Science > Physics > Causation: Light Cone Causality vs Probable Influence
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"OsherD" |
| Date: |
13 Feb 2006 03:19:32 AM |
| Object: |
Causation: Light Cone Causality vs Probable Influence |
From Osher Doctorow
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Causation: Light Cone Causality vs Probable Influence
Copyright By Owner Osher Doctorow Ph.D.
First Published 2006
There is a big literature in Front for the Mathematics ArXiv and to my
recollection arXiv (physics) on light cones and their relationship to
causality.
Light cones roughly speaking divide "things" into subluminal, luminal,
and "unable for matter to reach from here", and in the context of AQFT
(Algebraic Quantum Field Theory) and LQP (Local Quantum Physics) they
help provide an interesting alternative to String theory (see Bert
Schroer of FU-Berlin, hep-th/9908021 v5 12 Jun 2000) although some
String theorists have adopted Light Cone coordinates and theory.
Since Probable Influence is arguably closer to AQFT and LQP than to
Algebraic Topology and Algebraic Geometry (both latter two used by
Superstring/Brane and Loop Quantum Gravity), one might ask whether PI
can make any use of Light Cone theory. The answer is yes, but it
involves some rather surprising results.
It is generally assumed that Light Cone subdivision of the Universe or
its parts has something to do with the allegedly finite speed of light
c. Readers will recall, however, from some of my recent threads, that
in PI speeds are unlimited, or to put it another way, finite c is
replaced by infinity "coded" as 1 somewhat analogously to probability 1
representing (up to sets of probability 0) "certainty".
But finite c does represent something with regard to human perception
and detection by light-based instruments, so we have several choices of
incorporating Light Cones into PI:
A. Just use the symbol c for the finite speed which visible or
light-detected objects don't exceed and take over the whole Light Cone
theory into PI.
B. Let c = 1 represent infinite speed and reinterpret Light Cone theory
that way. This is what gives rather surprising results. If Light Cone
theory is most retained, then although subluminal and luminal speeds
make sense, what sense does "outside the Light Cone" or "Superluminal"
or "Infinite Speed" make as a third domain of speeds? And isn't "you
can't reach it from here via matter" an empty set or event?
This is where the concept comes in of the Universe as an "emergent"
growing object not having attained its potentialities even in terms of
distance/space, although one could also use arguments about infinite
speed domains. According to this idea, which I expressed in various
previous threads, the Universe doesn't just expand "into itself" or
"stretch" but expands into "something else". I'll try to follow this
up shortly.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Causation: Light Cone Causality vs Probable Influence |
13 Feb 2006 03:42:29 AM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
How could the Universe expand into something else if the Universe is
"everything there is"? Well, if you know enough about set theory or
even logic, there are some "equally" surprising results there. For
example, the "null set" with no elements (no members) is an awfully
surprising set. Nobody actually perceives it or presumably fully
comprehends it as Knowledge/Semantic Information. But without it or an
analog of it, modern physics would be impossible.
Let me say that another way. "Everything" (the Universe) is arguably
as paradoxical as "Nothing" (the null set, roughly speaking).
But doesn't "everything that there is" have a meaning, and if so
doesn't it exclude anything else? Well, it's not as clear as that.
According to Aristotle, there's an Actual or Kinetic and a Potential.
But the Potential doesn't really have to come only from the Actual. It
might come from "Nothing", and there might be more than one "Nothing".
There might be, in rough language, "somewhere in spacetime" where we
wouldn't recognize things as really existing "until the Universe
reaches that region!"
What if the Universe never reaches that region? Well, roughly
speaking the region would still "be there" in some sense. A rather
far out example is a Multiverse. An example "closer to home" is the
old concept of collapse of the wave function via observation. Maybe
observation collapsing the wave function is analogous to the "outside
of the Universe" being generated or instantiated or recognizable to us
when the Universe "expands into it". The Observer (even a human
Observer!) would be very analogous to the Universe in this scenario!
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Causation: Light Cone Causality vs Probable Influence |
13 Feb 2006 03:56:20 AM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
The usual expression is "measurement collapses the wave function", at
least in the old interpretation, but somebody or something is doing the
measurement, so there's nothing wrong with calling it a (generalized)
Observer.
I also should remind readers that with Quantum Computers not too far
off plausibly, we're reaching the point where even infinite
Knowledge/Semantic Information is a possibility, and with black holes
we've reached the point where infinite tidal forces arguably exist. If
the Universe isn't closed, which is at least possible, then infinite
distance is a distinct possibility. So "finite speed/velocity" become
rather exceptional if they apply. Many of the other "upper bounds" of
physics have been broken, at least in plausible theories. 3 + 1
spacetime is quite commonly challenged in Kaluza-Klein,
Randall-Sundrum, and other theories. With eukaryotes and prokaryotes,
even the requirement that life needs light or other "minimal
environments" seems to be challenged.
Every time that an invention or discovery occurs, some "upper bound" or
"lower bound" is broken arguably.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Universe Opposed In Triplicate |
13 Feb 2006 06:35:16 AM |
|
|
Zero and one are base2. There are many zeros and many ones. The collusion
of more than one "zero" and more than one "one" is 'Complexity' and 'Chaos'.
But at the farthest top, as well as at the farthest bottom, there is
reduction to zero and reduction to one. The inside turned outside (to
absolutely OPEN, thus infinite...and infinitesimal...Universe). And at once,
the outside turned inside (to absolutely CLOSED, thus Big Bang and Planck
bracketing horizons).
Tell me where and how there can be "expansion" without an absolute
equality of "contraction" existing both at once in parallel and
sequentially? "Infinite" without an absolute equality of "infinitesimal"
existing both at once in parallel and sequentially? "Closed" without an
absolute equality of "open" existing both at once in parallel and
sequentially? "Unity" without an absolute equality of "division" ("schism")
existing both at once in parallel and sequentially? "Future" without an
absolute equality of "past" existing both at once in parallel and
sequentially? "Hot" without an absolute equality of "cold" existing both at
once in parallel and sequentially? "Plus one" without an absolute equality
of "minus one" (for results "zero"....and/or "one")?
Physicists talk about "Unification of the Universe's Fundamental Forces"
in a hotter than hot temperature. There can be no such hot temperature
without an absolute equality, in parallel, non-sequential, of a colder than
cold temperature. It cannot hang out there as a "naked singularity." A naked
singularity can only be neutral. Absolute neutrality. And even "neutrality"
cannot exist without the simultaneous existence of at least two other
opposing extremes which it is neutral to (neutral relative to..., or neutral
regarding....).
"Everything" (1) and "nothing" (0) -- everythingness (1) and nothingness
(0) -- have meaning: the twain being two (2), base2, the third dimension of
the two pulsing so much, so hard, so fast that there is no pulse, only
[and/or]. There is no zero (0), no one (1), there at all. The third
dimension is our infinity dimensioned dimension. It is our dimension though
there are those alien utopian humans who would rather cajole, or failing
that coerce, us be one (everythingness) and/or zero (nothingness)
dimensioned only. All together, an evolution to "vacuum" in some eventual
evolution to "naked singularity." Ultimate reduction (ultimate
reductionism). Everythingness and/or nothingness! All or nothing! (ipso
facto, all [and] nothing!) Utopia (Dystopia), the evermore perfectly flat
"better world" (better Universe). Better diamond / better flaw. Better
matter / better anti-matter. More perfect matter / more perfect anti-matter.
Perfect matter / perfect anti-matter. Naked singularity.
"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Just the fact (just
the physics). I'd rather have an open space frontier, thus an open world. A
wide open space frontier.
GLB
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
