Science > Physics > Quantum Gravity 118.0: The Response of the Universe to 0 (zero, nil)
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"OsherD" |
| Date: |
16 Apr 2007 12:05:46 AM |
| Object: |
Quantum Gravity 118.0: The Response of the Universe to 0 (zero, nil) |
From Osher Doctorow
Since arguably there is a phase transition between +/- and
multiplication/division and these two constitute two different phases
of the Universe both in mathematics and physics, based on the last few
Sections of this thread, let's reconstruct the response of the
Universe to 0 in a rather remarkable case: where division by 0 is
indicated or "required" (but of course is impossible) in a scenario in
which there was "Unification" between phases.
We begin with the earliest Universe (at least in this "cycle" if any,
referring to the Neo-Cyclic theory of Steinhardt, Turok, Seiberg),
where "Unification" arguably allowed simultaneous addition,
subtraction, multiplication, division.
Let us use a computer analogy, although perhaps only as an exploratory
device, and regard the Universein that earliest time or interval as
taking an input addition and outputting subtraction, or inputting
addition and outputting division, and so on, with reference to
particular arguments which we can take to be the reals or rationals,
etc.
Suddenly the Universe inputs 1 and 0 or some other nonzero number y
and zero, and tries to output:
1) y/0 (that is, y divided by 0)
It fails, since this is impossible. It responds by replacing
division by subtraction:
2) y - x, which here is y - 0
So y/x has turned into y - x, which no longer causes trouble. The
former is conditional probability, the latter except for 1 which will
be added to it to obtain 1 + y - x is Probable Influence/Causation,
and mathematically a phase transition has been simulated, but what
actually happens physically?
Well, we need to know a little more about why the Universe would input
0 in the first place. We are referring to the (Probable) Cause 0,
which for nonnegative numbers or variables including probability is
the lowest possible value. Although 0 does not usually refer to
"nothingness," arguably in the context of all nonnegative real numbers
or integers, it is as close to "nothingness" as we can visualize so to
speak.
Here Euclid comes to our aid, so to speak. He defined a point as
"that which has no length, width, breadth," a line as "that which has
no width or breadth," a plane a "that which has no breath," etc. All
of these are variations on "nothingness" (in different directions or
spatial dimensions, which arguably even extend to time).
The Universe is "likely" to have "experienced" in some quasi- or proto-
perceptual sense, its own pointlike or stringlike nature in the
earliest time or interval of time. Its response to attempting to
operate mathematiclaly on that is argued to have been changing to
solely subtraction, at least in reference to that "problem". This
would put the Probable Influence/Causation (PI) addition-subtraction
scenario into dominance, and with it the characteristic Riccati
Differential Equation, which immediately in its simplest form
"generates" exponential growth/decay and with it the Inflationary
scenario of the Universe.
When Inflation was sufficiently advanced, the Universe somehow
registered the fact that it was no longer a point or string and
restored division at least in nonzero scenarios, but arguably avoided
division even in small neighborhoods of 0, except for conditional
probability and Bayesian theorists :>)
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Gravity 118.0: The Response of the Universe to 0 (zero, nil) |
16 Apr 2007 12:33:36 AM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
These ideas actually have a possibly interesting application, namely
to artificially generating expansion or contraction of the Universe
locally or (if possible) globally. Let's emphasize locally here.
Can the Universe be "fooled" into perceiving itself locally as
pointlike or stringlike again? I would argue that it can, and here
a rather "stunning" (to use the dramatic word facetiously) fact comes
into mind: General Relativity claims that the Universe is locally
Special Relativistic or Planelike/Pointlike/etc. (lower dimensional -
"holographic"). There is, in other words, an omnipresent or ever-
present "nothingness in some direction" locally which can stimulate
the Universe to stop dividing and start only subtracting/adding and
thereby inflate in the sense of original Inflation but not necessary
as strong.
I would argue that the most recent acceleration of the Universe period
a few billion years ago was such a later "Inflation" or "partial
Inflation", and that the conditions which favored galactic structure
and even possibly life presented the Universe with a "holographic" or
"locally lower dimensional" scenario to which it responded by
accelerating.
The presence of a "structural revolution" of any type, and arguably
genetic engineering may present such a scenario eventually, may
stimulate local acceleration of the Universe.
Does this not disagree with the idea that Pluralities other than in
chemistry are nothing but many Individuals? That is to say, am I
asserting that the Universe is more than its Individual components?
No. The problem has to do with the fact that we don't know what
those components are. Those components are what we are looking
for. Physics has tried fields, strings, all kinds of things. There
is even geometry, which despite its supposed mathematical rather than
physical nature and despite GR, is still not quite integrated into
physics since it seems to "behave" differently from everything else
especially through time and with regard to superluminality.
I am asserting that the Universe is "made" out of something that
responds to structure or boundaries, either initially or when those
boundaries become very prominent after change. The holographic
principle of 't Hooft asserts the primacy of boundaries, and I add
that those boundaries are especially prominent initially and after
considerable change or high magnitude. In a rather strange sense, to
"move" the Universe, as with moving living objects, one must "move"
the boundaries!
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
