| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Robert Karl Stonjek" |
| Date: |
27 Apr 2004 05:01:57 PM |
| Object: |
Article: The Myth of the Beginning of Time |
April 26, 2004
The Myth of the Beginning of Time
By Gabriele Veneziano
String theory suggests that the big bang was not the origin of the
universe but simply the outcome of a preexisting state
Was the big bang really the beginning of time? Or did the universe exist
before then? Such a question seemed almost blasphemous only a decade
ago. Most cosmologists insisted that it simply made no sense--that to
contemplate a time before the big bang was like asking for directions to
a place north of the North Pole. But developments in theoretical
physics, especially the rise of string theory, have changed their
perspective. The pre-bang universe has become the latest frontier of
cosmology.
The new willingness to consider what might have happened before the bang
is the latest swing of an intellectual pendulum that has rocked back and
forth for millennia. In one form or another, the issue of the ultimate
beginning has engaged philosophers and theologians in nearly every
culture. It is entwined with a grand set of concerns, one famously
encapsulated in an 1897 painting by Paul Gauguin: D'ou venons-nous? Que
sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous? "Where do we come from? What are we? Where
are we going?" The piece depicts the cycle of birth, life and
death--origin, identity and destiny for each individual--and these
personal concerns connect directly to cosmic ones. We can trace our
lineage back through the generations, back through our animal ancestors,
to early forms of life and protolife, to the elements synthesized in the
primordial universe, to the amorphous energy deposited in space before
that. Does our family tree extend forever backward? Or do its roots
terminate? Is the cosmos as impermanent as we are?
The ancient Greeks debated the origin of time fiercely. Aristotle,
taking the no-beginning side, invoked the principle that out of nothing,
nothing comes. If the universe could never have gone from nothingness to
somethingness, it must always have existed. For this and other reasons,
time must stretch eternally into the past and future. Christian
theologians tended to take the opposite point of view. Augustine
contended that God exists outside of space and time, able to bring these
constructs into existence as surely as he could forge other aspects of
our world. When asked, "What was God doing before he created the world?"
Augustine answered, "Time itself being part of God's creation, there was
simply no before!"
Read the rest at Scientific American
http://cl.extm.us/?fe88127577610c7471-fe3016707360067c711779
--
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek.
.
|
|
| User: "Shrikantha S. Shastry" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: The Myth of the Beginning of Time |
07 May 2004 12:43:04 AM |
|
|
"Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:<pLAjc.906$TT.612@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
April 26, 2004
The Myth of the Beginning of Time
By Gabriele Veneziano
String theory suggests that the big bang was not the origin of the
universe but simply the outcome of a preexisting state
Was the big bang really the beginning of time? Or did the universe exist
before then? Such a question seemed almost blasphemous only a decade
ago. Most cosmologists insisted that it simply made no sense--that to
contemplate a time before the big bang was like asking for directions to
a place north of the North Pole. But developments in theoretical
physics, especially the rise of string theory, have changed their
perspective. The pre-bang universe has become the latest frontier of
cosmology.
The new willingness to consider what might have happened before the bang
is the latest swing of an intellectual pendulum that has rocked back and
forth for millennia. In one form or another, the issue of the ultimate
beginning has engaged philosophers and theologians in nearly every
culture. It is entwined with a grand set of concerns, one famously
encapsulated in an 1897 painting by Paul Gauguin: D'ou venons-nous? Que
sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous? "Where do we come from? What are we? Where
are we going?" The piece depicts the cycle of birth, life and
death--origin, identity and destiny for each individual--and these
personal concerns connect directly to cosmic ones. We can trace our
lineage back through the generations, back through our animal ancestors,
to early forms of life and protolife, to the elements synthesized in the
primordial universe, to the amorphous energy deposited in space before
that. Does our family tree extend forever backward? Or do its roots
terminate? Is the cosmos as impermanent as we are?
The ancient Greeks debated the origin of time fiercely. Aristotle,
taking the no-beginning side, invoked the principle that out of nothing,
nothing comes. If the universe could never have gone from nothingness to
somethingness, it must always have existed. For this and other reasons,
time must stretch eternally into the past and future. Christian
theologians tended to take the opposite point of view. Augustine
contended that God exists outside of space and time, able to bring these
constructs into existence as surely as he could forge other aspects of
our world. When asked, "What was God doing before he created the world?"
Augustine answered, "Time itself being part of God's creation, there was
simply no before!"
Read the rest at Scientific American
http://cl.extm.us/?fe88127577610c7471-fe3016707360067c711779
How can an universe begin or end when it cannot 'exist' even now? What
'exists' is its singularity on which the universe is simply 'observed'
always. Now, at the singularity, there is no universe.
S S Shastry
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "alistair" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: The Myth of the Beginning of Time |
03 May 2004 08:21:38 AM |
|
|
If the universe oscillates between a big bang and a big crunch
perpetually
then time ends for one state of the universe but begins for the next
state.
Since the universe has finite mass there are only a finite number of
arrangements of that mass so there are a limited number of unique
universes
that can come into existence no matter how many times the universe
oscillates.We have all been here before, we will be here again. The
current arrangement of particles is the one we are living through now
- it will be annihilated and sometime in the future after a huge
number of bangs and crunches we will be back in the same arrangement
with the same genes,
the same thoughts and everything will be repeated in the same
order.There is no such thing as free will - atoms bump into one
another randomly and that's all there is to it.People who think
quantum mechanics can provide a way out of this deterministic scenario
are clutching at straws.The universe is not even a machine - it has no
purpose - it just is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: The Myth of the Beginning of Time |
03 May 2004 03:34:53 PM |
|
|
alistair:
If the universe oscillates between a big bang and a big crunch
perpetually
then time ends for one state of the universe but begins for the next
state.
Since the universe has finite mass there are only a finite number of
arrangements of that mass so there are a limited number of unique
universes
that can come into existence no matter how many times the universe
Thank you, nostradamus.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: The Myth of the Beginning of Time |
27 Apr 2004 06:19:57 PM |
|
|
Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
April 26, 2004
The Myth of the Beginning of Time
By Gabriele Veneziano
String theory suggests that the big bang was not the origin of the
universe but simply the outcome of a preexisting state
[snip]
String/M-theory admits to no empirical validation or falsification.
String theory is philosophy, not science. If String theory is not
testable, then String theory has no bearing on reality.
Augustine
contended that God exists outside of space and time, able to bring these
constructs into existence as surely as he could forge other aspects of
our world. When asked, "What was God doing before he created the world?"
Augustine answered, "Time itself being part of God's creation, there was
simply no before!"
Philosophy is cuddly *****. If you want a flush toilet, talk with
an engineer.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: The Myth of the Beginning of Time |
28 Apr 2004 04:17:52 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al:
Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
April 26, 2004
The Myth of the Beginning of Time
By Gabriele Veneziano
String theory suggests that the big bang was not the origin of the
universe but simply the outcome of a preexisting state
[snip]
String/M-theory admits to no empirical validation or falsification.
Sure it does. String theory admits to being able to obtain yang-mills
theory and general relativity as a low energy limit. There exist no data
for which the low energy limit is found to be incorrect, so string theory
is at least validated to the extent that no prediction it makes is
incorrect. I would guess that a lot more progress would be made if we
could perform experiments at the plank scale.
String theory is philosophy, not science. If String theory is not
testable, then String theory has no bearing on reality.
C.N. Yang made the following comment about a theory that he and
R.L. Mills published in 1954 which suffered a much worse defect:
``We did not know how to make the theory fit experiment. It was
our judgement, however, that the beauty of the idea alone merited
attention.''
Thus, the theory completely failed the purpose for which it was
conceived. That failed theory is now called yang-mills theory and
that paper is considered to one of the most significant papers written
in the last century.
I'd argue that string theory potentially offers you a sure fire path to
seeing your experiment performed. While I'm not certain that string theory
can accomodate the type of effect your experiment would test, particular
cases might exist which can. If so, you might find some some sudden
interest in your experiment. You'll find more support for an experiment
that proposes to distinguish between two possible alternative theories,
than for an experiment that only offers the possibility to falsify a
theory in which there is a a tradeoff between what is involved in
performing the experiment and the likelyhood of getting useful data.
You might try contacting a string theorist to see if it's possible to
construct a string theory for which your experiment would give a non-null
result.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: The Myth of the Beginning of Time |
27 Apr 2004 09:48:22 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:408EEA9D.BFD029D7@hate.spam.net...
Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
April 26, 2004
The Myth of the Beginning of Time
By Gabriele Veneziano
String theory suggests that the big bang was not the origin of the
universe but simply the outcome of a preexisting state
[snip]
String/M-theory admits to no empirical validation or falsification.
String theory is philosophy, not science. If String theory is not
testable, then String theory has no bearing on reality.
At this stage Uncle Al, at this stage. And strings theorists worry about
that as well -which makes them scientists - not philosophers. Feynman had
exactly the same concern but admitted he was too old to really know if his
concern were genuine or science had entered a new phase. His and your
concerns are genuine, it is just that string theory and other approaches
that seem equally removed form observation seem to be the only game in town.
It is hoped the next generation of colliders will make it experimental
again.
Thanks
Bill
Augustine
contended that God exists outside of space and time, able to bring these
constructs into existence as surely as he could forge other aspects of
our world. When asked, "What was God doing before he created the world?"
Augustine answered, "Time itself being part of God's creation, there was
simply no before!"
Philosophy is cuddly *****. If you want a flush toilet, talk with
an engineer.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dale Trynor" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: The Myth of the Beginning of Time |
28 Apr 2004 12:13:51 AM |
|
|
Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
April 26, 2004
The Myth of the Beginning of Time
By Gabriele Veneziano
String theory suggests that the big bang was not the origin of the
universe but simply the outcome of a preexisting state
Was the big bang really the beginning of time? Or did the universe exist
before then? Such a question seemed almost blasphemous only a decade
ago.
Dale Trynor wrote:
If you are really interested in knowing the answer to this question you can
get a very short preview without the details by looking at some recent posts
by me in. Keep in mind that this remarkably simple and intuitively logical
alternative theory is over a year old.
Re: Big Bang Question
I will update my site when and if I get time and it will cover most of it.
In the meantime I can post more on it here for you and include the site url
even if its not yet suitably ready.
[snip]
our world. When asked, "What was God doing before he created the world?"
Augustine answered, "Time itself being part of God's creation, there was
simply no before!"
You might like this alternative theory because of how it suggests an older
"careful as its a bit confusing to call it an outer universe" with a faster
time than our universe that must be dead of heat death by now. Its creates
some great sci-fi and even a few far out religious possibilities because of
how it increases the chances of other advanced civilizations having come and
gone with the extra possibility of having migrated into our universe.
Dale
Read the rest at Scientific American
http://cl.extm.us/?fe88127577610c7471-fe3016707360067c711779
--
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hayek" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: The Myth of the Beginning of Time |
29 Apr 2004 12:11:59 PM |
|
|
Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
April 26, 2004 The Myth of the Beginning of Time By
Gabriele Veneziano String theory suggests that the
big bang was not the origin of the universe but
simply the outcome of a preexisting state
Was the big bang really the beginning of time? Or
did the universe exist before then? Such a question
seemed almost blasphemous only a decade ago. Most
cosmologists insisted that it simply made no
sense--that to contemplate a time before the big
bang was like asking for directions to a place
north of the North Pole. But developments in
theoretical physics, especially the rise of string
theory, have changed their perspective. The
pre-bang universe has become the latest frontier of
cosmology. The new willingness to consider what
might have happened before the bang is the latest
swing of an intellectual pendulum that has rocked
back and forth for millennia. In one form or
another, the issue of the ultimate beginning has
engaged philosophers and theologians in nearly
every culture. It is entwined with a grand set of
concerns, one famously encapsulated in an 1897
painting by Paul Gauguin: D'ou venons-nous? Que
sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous? "Where do we come
from? What are we? Where are we going?" The piece
depicts the cycle of birth, life and death--origin,
identity and destiny for each individual--and these
personal concerns connect directly to cosmic ones.
We can trace our lineage back through the
generations, back through our animal ancestors, to
early forms of life and protolife, to the elements
synthesized in the primordial universe, to the
amorphous energy deposited in space before that.
Does our family tree extend forever backward? Or do
its roots terminate? Is the cosmos as impermanent
as we are?
The ancient Greeks debated the origin of time
fiercely. Aristotle, taking the no-beginning side,
invoked the principle that out of nothing, nothing
comes. If the universe could never have gone from
nothingness to somethingness, it must always have
existed. For this and other reasons, time must
stretch eternally into the past and future.
Christian theologians tended to take the opposite
point of view. Augustine contended that God exists
outside of space and time, able to bring these
constructs into existence as surely as he could
forge other aspects of our world. When asked, "What
was God doing before he created the world?"
Augustine answered, "Time itself being part of
God's creation, there was simply no before!"
Read the rest at Scientific American
http://cl.extm.us/?fe88127577610c7471-fe3016707360067c711779
There is no such thing as time. So it did not begin,
can't end and was not created or destroyed.
There is motion, and this motion can be controlled by
inertia. A clock is an inertiameter. Your inertia may
vary.
Uwe Hayek.
--
To be controlled in our economic pursuits,
is to be controlled in everything -- F.A.Hayek.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Karl Stonjek" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: The Myth of the Beginning of Time |
30 Apr 2004 06:40:21 AM |
|
|
"Hayek" <hayektt@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:4091375d$0$563$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
April 26, 2004 The Myth of the Beginning of Time By
Gabriele Veneziano String theory suggests that the
big bang was not the origin of the universe but
simply the outcome of a preexisting state
Was the big bang really the beginning of time? Or
did the universe exist before then? Such a question
seemed almost blasphemous only a decade ago. Most
cosmologists insisted that it simply made no
sense--that to contemplate a time before the big
bang was like asking for directions to a place
north of the North Pole. But developments in
theoretical physics, especially the rise of string
theory, have changed their perspective. The
pre-bang universe has become the latest frontier of
cosmology. The new willingness to consider what
might have happened before the bang is the latest
swing of an intellectual pendulum that has rocked
back and forth for millennia. In one form or
another, the issue of the ultimate beginning has
engaged philosophers and theologians in nearly
every culture. It is entwined with a grand set of
concerns, one famously encapsulated in an 1897
painting by Paul Gauguin: D'ou venons-nous? Que
sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous? "Where do we come
from? What are we? Where are we going?" The piece
depicts the cycle of birth, life and death--origin,
identity and destiny for each individual--and these
personal concerns connect directly to cosmic ones.
We can trace our lineage back through the
generations, back through our animal ancestors, to
early forms of life and protolife, to the elements
synthesized in the primordial universe, to the
amorphous energy deposited in space before that.
Does our family tree extend forever backward? Or do
its roots terminate? Is the cosmos as impermanent
as we are?
The ancient Greeks debated the origin of time
fiercely. Aristotle, taking the no-beginning side,
invoked the principle that out of nothing, nothing
comes. If the universe could never have gone from
nothingness to somethingness, it must always have
existed. For this and other reasons, time must
stretch eternally into the past and future.
Christian theologians tended to take the opposite
point of view. Augustine contended that God exists
outside of space and time, able to bring these
constructs into existence as surely as he could
forge other aspects of our world. When asked, "What
was God doing before he created the world?"
Augustine answered, "Time itself being part of
God's creation, there was simply no before!"
Read the rest at Scientific American
http://cl.extm.us/?fe88127577610c7471-fe3016707360067c711779
There is no such thing as time. So it did not begin,
can't end and was not created or destroyed.
There is motion, and this motion can be controlled by
inertia. A clock is an inertiameter. Your inertia may
vary.
Uwe Hayek.
RKS:
Can motion begin without an 'outside' agent? That is, let 'inside' be
some space in which there is no motion. Can motion 'begin' or be
initiated without some input from outside?
I think not.
Robert.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: The Myth of the Beginning of Time |
30 Apr 2004 05:27:31 PM |
|
|
"Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:FWqkc.5065$TT.2178@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Can motion begin without an 'outside' agent? That is, let 'inside'
be
some space in which there is no motion. Can motion 'begin' or be
initiated without some input from outside?
Radioactive decay
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Karl Stonjek" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: The Myth of the Beginning of Time |
02 May 2004 05:01:45 AM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:c6ujsi$t2t$13@hercules.btinternet.com...
"Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:FWqkc.5065$TT.2178@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Can motion begin without an 'outside' agent? That is, let 'inside'
be
some space in which there is no motion. Can motion 'begin' or be
initiated without some input from outside?
Radioactive decay
Franz
Good point. But the mechanism that determines the decay rate is still
much in dispute and has helped to inspire theories such as 'hidden
variable' theories including string and related supersymmetry theories.
The question is: how does the particle know anything of the clock? In
particular, why would two slightly different isotopes of the same
substance have different decay rates? The mind boggling thing with
radioactive decay is why or how various elements can have such
predictable half lives (once you've taken into account the enormous
number of molecules in any ponderable mass ie thinking of Avogadro's
number).
I note that if I took one particle of each element and known isotope and
placed the mass out in space at some time zero, then the probability
that all particles decay simultaneously at ever given time T greater
than or equal to zero is not zero (calculating and plotting such a
probability against time would be an interesting exercise - I assume
that T=0 and T=Infinity would be closest to zero with some rise to a
peak, but where? :)
--
Kind Regards,
Robert Karl Stonjek.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: The Myth of the Beginning of Time |
03 May 2004 01:36:55 AM |
|
|
Robert Karl Stonjek:
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:c6ujsi$t2t$13@hercules.btinternet.com...
"Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:FWqkc.5065$TT.2178@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Can motion begin without an 'outside' agent? That is, let 'inside'
be
some space in which there is no motion. Can motion 'begin' or be
initiated without some input from outside?
Radioactive decay
Franz
Good point. But the mechanism that determines the decay rate is still
much in dispute and has helped to inspire theories such as 'hidden
variable' theories including string and related supersymmetry theories.
The question is: how does the particle know anything of the clock?
It doesn't. That is the whole point. If radioactive decay is a
poisson process, then radioactive decay naturally acts as a clock
just by virtue of the decay process being random. The parameter
which defines the ``clock rate'' is then just the probability
of an interaction, i.e., the coupling constant.
In particular, why would two slightly different isotopes of the same
substance have different decay rates?
That is a good question, because it is presumed that the decay
rates are not _intrinsically_ different (except by virtue of
the difference in the coupling for the decay, i.e., electromagnetic,
strong, or weak). What results in different decay rates for a given
type of decay, are differences in the amount of phase space available
for the decay and/or conservation laws which inhibit the decay.
For example, the neutron decays in about 15 minutes, but it doesn't
decay when bound in a deuteron. Here, the deuteron does not decay because
there is no phase space available for the decay, i.e., it's energetically
forbidden. There is no proton-proton bound state, so the only possible
decay is to two free protons + an electron + an antineutrino.
However, we can compare two decays which superficially appear about as
unalike as possible, neutron decay and \mu- decay. Both decay via the weak
interaction but the neutron lifetime is about 900 seconds, while the muon
lifetime is about 2.2 usec. Since the muon and neutron ``decay clocks''
are the same clock, namely the weak interaction, how can the decays be
related? If you go through a calculation of both, you find that the
difference is almost entirely due to the fact that for neutron decay, you
have a total energy release of about 760 keV, while for the muon, you have
a total energy release of over 105 MeV. You can factor this difference
out and compare what is called an `ft' value and what you find is that
there is no difference in the ``intrinsic lifetime'' of those decays.
The mind boggling thing with
radioactive decay is why or how various elements can have such
predictable half lives (once you've taken into account the enormous
number of molecules in any ponderable mass ie thinking of Avogadro's
number).
Actually, it's only by virtue of the large number of decays that
the half-life is useful. If in each time interval dt a nucleus
can either decay or not decay with a probability P, then with
only a single nucleus, the decay will only take place in that
time interval with a probanility P. In principle, the decay could
take an arbitrarily large amount of time or happen in an arbitrarily
short time. It's only by virtue of the large number of potential
decays and the fact that the decays are _random_, that you get
a well-defined half-life.
I note that if I took one particle of each element and known isotope and
placed the mass out in space at some time zero, then the probability
that all particles decay simultaneously at ever given time T greater
than or equal to zero is not zero (calculating and plotting such a
probability against time would be an interesting exercise - I assume
that T=0 and T=Infinity would be closest to zero with some rise to a
peak, but where? :)
Look at the limiting cases for a poisson distribution.
A poisson process is defined to be a process with some
parameter `a' for which approximately one event takes place
in an interval \delta t with a probability a\delta t and the
probability of two or more events taking place is that time
interval is approximately zero.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: The Myth of the Beginning of Time |
03 May 2004 03:28:29 PM |
|
|
"Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:dG3lc.8168$TT.2748@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:c6ujsi$t2t$13@hercules.btinternet.com...
"Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:FWqkc.5065$TT.2178@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Can motion begin without an 'outside' agent? That is, let
'inside'
be
some space in which there is no motion. Can motion 'begin' or
be
initiated without some input from outside?
Radioactive decay
Franz
Good point. But the mechanism that determines the decay rate is
still
much in dispute
No. It is known to be due to the weak interaction.
and has helped to inspire theories such as 'hidden
variable' theories including string and related supersymmetry
theories.
No, I don't think that it is the mechanism of the radioactive decay
rate which inspired the hidden variable theories. Those are concerned
with the interpretation of quantum mechanics.
The question is: how does the particle know anything of the clock?
In
particular, why would two slightly different isotopes of the same
substance have different decay rates?
They have different internal structures.
The mind boggling thing with
radioactive decay is why or how various elements can have such
predictable half lives (once you've taken into account the enormous
number of molecules in any ponderable mass ie thinking of Avogadro's
number).
My mind does not boggle at those thoughts. A particular nucleus has a
particular structure which determines the probability per unit time
that it will decay. The fact that that probability is constant for a
given nucleus is what determines that it has a well defined mean life.
I note that if I took one particle of each element and known isotope
and
placed the mass out in space at some time zero, then the probability
that all particles decay simultaneously at ever given time T greater
than or equal to zero is not zero (calculating and plotting such a
probability against time would be an interesting exercise - I assume
that T=0 and T=Infinity would be closest to zero with some rise to a
peak, but where? :)
There is no peak. The process is purely stochastic. The essential
characteristic is that the decay probability per unit time is a
constant. That leads to a Poisson distribution of individual
lifetimes
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Karl Stonjek" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: The Myth of the Beginning of Time |
03 May 2004 05:52:33 PM |
|
|
Good point. But the mechanism that determines the decay rate is
still
much in dispute
No. It is known to be due to the weak interaction.
I said mechanism - weak interaction is not a 'mechanism' as such.
and has helped to inspire theories such as 'hidden
variable' theories including string and related supersymmetry
theories.
No, I don't think that it is the mechanism of the radioactive decay
rate which inspired the hidden variable theories. Those are concerned
with the interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Bohm and others took up Einstein's hopeful observation "God does not
play dice" and looked for an underlying deterministic mechanism that
yields exact results. Radioactive decay is just such a phenomena that
they had in mind, or, put another way, any process that is determined by
probability alone where a hidden mechanism *might* exist, one that, if
known, would yield exact results.
I said earlier that radioactive decay "helped inspire theories", not
that it was the direct precursor.
The question is: how does the particle know anything of the clock?
In
particular, why would two slightly different isotopes of the same
substance have different decay rates?
They have different internal structures.
Internal structures may be the obvious link to decay rate, but it does
not tell us why. For instance, given the structure of a novel element,
should that in itself be possible, could a QM theorist calculate its
half life?
I note that there is no difference between an atom that is about to
decay and one that isn't - there is no ponderable difference whatsoever.
That in any given moment an atom of a particular element has some
probability of decaying, regardless of the period of observation up
until that point (no 'law of averages', despite what gamblers tell us :)
does not help us understand why the decay occurs nor by what mechanism.
In a simplified model, I might calculate that a particle has a one in
one thousand chance of decaying in any given second, which I interpret
to mean that I expect that if I have 1,000 particles I expect one to
decay in any given second or if I make 1,000 separate one second
observations of the same particle I expect it to decay in one of those
seconds (when considered before any observations have been made, as any
single observation is still a 1:1000 probability).
What is the difference between a Neutron that has been liberated from
the nucleus one minute previously and one that was released two, three,
four etc minutes previously? Could a neutron never decay?
The mind boggling thing with
radioactive decay is why or how various elements can have such
predictable half lives (once you've taken into account the enormous
number of molecules in any ponderable mass ie thinking of Avogadro's
number).
My mind does not boggle at those thoughts. A particular nucleus has a
particular structure which determines the probability per unit time
that it will decay. The fact that that probability is constant for a
given nucleus is what determines that it has a well defined mean life.
I've read, and seen it echoed by many QM scientists, that if QM does not
make your head spin/mind boggle/etc, then you probably have not
understood QM. I think the same goes for time.
One might argue that time is an emergent property. So just which
property, ultimately, is not emergent? Mass? Energy? Iso Spin? They
all are.
I note that if I took one particle of each element and known isotope
and
placed the mass out in space at some time zero, then the probability
that all particles decay simultaneously at ever given time T greater
than or equal to zero is not zero (calculating and plotting such a
probability against time would be an interesting exercise - I assume
that T=0 and T=Infinity would be closest to zero with some rise to a
peak, but where? :)
There is no peak. The process is purely stochastic. The essential
characteristic is that the decay probability per unit time is a
constant. That leads to a Poisson distribution of individual
lifetimes
The probability that all particles simultaneously decay in the first
second must be lower than some other second. If the half life of most
particles is between 1 year and 100 years, then we would expect the mass
(made up of one of each element and isotope known) to have a higher
probability of decaying in that period than at T=0 or at some very long
T, say one billion years (assuming that we are calculating the
probability of the entire mass decaying simultaneously at some time).
--
Kind Regards,
Robert Karl Stonjek.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: The Myth of the Beginning of Time |
04 May 2004 02:52:11 AM |
|
|
"Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:R2Alc.10166$TT.1796@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Good point. But the mechanism that determines the decay rate is
still
much in dispute
No. It is known to be due to the weak interaction.
I said mechanism - weak interaction is not a 'mechanism' as such.
I disagree.
and has helped to inspire theories such as 'hidden
variable' theories including string and related supersymmetry
theories.
No, I don't think that it is the mechanism of the radioactive
decay
rate which inspired the hidden variable theories. Those are
concerned
with the interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Bohm and others took up Einstein's hopeful observation "God does not
play dice" and looked for an underlying deterministic mechanism that
yields exact results. Radioactive decay is just such a phenomena
that
they had in mind, or, put another way, any process that is
determined by
probability alone where a hidden mechanism *might* exist, one that,
if
known, would yield exact results.
I said earlier that radioactive decay "helped inspire theories", not
that it was the direct precursor.
The question is: how does the particle know anything of the
clock?
In
particular, why would two slightly different isotopes of the
same
substance have different decay rates?
They have different internal structures.
Internal structures may be the obvious link to decay rate, but it
does
not tell us why. For instance, given the structure of a novel
element,
should that in itself be possible, could a QM theorist calculate its
half life?
In principle, yes. In practice, no, since it is unlikely that all the
necessary data would be available, and in any case the calculation
would be prohibitively difficult.
I note that there is no difference between an atom that is about to
decay and one that isn't - there is no ponderable difference
whatsoever.
That in any given moment an atom of a particular element has some
probability of decaying, regardless of the period of observation up
until that point (no 'law of averages', despite what gamblers tell
us :)
does not help us understand why the decay occurs nor by what
mechanism.
Yes, indeed. QM only provides probability distributions.
In a simplified model, I might calculate that a particle has a one
in
one thousand chance of decaying in any given second, which I
interpret
to mean that I expect that if I have 1,000 particles I expect one to
decay in any given second
On average, if you repeat the experiment an indefinitely large number
of times.
or if I make 1,000 separate one second
observations of the same particle I expect it to decay in one of
those
seconds (when considered before any observations have been made, as
any
single observation is still a 1:1000 probability).
Ditto
What is the difference between a Neutron that has been liberated
from
the nucleus one minute previously and one that was released two,
three,
four etc minutes previously? Could a neutron never decay?
The decay probability per unit time is constant. QM tells us no more
than that.
The mind boggling thing with
radioactive decay is why or how various elements can have such
predictable half lives (once you've taken into account the
enormous
number of molecules in any ponderable mass ie thinking of
Avogadro's
number).
My mind does not boggle at those thoughts. A particular nucleus
has a
particular structure which determines the probability per unit
time
that it will decay. The fact that that probability is constant
for a
given nucleus is what determines that it has a well defined mean
life.
I've read, and seen it echoed by many QM scientists, that if QM does
not
make your head spin/mind boggle/etc, then you probably have not
understood QM. I think the same goes for time.
One might argue that time is an emergent property. So just which
property, ultimately, is not emergent? Mass? Energy? Iso Spin?
They
all are.
I note that if I took one particle of each element and known
isotope
and
placed the mass out in space at some time zero, then the
probability
that all particles decay simultaneously at ever given time T
greater
than or equal to zero is not zero (calculating and plotting such
a
probability against time would be an interesting exercise - I
assume
that T=0 and T=Infinity would be closest to zero with some rise
to a
peak, but where? :)
There is no peak. The process is purely stochastic. The
essential
characteristic is that the decay probability per unit time is a
constant. That leads to a Poisson distribution of individual
lifetimes
The probability that all particles simultaneously decay in the first
second must be lower than some other second. If the half life of
most
particles is between 1 year and 100 years, then we would expect the
mass
(made up of one of each element and isotope known) to have a higher
probability of decaying in that period than at T=0 or at some very
long
T, say one billion years (assuming that we are calculating the
probability of the entire mass decaying simultaneously at some
time).
The process is stochastic. The individual lifetimes follow the
Poisson distribution. From those two statements more complicated
probabilities, like the ones you talk about may be calculated.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Karl Stonjek" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: The Myth of the Beginning of Time |
05 May 2004 02:50:58 AM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:c77i39$9ve$8@sparta.btinternet.com...
"Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:R2Alc.10166$TT.1796@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Good point. But the mechanism that determines the decay rate is
still
much in dispute
No. It is known to be due to the weak interaction.
I said mechanism - weak interaction is not a 'mechanism' as such.
I disagree.
and has helped to inspire theories such as 'hidden
variable' theories including string and related supersymmetry
theories.
No, I don't think that it is the mechanism of the radioactive
decay
rate which inspired the hidden variable theories. Those are
concerned
with the interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Bohm and others took up Einstein's hopeful observation "God does not
play dice" and looked for an underlying deterministic mechanism that
yields exact results. Radioactive decay is just such a phenomena
that
they had in mind, or, put another way, any process that is
determined by
probability alone where a hidden mechanism *might* exist, one that,
if
known, would yield exact results.
I said earlier that radioactive decay "helped inspire theories", not
that it was the direct precursor.
The question is: how does the particle know anything of the
clock?
In
particular, why would two slightly different isotopes of the
same
substance have different decay rates?
They have different internal structures.
Internal structures may be the obvious link to decay rate, but it
does
not tell us why. For instance, given the structure of a novel
element,
should that in itself be possible, could a QM theorist calculate its
half life?
In principle, yes. In practice, no, since it is unlikely that all the
necessary data would be available, and in any case the calculation
would be prohibitively difficult.
I note that there is no difference between an atom that is about to
decay and one that isn't - there is no ponderable difference
whatsoever.
That in any given moment an atom of a particular element has some
probability of decaying, regardless of the period of observation up
until that point (no 'law of averages', despite what gamblers tell
us :)
does not help us understand why the decay occurs nor by what
mechanism.
Yes, indeed. QM only provides probability distributions.
In a simplified model, I might calculate that a particle has a one
in
one thousand chance of decaying in any given second, which I
interpret
to mean that I expect that if I have 1,000 particles I expect one to
decay in any given second
On average, if you repeat the experiment an indefinitely large number
of times.
or if I make 1,000 separate one second
observations of the same particle I expect it to decay in one of
those
seconds (when considered before any observations have been made, as
any
single observation is still a 1:1000 probability).
Ditto
What is the difference between a Neutron that has been liberated
from
the nucleus one minute previously and one that was released two,
three,
four etc minutes previously? Could a neutron never decay?
The decay probability per unit time is constant. QM tells us no more
than that.
The mind boggling thing with
radioactive decay is why or how various elements can have such
predictable half lives (once you've taken into account the
enormous
number of molecules in any ponderable mass ie thinking of
Avogadro's
number).
My mind does not boggle at those thoughts. A particular nucleus
has a
particular structure which determines the probability per unit
time
that it will decay. The fact that that probability is constant
for a
given nucleus is what determines that it has a well defined mean
life.
I've read, and seen it echoed by many QM scientists, that if QM does
not
make your head spin/mind boggle/etc, then you probably have not
understood QM. I think the same goes for time.
One might argue that time is an emergent property. So just which
property, ultimately, is not emergent? Mass? Energy? Iso Spin?
They
all are.
I note that if I took one particle of each element and known
isotope
and
placed the mass out in space at some time zero, then the
probability
that all particles decay simultaneously at ever given time T
greater
than or equal to zero is not zero (calculating and plotting such
a
probability against time would be an interesting exercise - I
assume
that T=0 and T=Infinity would be closest to zero with some rise
to a
peak, but where? :)
There is no peak. The process is purely stochastic. The
essential
characteristic is that the decay probability per unit time is a
constant. That leads to a Poisson distribution of individual
lifetimes
The probability that all particles simultaneously decay in the first
second must be lower than some other second. If the half life of
most
particles is between 1 year and 100 years, then we would expect the
mass
(made up of one of each element and isotope known) to have a higher
probability of decaying in that period than at T=0 or at some very
long
T, say one billion years (assuming that we are calculating the
probability of the entire mass decaying simultaneously at some
time).
The process is stochastic. The individual lifetimes follow the
Poisson distribution. From those two statements more complicated
probabilities, like the ones you talk about may be calculated.
The resulting calculation may assume a stochastic process, but you have
also said that given enough information and computing power, that a QM
theorist could calculate the half life of an unknown new element. This
indicates that the process is not stochastic internally, only as
observed in the lab.
I also note that the exact mechanism that leads to decay in any given
moment is unknown, assuming that there may be some mechanism. As yet
unformulated mechanisms such as those that are generally similar to the
collapsing of the wave function may be in play. The similarity would be
general ie that more than one possible outcome may be possible
simultaneously until the system interacts (the wave function collapses).
Radioactive decay may see several possible decay periods occurring
simultaneously until some interaction forces one of those possible decay
periods become real. If this were the case, then particles in isolation
and unobserved would have a different half life to those observed or not
isolated - I've heard rumours (or can't recall the paper/article/book)
of experiments already pointing to this possibility.
Knowing the exact mechanism may turn out to be aesthetically pleasing,
or it may lead to further insights and further discoveries. Probability
distributions are all that is required for predicting outcomes, which is
where QM has its greatest utility (at present).
But then, what could be less useful than knowing the exact genesis of
the universe? Surely there are many scientists preoccupied with
theories that will yield little more than the ultimate aesthetic - a
theory of the genesis and evolution of the universe. It seems somewhat
more practical to occupy one's time with something that at least has the
possibility of utility, such as in finding the mechanisms at the finest
scale that leads to probability distributions as observed in QM.
--
Kind Regards,
Robert Karl Stonjek.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: The Myth of the Beginning of Time |
06 May 2004 06:14:23 AM |
|
|
"Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:C11mc.21088$TT.15914@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:c77i39$9ve$8@sparta.btinternet.com...
"Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:R2Alc.10166$TT.1796@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Good point. But the mechanism that determines the decay
rate is
still
much in dispute
No. It is known to be due to the weak interaction.
I said mechanism - weak interaction is not a 'mechanism' as
such.
I disagree.
and has helped to inspire theories such as 'hidden
variable' theories including string and related
supersymmetry
theories.
No, I don't think that it is the mechanism of the radioactive
decay
rate which inspired the hidden variable theories. Those are
concerned
with the interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Bohm and others took up Einstein's hopeful observation "God does
not
play dice" and looked for an underlying deterministic mechanism
that
yields exact results. Radioactive decay is just such a
phenomena
that
they had in mind, or, put another way, any process that is
determined by
probability alone where a hidden mechanism *might* exist, one
that,
if
known, would yield exact results.
I said earlier that radioactive decay "helped inspire theories",
not
that it was the direct precursor.
The question is: how does the particle know anything of the
clock?
In
particular, why would two slightly different isotopes of the
same
substance have different decay rates?
They have different internal structures.
Internal structures may be the obvious link to decay rate, but
it
does
not tell us why. For instance, given the structure of a novel
element,
should that in itself be possible, could a QM theorist calculate
its
half life?
In principle, yes. In practice, no, since it is unlikely that all
the
necessary data would be available, and in any case the calculation
would be prohibitively difficult.
I note that there is no difference between an atom that is about
to
decay and one that isn't - there is no ponderable difference
whatsoever.
That in any given moment an atom of a particular element has
some
probability of decaying, regardless of the period of observation
up
until that point (no 'law of averages', despite what gamblers
tell
us :)
does not help us understand why the decay occurs nor by what
mechanism.
Yes, indeed. QM only provides probability distributions.
In a simplified model, I might calculate that a particle has a
one
in
one thousand chance of decaying in any given second, which I
interpret
to mean that I expect that if I have 1,000 particles I expect
one to
decay in any given second
On average, if you repeat the experiment an indefinitely large
number
of times.
or if I make 1,000 separate one second
observations of the same particle I expect it to decay in one of
those
seconds (when considered before any observations have been made,
as
any
single observation is still a 1:1000 probability).
Ditto
What is the difference between a Neutron that has been liberated
from
the nucleus one minute previously and one that was released two,
three,
four etc minutes previously? Could a neutron never decay?
The decay probability per unit time is constant. QM tells us no
more
than that.
The mind boggling thing with
radioactive decay is why or how various elements can have
such
predictable half lives (once you've taken into account the
enormous
number of molecules in any ponderable mass ie thinking of
Avogadro's
number).
My mind does not boggle at those thoughts. A particular
nucleus
has a
particular structure which determines the probability per unit
time
that it will decay. The fact that that probability is
constant
for a
given nucleus is what determines that it has a well defined
mean
life.
I've read, and seen it echoed by many QM scientists, that if QM
does
not
make your head spin/mind boggle/etc, then you probably have not
understood QM. I think the same goes for time.
One might argue that time is an emergent property. So just
which
property, ultimately, is not emergent? Mass? Energy? Iso
Spin?
They
all are.
I note that if I took one particle of each element and known
isotope
and
placed the mass out in space at some time zero, then the
probability
that all particles decay simultaneously at ever given time T
greater
than or equal to zero is not zero (calculating and plotting
such
a
probability against time would be an interesting exercise -
I
assume
that T=0 and T=Infinity would be closest to zero with some
rise
to a
peak, but where? :)
There is no peak. The process is purely stochastic. The
essential
characteristic is that the decay probability per unit time is
a
constant. That leads to a Poisson distribution of individual
lifetimes
The probability that all particles simultaneously decay in the
first
second must be lower than some other second. If the half life
of
most
particles is between 1 year and 100 years, then we would expect
the
mass
(made up of one of each element and isotope known) to have a
higher
probability of decaying in that period than at T=0 or at some
very
long
T, say one billion years (assuming that we are calculating the
probability of the entire mass decaying simultaneously at some
time).
The process is stochastic. The individual lifetimes follow the
Poisson distribution. From those two statements more complicated
probabilities, like the ones you talk about may be calculated.
The resulting calculation may assume a stochastic process, but you
have
also said that given enough information and computing power, that a
QM
theorist could calculate the half life of an unknown new element.
This
indicates that the process is not stochastic internally, only as
observed in the lab.
You are misunderstanding what I said. A QM calculation can in
principle determine the half life of an unknown new element. That is
just another way of saying that that element will have a constant
decay probability per unit time. The decay process still follows a
Poisson time diisrtribution. QM *by itself* can *never* give details
of when and where a specific specimen will decay.
I also note that the exact mechanism that leads to decay in any
given
moment is unknown, assuming that there may be some mechanism.
I have no clue as to what you are driving at when you keep reiterating
the phrase "exact mechanism" from within QM. At the quantum level,
nature does not consist of gears, levers and suchlike classical
"mechanisms".
As yet unformulated mechanisms such as those that are generally
similar to the
collapsing of the wave function may be in play.
The Bohm-Hiley interpretation of QM formulates such a view. It has not
yet been found to be erroneous.
The similarity would be
general ie that more than one possible outcome may be possible
simultaneously until the system interacts (the wave function
collapses).
You are now back into the Copenhagen interpretation, insofar as I can
tell what you are driving at.
Radioactive decay may see several possible decay periods occurring
simultaneously until some interaction forces one of those possible
decay
periods become real.
I discern no meaning in that sentence. It might be my fault, but I
doubt it.
There may be several transition amplitudes involved, corresponding to
different final state products, but the final calculation always leads
to only one mean life, with specified branching ratios.
If this were the case, then particles in isolation
and unobserved would have a different half life to those observed or
not
isolated - I've heard rumours (or can't recall the
paper/article/book)
of experiments already pointing to this possibility.
I have not.
I know of no publications in the professional press on this matter,
and I don't fall for rumours, particularly not ones I haven't heard.
{:-))
It does not seem to be the case when normal radioactive processes
occur. The atoms involved are in general not observed except when the
decay actually occurs. What else are you asking for?
As a matter of fact, the more time I spend composing this paragraph,
the more it looks as if I am trying to respond to gobbledegook.
Knowing the exact mechanism may turn out to be aesthetically
pleasing,
or it may lead to further insights and further discoveries.
Probability
distributions are all that is required for predicting outcomes,
which is
where QM has its greatest utility (at present).
That whole paragraph makes sense in the way you put it. The
Bohm-Hiley interpretation is a serious attempt to achieve just that.
Have you read their book "The Undivided Universe"?
But then, what could be less useful than knowing the exact genesis
of
the universe? Surely there are many scientists preoccupied with
theories that will yield little more than the ultimate aesthetic - a
theory of the genesis and evolution of the universe. It seems
somewhat
more practical to occupy one's time with something that at least has
the
possibility of utility, such as in finding the mechanisms at the
finest
scale that leads to probability distributions as observed in QM.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Karl Stonjek" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: The Myth of the Beginning of Time |
06 May 2004 06:04:27 PM |
|
|
If this were the case, then particles in isolation
and unobserved would have a different half life to those observed or
not
isolated - I've heard rumours (or can't recall the
paper/article/book)
of experiments already pointing to this possibility.
I have not.
I know of no publications in the professional press on this matter,
and I don't fall for rumours, particularly not ones I haven't heard.
{:-))
I was referring to, and the text clearly stated, that *I* had heard the
rumour (or couldn't immediately recall the paper, book etc), not you. I
never mentioned you.
It does not seem to be the case when normal radioactive processes
occur. The atoms involved are in general not observed except when the
decay actually occurs. What else are you asking for?
As a matter of fact, the more time I spend composing this paragraph,
the more it looks as if I am trying to respond to gobbledegook.
Half remembered controversial findings are bound to sound a bit garbled.
I'll try to find that paper/article/book and get back to you.
Knowing the exact mechanism may turn out to be aesthetically
pleasing,
or it may lead to further insights and further discoveries.
Probability
distributions are all that is required for predicting outcomes,
which is
where QM has its greatest utility (at present).
That whole paragraph makes sense in the way you put it. The
Bohm-Hiley interpretation is a serious attempt to achieve just that.
Have you read their book "The Undivided Universe"?
I'll put it on the list. I read 'Wholeness and Implicit Order' by Bohm,
which gave an outline of his thinking.
Robert.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: The Myth of the Beginning of Time |
07 May 2004 04:21:22 PM |
|
|
"Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:%vzmc.24464$TT.5639@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
If this were the case, then particles in isolation
and unobserved would have a different half life to those
observed or
not
isolated - I've heard rumours (or can't recall the
paper/article/book)
of experiments already pointing to this possibility.
I have not.
I know of no publications in the professional press on this
matter,
and I don't fall for rumours, particularly not ones I haven't
heard.
{:-))
I was referring to, and the text clearly stated, that *I* had heard
the
rumour (or couldn't immediately recall the paper, book etc), not
you. I
never mentioned you.
It does not seem to be the case when normal radioactive processes
occur. The atoms involved are in general not observed except when
the
decay actually occurs. What else are you asking for?
As a matter of fact, the more time I spend composing this
paragraph,
the more it looks as if I am trying to respond to gobbledegook.
Half remembered controversial findings are bound to sound a bit
garbled.
I'll try to find that paper/article/book and get back to you.
Knowing the exact mechanism may turn out to be aesthetically
pleasing,
or it may lead to further insights and further discoveries.
Probability
distributions are all that is required for predicting outcomes,
which is
where QM has its greatest utility (at present).
That whole paragraph makes sense in the way you put it. The
Bohm-Hiley interpretation is a serious attempt to achieve just
that.
Have you read their book "The Undivided Universe"?
I'll put it on the list. I read 'Wholeness and Implicit Order' by
Bohm,
which gave an outline of his thinking.
I got on better with the hidden variables part of "The Undivided
Universe" tha with the implicit order part.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: The Myth of the Beginning of Time |
30 Apr 2004 02:08:10 PM |
|
|
"Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:FWqkc.5065$TT.2178@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Can motion begin without an 'outside' agent? That is, let 'inside' be
some space in which there is no motion. Can motion 'begin' or be
initiated without some input from outside?
I think not.
If there are inter-particle forces (and more than one
particle!) then, yes, motion would be inevitable.
Even if the particles all began in a lowest-energy
configuration, you would still have quantum jitter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Karl Stonjek" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: The Myth of the Beginning of Time |
30 Apr 2004 04:29:37 PM |
|
|
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:quxkc.52954$Fa6.773273@wagner.videotron.net...
"Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:FWqkc.5065$TT.2178@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Can motion begin without an 'outside' agent? That is, let 'inside'
be
some space in which there is no motion. Can motion 'begin' or be
initiated without some input from outside?
I think not.
If there are inter-particle forces (and more than one
particle!) then, yes, motion would be inevitable.
Even if the particles all began in a lowest-energy
configuration, you would still have quantum jitter.
Hence time, though it does depend to some degree on how one defines
'time'.
For instance, if a system (say, of particles) periodically reverts to
the exact same configuration and there is no ageing component, then has
time passed? To establish that time *does* pass you must introduce some
device that does not periodically revert to the same condition, as if it
did there would be no way of measuring time. The introduce device is
the clock used.
This is another way of saying "to observe is to perturb", except that
here we are talking of time. The concept of *time and scale* is
virtually unknown at present. Such a concept would say that no time
passes, say, on a cubic meter scale, if all the objects within that
cubic meter periodically took exactly the same configuration (thinking
of statistical dynamics) as there would be no difference whatsoever
between the cubic meter of space NOW and the cubic meter of space at
some time in the past, providing that that cubic meter of space was
totally isolated from all other space.
If we now examine, say, time within the cubic meter of space on the
atomic scale, we observe that the configuration does change but after
some period the configuration first observed repeats itself, Thus we
have time with a finite interval.
This would all sound pointless until we add the 'wave equation' and ask
if the temporal isolation observed above is another way of seeing it?
If so, then when no time passes on the meter cube scale, a number of
possible configurations may exist 'simultaneously' as calculated by an
observer on the >meter scale (as no time passes). Indeed, ALL possible
configurations should exist simultaneously.
We now note that if the greater than meter scale observer actually
observes the less than meter scale, that irreversible change now occurs,
time occurs on the meter scale, and only one configuration is now
possible (the meter scale cube's space and configuration has been
irreversibly perturbed).
If you think about time long enough, you're liable to go nuts :)
--
Kind Regards,
Robert Karl Stonjek.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
