching from one inertial frame to another requires an adjustment in what slice through spacetime counts as the "present."
When one transfers from the outgoing inertial frame to the incoming inertial frame there is a jump discontinuity in the age of the Earth-based twin.
If Energy is something like Stored Information in Transit, then what happens to such information as a Twin is rocketed away from Earth and then turns around to return? The rocketing twin will return less aged than the stay on Earth twin, who will have experienced more sequences of wear and tear during the duration of the trip.
So: Will the rocketing twin have experienced fewer sequences and less processing of information? Or will the rocketing twin have experienced the same number of sequences but somehow at a different rate? Would that rate of experience have been slower or faster? Or would some sequences and some information simply have been lost to the rocketing twin?
IAE, when the rocketing twin returns, the clocks between the two will be re-synchronized, and the information will be subject to re-normalization.
NO ETERNAL RECURRENCE: I do not see that time dilation should implicate that a mortal could travel to the past and from there change the unfolding course of the present. I doubt that I am continuing to live the same record of my life over and over again as some kind of eternal qualitative record of what we call the past.
************
TWIN "PARADOX" AND TIME TRAVEL (IN REVERSE?): According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, it is impossible for any mortal to say in an absolute sense that two distinct events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space
The stay-at-home twin remains in a steady inertial frame of reference. The rocketing twin changes inertial frames, such as upon accelerating away, and upon turning around to return. This produces asymmetry in their perspectives of events unfolding in space-time.
The relativity of simultaneity means that switching from one inertial frame to another requires an adjustment in what slice through spacetime counts as the "present."
When one transfers from the outgoing inertial frame to the incoming inertial frame there is a jump discontinuity in the age of the Earth-based twin,
If Energy is Stored Information in Transit, then what happens to such information as a Twin is rocketed away from Earth and then turns around to return? The rocketing twin will return less aged than the stay on Earth twin, who will have experienced more sequences of wear and tear during the duration of the trip. Will the rocketing twin have experienced fewer sequences and less processing of information? Or will the rocketing twin have experienced the same number of sequences but somehow at a different rate? Would that rate of experience have been slower or faster? Or would some sequences and information simply have been lost to the rocketing twin?
IAE, when the rocketing twin returns, the clocks between the two will be re-synchronized, and the information will be subject to re-normalization.
NO ETERNAL RECURRENCE: I do not see that time dilation should implicate that a mortal could travel to the past and from there change the unfolding course of the present. I doubt that I am continuing to live the same record of my life over and over again as some kind of eternal qualitative record of what we call the past.
******************
TIME AND UNFOLDING REALITY:
Perhaps we are in less need of completely reworking all our theories than we are in enlightening our understanding of time and reality. Is the appearance of time an artifact of "real physicality" or an artifact of "real MATH-ICALITY"? Maybe Space-Time should better be called Sequence-Recordation-Renormalization Web.
IS "REALITY" BEST MODELED AS BEING PHYSICAL-LIKE OR AS BEING MATH-LIKE:
No physically scaled model of our universe is possible. This is because space-time appears to be unbounded by anything that is physical. If there is anything to reverse the expansion of space between galaxies, it may be purely mathematical. Or algorithmic. Perhaps not anything that can be physically scaled.
A hypothetical straight line is not the shortest distance between two points. The shortest distance is the path that light takes. Since space-time is gravitationally curved, it does not seem to make sense to imagine that our universe is equally vast and unbounded in all "straight line" directions. Nor does it make sense to imagine that, beyond the furthest stars and galaxies, there is only "empty space."
This is because the perspective from every locus appears as if it were at the center, even though there is no apparent real center of the collective. As space expands, it generally stretches equally between every galaxy. Space-time appears to be stretchable.
The reason space seems to expand fastest at furthest distances is analogized by dotting marks on a balloon to represent galaxies and then inflating the balloon. Taking a perspective from any particular dot, the next one may expand away one unit, the one after it two units, the one after it three units, and so on. The appearance from any perspective is that the furthest stars are moving away faster than the nearest ones. But this is a consequence of space filling the gaps between most galaxies on a generally even basis.
However, the balloon analogy is not meant to represent the universe in all respects. It is only to show how furthest stars appear to be accelerating away faster because space between every galaxy tends to be expanding.
The balloon analogy is only used because no 3-D or 4-D physical model can actually demonstrate that idea. Apart from imperfect analogies, math may best demonstrate the idea, but not any actual scaled model. A scaled model may demonstrate the limits of the universe as it has been observed to date, but only by arbitrarily selecting a center and projecting an unbounded sphere as if it were bounded. IAE, the observable or detectable limits seem to be increasing. Perhaps even as some parts of our universe remain beyond the present reach of light or detection. And others may already have expanded so that we can never detect them. So no "real limits" of the universe can be known or modeled. That is, unless there is some indirect way of measuring their distances and masses, without access to light.
Even then, there is no way to physically model what may constitute any actual boundary to any postulated circumference of the "real universe." Rather, that boundary would be represented as a mathematical boundary --- not as a physical boundary.
******************
NO LOCAL TRAVEL FASTER THAN LIGHT:
I do not see an indication in that article of faster-than-light speed by a tau neutrino. If there were such an indication, I suspect the Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly would be amended to reflect that.
Regardless, again, I do not see your point. Perhaps your idea, assumption, or philosophy concerning the nature or meaning of "reality" is less than clear? What do you mean by reality?
Do you mean to include all appearances, only measurables, some immeasurables but not others, of just what lies beneath derivatives, etc.? Do you imagine mortals have capacity to conceptualize a model about the cosmos that will constitute a coherent, consistent, complete, correct, and true explanation of it?
I conceptualize our universe as being the unfolding expression of a feedback system that entails a kind of Living Algorithm. However, I recognize such a conception, as a model, may not in itself be entirely coherent, consistent, and complete. Rather, I advance it as being a model that can be as coherent and consistent as any other, that may carry an advantage for advancing moral empathies and concerns, without hindering scientific pursuits.
Meanwhile, I simply do not see how your assertion that time is "real" is any kind of disproof. Riddle me this: (1) When you say time is real, do you mean it is real independent of space? (2) If or when our universe dissipates into a fadeout, will any record of its time still remain "real"? How real is this time of which you speak?
************
CHRONOLOGY PROTECTION:
According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, it is impossible for a mortal to say in an absolute sense that two distinct events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space.
It does seem reasonable to infer that time, as a chronology protection device, generally follows a forward vector as the space between each galaxy increases --- perhaps somewhat uniformly if space is generally stretchable. Although some locales may process more sequences, motions, and events during an interval while other locales process fewer sequences, motions, and events, all locales would still seem to move forward in their chronology protection.
If one had godlike powers, perhaps one could renormalize to represent and PRESENT every locale to a common "NOW-NESS." This would not seem to prohibit different locales from "aging" at different rates.
I wonder if chronology protection may apply in reverse, were the space between each galaxy to begin generally to decrease? Such as if the math that our system follows were to implicate a limit to the general expansion of space between galaxies.
Space-time seems to be filled with Information regarding measurable sequences. Maybe the general expansion of space has to do with a general accumulation of Information concerning sequential relationships among particular material expressions of stored information. If so, may there be a limit to the accumulation of information that accompanies the expansion of space? I wonder if a bounce-back may be implicated if such a limit were reached?
EDIT: Think of a Swiss clock with many varieties and sizes of spinning gears. The smaller gears may spin, revolve, erode, and age faster than the larger gears. But all the gears will spin in respect of a common forward vector of chronology protection.
************
Now you're just sailing deeper into non-sequiturs. You brought in time travel to infer something it does not infer. Moreover, everyone knows people age at different rates depending on relative motion. Every time we look in space, we are seeing a light record of the past. That does not mean we are traveling into the past to change anything about it.
Regardless, that still would have nothing to do with my point. Which is that you cannot construct a scaled model within the world as we inhabit it to demonstrate a collection of materials that are experiencing an expansion in space all around them without that collection having a center.
Challenge: Even if you want to model our universe as having some kind of artificial border, show me a 3D or 4D model to demonstrate a system in which the perspective from every material part is such that it appears to be at the center of the collective space that appears around every other material part, even as the space between each material part and its neighbors is being uniformly increased.
You may do that in math, but not with an actual demonstrable model. IOW, our fundamental models are math-like, not 3-D or 4-D like. Wth does time travel have to do with that?
******************
NOTE: IAE, your reference is dated and stands corrected. See https://newatlas.com/neutrinos-sub-light-speed/22876/: "In order to arrive at these new results, the flight of neutrinos passing once again from CERN to the Gran Sasso Laboratory was measured, this time with four separate experiments, Borexino, ICARUS, LVD and OPERA. On this occasion, each of the experiments provided results which were consistent with the speed of light having not been exceeded. The episode apparently brings to a close one of the more exciting potential findings deriving from the CERN laboratory which hosts over two thousand full-time employees."
*********************
A functional conceptualization is that Consciousness is stored Matter, Matter is stored Energy, Energy is stored Information, and Information is stored Consciousness. In any event, Consciousness, Substance (Matter and Energy), and Information are all intimately related, as they are fluxed to express various mixes of space, chronology (time rates of sequential events), matter, energy, mass, inertia, gravity, vector, spin, electroweak interactions, strong forces, etc. IOW, CSI, as a flux, is the expression of a connecting, back feeding, Living Algorithm.
The fibers, sinews, nerves, vessels, and synapses of every biological body are a fractal resonance and perspective of the waves that inform cosmic space-time. Our infinite potentiality dances with the infinite potentiality of the cosmos. In feedback, we are in a living dance with the cosmic Algorithm. Our bodies are finite, but the potentialities that flow with them are infinite.
The algorithm that the Godhead uses to express our universe employs a fundamental form-singularity that capacitates a vacuum with charges, polarities, spins, amplitudes, frequencies, entanglements, geometries, and fractals --- all representable in maths of geometries-vectors-vortexes of space time and black holes.
Every Perspective of Consciousness feeds back in connection with entanglements with black wholes.
**************
Space expansion seems to have to do with accumulation of Information concerning sequential relationships among particular expressions of Stored Information. The increase in space between galaxies and the vibrations flowing through space seem to go with the accumulation of Information that accompanies the vectored motions of galaxies.
May the increase in information in space reach a limit, so that further increases would be stored in an increase in black holes, perhaps eventually leading to a reversal of the expansion of space, an increase in smudged-out information, and a decrease in locally focused information? That is, a big collapse, under cycles of rinse and repeat?
The so called vacuum is never allowed to become completely stable because the Cosmic Algorithm never allows all Information represented in space-time to become completely smudged out so as to eliminate all localizing Perspectives. So there is continuous churning, between a spatial expansion of localized Information versus a consolidation of smudged out Information.
Mortal Beings experience a forward perspective in Time as their experiences of space-time expand. But mortal beings can neither thrive nor evolve as their available perspectives of space-time collapse.
Because of recurring bounce-backs between algorithmic limits, any math for a model of perpetual expansion of space-time would necessarily be incomplete for failing to account for all terms and relationships.
******************
Because of recurring bounce-backs between algorithmic limits, any math for a model of perpetual expansion of space-time would necessarily be incomplete for failing to account for all terms and relationships.
******************
IOW, we find it serviceable to say that the total amount of matter and energy remains constant, but we have no way to measure that total.
IAE, I don't believe I ever said there was a physical center to the Big Bang. I related the balloon model as a way to show it was just a model, and necessarily a somewhat inexplicable one. My point, again, is that I do not believe any physically measurable model is available to us that can avail a complete explanation. That is what I wonder about.
I do not doubt that there was a beginning from which relativistic measurements are available to us in connection with the system with which we define our measurements. What I doubt is that there was nothing before that, that would be measurable to a being beyond our system.
If time is more like a chronology protection device, then, to exist, there needs to be contemporaneous chronologies to protect. IOW, sequences among measurable destabilizers in motion. If the only existent, other than space-time, were some kind of vacuum, then the vacuum would seem necessarily to be part of whatever was implicated as contemporaneously accounting for a measurable record of space-time. IOW, both the vacuum and the space-time around it would seem to be associates of a Destabilizer.
As you intimate, for space-time to have already existed, the vacuum could not truly have been a nothing-vacuum. To my intuition, this leads back to math and an immeasurable mathematician. I do not intuit any vacuum, space, time, matter, energy, or even mass to be an existential thing in itself. To my intuition, they are all artifacts of a Living Algorithm.
I am not entirely sure what you are getting at by your relative speed analogies. I understand, apart from radiations such as light, that different observers will experience objects as if they were proceeding at different speeds. Every observer can renormalize observations, taking the speed of light as a constant. (At least, for local/galactic frames of reference. Because of postulated stretchability of space, galaxies will seem more to approach the speed of light the more distant they are. At some point, I understand they would speed away from us faster than the speed of light. Not because of local speed, but because of the stretchability of space. At that point, most, if not all, of our information concerning them would be lost. Or smudged out.)
As to whether calculation for the age of our universe would really be renormalizeable to 13.8 billion earth years for all frames of reference, I have to leave that for the cosmologists. But if you believe in chronology protection for Information, then some common beginning for our system of chronology would seem to be implicated.
************************
I will read a little more about the Higgs. But I suspect it will carry its own conundrums.
See https://www.space.com/36857-higgs-boson-mass-mystery.html:
[M]ost of your mass is really the binding energy of your protons and neutrons. And none of that has anything to do with the Higgs boson.
https://www.space.com/36724-higgs-boson-not-so-godlike.html:
[I]n the contemporary view of the rules of the universe, the primary physical object is the field, an entity that permeates all of space and time.
Every kind of particle that scientists know of, from the electron to a photon, is associated with its own space-time-filling vibrating field.
***************
Well, I do NOT believe there is a center to space-time. That is why I do not think a model that were to assume such a center could be coherent. I know the balloon is a model. After all, we cannot attempt to measure appearances that are presented to us except with models that are based on appearances. As I understand it, the big bang explosion entailed a rapid expansion of space itself, so that every point in the universe would appear to be at the center.
Part of the big bang idea postulates a genesis that entails an expansion of space itself. That space expanded. So, was it only the space between proto-particles that expanded, while space itself has always been infinitely available in every direction? Or did the big bang create new space as it moved into it? Or is space-time folded back on itself, like a donut, with the donut continuously expanding, perhaps limited only by some exotic math? I doubt science can avail reliable answers to such questions.
See http://www.iflscience.com/physics/will-universe-rip-itself-apart/. Can a universe rip apart, if distances between galaxies were to become so great that not even light could ever again communicate between them? If light could not radiate between them, then how long would the space-time that separates them continue to enforce gravitational effects between them? If a big rip were to occur, could conservation of matter and energy still be rationalized? Or would the total amount of matter and energy in each newly separate and ripped universe have diminished?
Is there a postulated total value for all the matter and energy in the universe? When every kind of energy is added, does the value net to zero, like a quantum fluctuation in a vacuum, or to infinity? Is the conservation to zero, or to potential infinity, or to a flux between zero and potential infinity? Here is one stab at the issue:
"So the total potential energy of the universe is its unconsumed mass times the square of the speed of light in a vacuum, but active ephemeral energy flowing through space-time now is balanced by the gravity/mass that is absorbing it now. Energy lost at one point of the universe is absorbed into space-time; and mass pulls it out of space-time into itself as gravity." --- https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-sum-of-total-energy-present-in-the-universe
Physically, we can play with a toy model (like a balloon) for illustrating the expansion of space per the big bang, but our toy would be in space that had already been expressed, not in space that was being created or being expanded. I doubt any physical toy could very well model any consensus of such ideas. Rather, we play with models and apply maths to them for different purposes. Although we can tinker out astonishing applications, I doubt we get much closer to understanding what "reality really is."
Btw, why did a vacuum exist, and why was it unstable? To me, the idea of an Unstable Vacuum is a bit like an idea of Activated Math, or a Living Algorithm. It just abides.
EDIT: What kind of 3D or 4D model can demonstrate a system in which every particle is simultaneously surrounded by an infinite amount of available space while still appearing to be at the center of collective space around every other particle? Answer: Nothing that can be physically scaled. Only mathematically imagined. Like a Living Algorithm.
Moreover, space-time, to exist, necessitates recordable sequences of motion. How could a mere vacuum, pre-explosion, avail the existentiality of any space-time in infinite distances all around it? How could it explode to occupy space-time before the ingredients for defining space-time were present ---- unless the explosion created space-time in order to occupy it?
****************
My Dad used to ponder what lies beyond the most distant star. A brick wall? Whatever it may be, if anything, it could not be illuminated by our light, if our light could not escape the gravitational tug of our own universe.
If space and time cannot exist except as an entanglement of space-time, and if the expression of time requires change, motion, and a chronological informational record of such change, then how could so-called empty space exist by itself, beyond the influence of a matter-filled universe?
If there is no universal "nowness," then by what conceit can any local perspective claim ability to know the starting point by which to calculate the age of "the" universe as a whole?
It is postulated that various galactic systems will be dissipating beyond the capacity of light to report to us concerning them. But how can that square with an idea of conservation of matter and energy, if untold galactic systems are free to leave and take their matter and energy with them? If their light were no longer to avail, would effects of their mass still remain? Could their mass and their distortions in hyper space account for part of dark matter (attraction) or dark energy (repulsion)?
I think space is something other than the vacuum. I don't think space is empty, but rather filled with fluxes. For example, a skater's spinning would be detectable even in so-called empty space. I think of the vacuum as being something immeasurable and indescribable, except by observing what it produces. I don't think such a vacuum can be found or confined. I don't think of it as space, but maybe as math. Maybe that would implicate more?
Our models often work well for limited purposes, but not so well when pressed to try to account for all of reality. Some people use a model of a balloon being blown up, with marks on its surface to represent galactic systems. As the balloon blows up, the distances between the dot-galaxies increases and even accelerates between the more distant dots. That model seems to work for some math-based purposes, but not for all. It does not explain why, when you take your telescope high on a mountain, you can see star systems in all directions --- not just along some hypothetical balloon surface. To demonstrate a 4-D model of accelerating an expanse into space, one would need to draw a series of spheres with star systems throughout the interior, to demonstrate each step of the expansion. But that would implicate some kind of center point of origin. And I much doubt any cosmologist can point his telescope and describe where any such a point of origin began. He can deploy various math models, but he cannot grid the universe or its center origin. So his math seems more reliable than any attempt to construct a physical model.
Since no physical model can suffice, is there an implication that our universe, at heart, must be mathematical (like a matrix), and that it only seems to our senses to be "out there" as some kind of thing-in-itself?
But there are conundrums to math. If a mathematician could be confident his math relates to every term of significance, then he may tinker and eventually produce a TOE. Problem is, how can he ever be sure his math relates to every term of significance? Moreover, there may be a self-fulfilling aspect to the maths we develop. In some respects, we may tend towards becoming what we consume as well as what we imagine.
**************
If space-time is merely artefactual of the Vacuum, then there is no real distance between the most distant galaxies --- except in algorithmic math. May black holes worm, in different ways depending on their size, through the algorithmic math of space-time ... in an instant?
May some black holes of different sizes and locations function as vacuum cleaners, to produce different way-stations for dark matter or dark energy, while larger black holes produce newly exploding singularities? At furthest distances, may small black holes tend more to clump, to eventually form supermassive black holes, that so distort the furthest reaches of space time as to cause an acceleration in dissipation towards them?
What reconciles the unfolding details within the broad parameters of such circulatory agents, within the potentiality of the Vacuum, if not a Conscious Mathematician --- like a breather of fire to activate determinations of the Vacuum?
*****************
Our models and analogies (big bang, expanding space, space-time, etc.) can help us understand reality, without in themselves necessarily being reality.
Does not time, as we more fundamentally tend to conceptualize it, have more to do with information being accumulated concerning sequences among bodies moving in space? IOW, chronological protection?
If we indulge an assumption that seems reasonable, there were previously sequenced big bangs, so a reasonable assumption may follow: That our big bang moved into their space.
However, even if there were a first big bang, it would not seem reasonable to conceptualize that absolutely nothing preceded it. It would seem more reasonable to model that a vacuum preceded it, with potential to unleash various expressions of positively or negatively charged forms, vibrations, particles, and/or spins --- so long as their math-based addition, if possible, would restore the vacuum. Such a vacuum carrying such potential cannot reasonably and entirely be conceptualized as no-thing. Although it may perhaps be conceptualized as no-measurable-thing.
But that would beg a question: What potential always existed with the vacuum, to destabilize it, to vent expression of a big bang? What breathed the fire? What math-ed the math?
If there were a first big bang, I am not so sure it is reasonable to conceptualize that space or time preceded it. It would seem just as reasonable to conceptualize that space and chronology came into manifest (apparent) being to expand with the explosion out of the vacuum. IOW, that there was just a vacuum and an agent of destabilization. Like a field of math and a mathematician. Or a Living Algorithm.
************
OF BLACK HOLES AND DARK MATTER AND ENERGY:
It is postulated that our universe is expanding at such an accelerating rate that there will come a time when most galactic systems apart from those near our own will have separated beyond the horizon from which we can detect their light. In that respect, will they become like separate universes, so that our light will be trapped to circulate within our own system?
If so, can we know whether some galaxies may already have separated, to form their own separate universes? If so, what becomes of our rationalizations concerning a math-based, equational basis for a natural law of conservation of matter and energy? Would the escape of their mass implicate a violation of math-based conservation? Or would their mass still influence our system, such as via black holes?
Are black holes gateways for conserving mass/gravitational effects? May such effects be what expresses what we call dark matter and dark energy? May such distant and unseen galaxies be asserting, via black holes, a pull on the expansion of our universe?
May the mass of our universe be continuously fluxing, being lost even as it is replaced, via a circulating feedback system of black holes?
At limits of dissipation, may all matter and energy eventually get recompressed and recirculated to a freshly originating big bang, from which other systems would remain too distant for their light to be detected, even as their dark mass restarted an accelerating dissipation?
If space-time is merely artefactual of the Vacuum, then there is no real distance between the most distant galaxies --- except in algorithmic math. May black holes worm, in different ways depending on their size, through the algorithmic math of space-time ... in an instant?
May some black holes of different sizes and locations function as vacuum cleaners, to produce different way-stations for dark matter or dark energy, while larger black holes produce newly exploding singularities? At furthest distances, may small black holes tend more to clump, to eventually form supermassive black holes, that so distort the furthest reaches of space time as to cause an acceleration in dissipation towards them?
What reconciles the unfolding details within the broad parameters of such circulatory agents, within the potentiality of the Vacuum, if not a Conscious Mathematician --- like a breather of fire to activate determinations of the Vacuum?
******************
See http://nautil.us/blog/dark-matter-may-be-trapped-in-all-the-black-holes
Note: Dark matter produces an attractive force (gravity), while dark energy produces a repulsive force (antigravity). Together, they make up 96 percent of the universe—and we can't see either.
See https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/dark-energy-may-not-exist:
The accelerating expansion of the universe due to a mysterious quantity called “dark energy” may not be real, according to research claiming it might simply be an artefact caused by the physical structure of the cosmos.
The study’s lead author David Wiltshire, from the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, says existing dark energy models are based on a homogenous universe in which matter is evenly distributed.
“The real universe has a far more complicated structure, comprising galaxies, galaxy clusters, and superclusters arranged in a cosmic web of giant sheets and filaments surrounding vast near-empty voids”, says Wiltshire.
On a galactic scale, gravity appears to be stronger than scientists can account for, using the normal matter of the universe, the material in the standard model of particle physics, which makes up all the stars, planets, buildings, and people.
To explain their observations, scientists invented “dark matter”, a mysterious substance which seems to only interact gravitationally with normal matter.
To explain science’s observations of how galaxies move, there must be about five times as much dark matter as normal matter.
It’s called dark because whatever it is, it cannot emit light. Scientists can only see its effects gravitationally on normal matter.
On the even larger cosmic scales of an expanding universe, gravity appears to be weaker than expected in a universe containing only normal matter and dark matter.
And so, scientists invented a new force, called “dark energy”, a sort of anti-gravitational force causing an acceleration in the expansion of the universe out from the big bang 13.8 billion years ago.
Dark energy isn’t noticeable on small scales, but becomes the dominating force of the universe on the largest cosmic scales: almost four times greater than the gravity of normal and dark matter combined.
Einstein believed the universe was in a steady unchanging state. Yet, when applied to cosmology, his equations showed the universe wanted to expand or contract as matter interacts with the fabric of spacetime: matter tells spacetime how to curve, and spacetime tells matter how to move.
Timescape cosmology has no dark energy. Instead, it includes variations in the effects of gravity caused by the lumpiness in the structure in the universe.
**************
**************
I think you're trying to make a distinction that makes no difference in connection with my point, which pertains to self-evidence. Now, one can arbitrarily define awareness as pertaining to awareness of external measurables, and one can arbitrarily define consciousness as pertaining to one's internal awareness of one's awareness of external measurables.
And one can go on making other arbitrary distinctions that have no bearing on my point, which is: You are making the common mistake of seeking empirical objective evidence of that which is self evident. IOW, that which is inherently subjective (to self), qualitative, and beyond confinement to empirical measurements. Only if you assume that everything that exists must be measurably evidence-able would you deny a role for that which is self evident.
So maybe you should prove your implicit assumption: That nothing can exist unless it is in some way measurable. Otherwise, I ask: Why are you making the absurd mistake of asking for measurable evidence of self-existents that are immeasurable?
*****************
Well, I also take the existence of Consciousness as implicating the existence of something that it relates to, which is: The Vacuum. (A Mathematician activates, and always has activated, the field of Math.)
I also recognize the absurdity of trying to multiply or divide by either zero or infinity.
So I do not concern myself with trying to explain an original creator, and an original creator of that creator, and so on, ad infinitum. I simply recognize that something immeasurable (Consciousness?) abides and somehow presents unfoldments of somethingness out of seemingly otherwise nothingness.
I agree that the Vacuum, in itself, is not measurable. I do not agree that no-thing can exist unless it is measurable. I think immeasurable existents are implicated, as well as measurable existents.
FYI, I made a previous comment where I try to compare Michiko Kaku's string theory with Nassim Haramein's bucky-ball theory. Both try to model a way to conceptualize how parameters for our measurable Universe could manifest out of a vacuum potentiality of spatial infinity and chronological eternity.
Apart from the Mathematician and the Math, I would conceptualize measurable things as being their mere derivatives. I do not conceptualize measurable things (space, time, matter, energy) as being existents-in-themselves. IOW, I do not conceptualize consciousness or the vacuum as emerging from space-time-matter-energy. Rather, I conceptualize space-time-matter-energy as emerging from a Living Algorithm (Mathematician inter-functioning with a Vacuum field of math).
**************
Consciousness exists as the unchanging changer. It need not be objectively, measurably comfineable to exist. A holism can exist while it's particular expressions flux.
**************
Maybe time, like gravity, is less an existent in itself than a perception of an effect. More like a perception of variable rates of sequential, chronological unfoldments of apparent events, depending on one's relative/consensus/reconciled location and motion. Maybe one can no more violate an informational record of previously sequenced chronology than one can violate gravity.
IAE, cosmologists do speak of an age of our universe as it manifests to us, as if it had a common beginning at a singular, common "big bang."
But that need not mean that there were no precursor sequences or events. It means only that any record of them is outside our capacity to measure. It need not mean that precursor(s) were not always existent. Or that such events cannot always have been going through cycles of recordation, erasure, and recycling. It need only mean that we cannot measure, prove, dig up, or know. Nor need it mean that Consciousness in some respect has not always accompanied what seems to abide as a never entirely at rest singular vacuum.
Maybe both time and space are more math-like than substance-like. More like creative Mind sequences than things-in-themselves.
*****************
ORIGINAL CREATOR, OR ALWAYS HAS BEEN RECONCILER?
SUMMARY:
I have recently been superficially intrigued by Michio Kaku and Nassim Hamamein. Kaku seems to envision a metaphysical multiverse that has availed Type 3 Rulers of Galaxies to evolve over space-time. Such Type 3's seem much like gods. Hamamein seems to envision Consciousness as being a fundament, that entails continuously connected feedback. Kaku sees all particles as being expressions of super-small vibrating loops of entangled "strings." Hamamein seems to see all particles as being expressions of something like variously entangled and spinning vector-expressed bucky balls.
Kaku's mathematical presentations have been much more favorably received by the mainstream physics community. Perhaps because his math seems more coherent and he tends less to intimate God as a fundament.
Interestingly, Michio Kaku, who has published over 70 articles in Physics Review, has some ideas about Beings that are of Type 0, 1, 2, or 3. With Type 3 having godlike power over black holes and galaxies. He speculates transmitters may be on millions and millions of moons, waiting to activate to notify superior intelligences as planets produce Type 1 intelligence. But he tends not to be denigrated, as Hamamein often is.
**********************************
EXPLANATION:
There is a presentation on Gaia by Nassim Hamamein. He has a web page at https://hiup.org/people/. Wiki is not fond of him. Neither are mainstream physicists. However, he does apply math to some ideas about the Vacuum. In the end, he reaches conclusions not far from my own, although I base mine much more on intuition, logic, and philosophy than on math.
I think of a Living Algorithm as feeding-back and reconciling unfolding expressions of a flux among three fundaments: Consciousness, Substance, and Information. Hamamein employs some similar terminology, speaking in respect of Consciousness, Information, and Measurables (what I call Substance). He speaks in terms of Vacuum Engineering, infinite potentiality, fundamental structure of space and consciousness, resonance feedback, how the Universe learns about itself and self-organizes, how vacuum information radiates and then feeds back.
I speak of a Godhead (Living Algorithm) as a Reconciler of all that is fed back and forth to it. Hamamein speaks of how, when you feed Information to the Universe, it is modulated in respect of all other participants, and then molded to a consensus relationship. A coordination of the collective. He seems to say that every particle has a potential to be filled to a density that could accept the mass of the universe. Every particle resonates as or with a "Black Whole" --- spinning at near the speed of Light. A singularity seems to be the potential for all spins to cancel out.
Like the Living Algorithm, the Vacuum "just is."
To me, it appears:
Hamamein wants to understand how our universe found its place within the infinity of the potential of space and the eternity of the potential of time. Since one cannot, by mere math, multiply or divide by either zero or infinity, how then did parameters for our Universe come to be determined from out of what he calls the Vacuum? If one takes the vacuum as, at rest, equaling either to zero or to infinity, then how could any destabilizing force, asymmetrical capacity, or force vector ever have arisen in respect of it?
Has the Vacuum always been de-stabilized, unbalanced, asymmetrical? Is that why the math that seems to try to restore it to an at-rest balance must always remain activated? As what we call force vectors must continuously flux, to try to restore a non-restorable balanced equation? Can the equations of the vacuum only be balanced by a continuous fluxing of unfolding vectors?
Note that force vectors can be represented in a form of spatial geometry. "------------>" But such spatial geometry need not exist as a real thing-in-itself, but only as a derivative re-presentation of a fundamental flux of consciousness as it inter-functions with the vacuum. Because consciousness exists, and it destabilizes and renders the vacuum asymmetrical, consciousness experiences force vectors as they function to try to rebalance the vacuum --- AS IF such vectors were spatial occupiers in themselves, rather than as mere derivatives. In that respect, such force vectors are fundamental to the appearances that re-present to us as mathematically measurable forms, forces, and substances.
In simplest presentation, a vector of ------------> that is countered with a vector of <------------ ---="" 90="" a="" account="" accounts="" adds="" and="" are="" as="" balls="" be="" bucky="" change="" chemical="" claims="" combined="" degrees.="" dense="" dimensional="" each="" electrical="" entangled="" ere="" essence="" every="" expanded="" fed-back="" find="" for="" force-vector.="" form="" from="" gravitational="" hamamein="" if="" in="" is="" kind="" like="" likewise="" magnetic="" metaphysics="" most="" motion="" must="" net="" of="" or="" physical="" possible.="" possible="" presentation.="" presentation="" quantum-based="" re-compressed="" relativistic="" rotated="" s="" seems="" singularity.="" so="" something="" space-time="" span="" spatial="" spin="" spun="" stable="" strong="" such="" that="" the="" then="" theories="" they="" this="" three="" time="" to="" unification="" vaccum="" vacuum.="" vacuum="" vectors="" way="" weak="" would="" zero.="">
This reminds me a little of Michio Kaku's string theory. Problem is, neither string theory nor bucky-ball theory seems to be empirically provable. The best they may offer is internal consistency, provided they do not upset the agendas of mainstream physicists. Unfortunately for Hamamein, Kaku, as a person, is much more accepted by the physics community.
Kaku seems to envision a rather metaphysical multiverse --- perhaps as a way to avoid other spiritual or metaphysical explorations. Instead of a God of the Beginning or a God of the Always-Has-Been, Kaku seems to envision something like Type Three Rulers of Galaxies that happen to have evolved over space-time.
Hamamein may accept the idea of a multiverse, but seems to believe Consciousness is, and always has been, fundamental to it. For my own spiritual, empathetic, and metaphysical beliefs, I favor Hamamein. In any event, it is interesting that both seem somewhat accepting of metaphysical implications.
No comments:
Post a Comment