Tuesday, December 08, 2009
New Model of the Universe Says Past Crystallizes out of the Future
What do you get when the past crystallizes out of the future? According to a new model of the universe that combines relativity and quantum mechanics, the answer is: the present.
What's the difference between the past and the future? Not a great
deal, if you take a purely relativistic view of the universe, say
George Ellis from the University of Cape Town in South Africa and
Tony Rothman from Princeton University in New Jersey.
The standard spacetime diagrams used in relativity accord no
special status to the past, the present or the future. That's because
they assume that everything evolves from time-reversible local
physics.
In fact, it is possible represent such a universe using a kind of
spacetime diagram in which space and time merge into a single entity. "The universe just
is: a fixed spacetime block,"say Ellis and Rothman. In this view,
no instant has any special status: "All past and future times
are equally present, and the present "now" is just one of an
infinite number."
This kind of "block universe" has indeed been studied by various
physicists in recent decades with limited impact.
Today, Ellis and Rothman introduce a significant new type of block
universe. They say the character of the block changes
dramatically when quantum mechanics is thrown into the mix. All of a
sudden, the past and the future take on entirely different
characteristics. The future is dominated by the weird laws of quantum
mechanics in which objects can exist in two places at the same time
and particles can be so deeply linked that they share the same
existence. By contrast, the past is dominated by the unflinching
certainty of classical mechanics.
What's interesting is that the transition between these states
takes place largely in the present. It's almost as if the past
crystallizes out of the future, in the instant we call the present.
Ellis and Rothman call this model the "crystallizing block
universe" and go on to explore some of its properties.
They point out, for example, that this crystallization process
doesn't take place entirely in the present. In quantum mechanics the
past can sometimes be delayed, for example in delayed choice
experiments. This means the structure of the transition from future
to past is more complex than a cursory thought might suggest.
Ellis and Rothman suggest that their model provides a straightforward
solution to the problem of the origin of the arrow of time. "The
arrow of time arises simply because the future does not yet exist,"
they say.
That's a thought-provoking but ultimately unconvincing model in its current form. But it'll
be interesting to see whether Ellis and Rothman can conjure a little
more substance from the idea.
What it needs, of course, are some
testable predictions, things that cosmologists usually spend little time worrying about. Don't hold your breath.
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0912.0808: Time and Spacetime: The Crystallizing Block Universe
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
ericchill
12/08/2009
Posts:2
Mapou
12/08/2009
Posts:209
It's evident, the most probable model is somewhere inbetween, because in AWT observer interacts with the whole observable Universe in single moment via gravitational waves and it's identical with it.
ZephirAWT
12/09/2009
Posts:295
http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/08/awt-and-cosmological-time-arrow.html
At the water surface, where capillary waves are spreading the longitudinal waves exists on both lower, both higher wavelengths. This is a geometrical consequence of observational perspective, because capillary waves are the slowest waves in such system, so that neighborhood of observer appears always as large, as possible just by using them.
http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/waves/water_celerity.gif
But I'm in doubt, the conclusion presented in article could be derived just by using of (postulates of) quantum mechanics in sequence of logical steps, because quantum mechanics itself is atemporal, so it says nothing about time (arrow), future or past and their mutual relation the less. Therefore the reference to mainstream theories in this connection is redundant and misleading BS, the only purpose of which is to cover underlying emergent Aether model. If you don't believe me, simply try to reproduce "derivation" presented in article for yourself (it doesn't contain any equations, so it shouldn't be a problem).
For further reading about Block Universe model see http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0605049
ZephirAWT
12/08/2009
Posts:295
ZephirAWT
12/08/2009
Posts:295
Objects are supposed to be spacetime structures and whether it is second law of thermodynamics or it is quantum mechanics, time is supposed to move only in forward direction.
Principle of superposition does not suggest that a particle can exist at more than one place. If particles are spacetime structures then they can exist only at one place. Cat can never be alive and dead simultaneously, it is either alive or dead. However, because we have our observational limitations, we cannot know the fate of the cat in a sealed box, therefore, we cannot rule out either of the two possibilities. Our observational limitations do not allow us to conclude that an entity can be in two different physical states simultaneously. For us, cat is alive and dead simultaneously because we do not know whether it is alive or dead but it does not mean that can be alive and dead simultaneously.
All the proposals of quantum mechanics make a lot of sense if we add two words to its every proposal, 'For us'. We do not know whether moon is there in the sky or not unless we make an observation, therefore, as scientists, moon does not exist for us but since we do not know whether moon is there or not therefore we cannot even conclude that moon is not there when we are not watching it.
This proposal that future crystallizes against the basic tenets of physics.
Sunil Thakur
http://www.norlabs.org
sunil.thak...
12/09/2009
Posts:22
rkomatsu
12/09/2009
Posts:38
Take the case of total solar eclipse. There are supposed to be two positions of sun - actual and apparent or perceived position. Total solar eclipse must occur at actual position of the sun because light is supposed to come from the actual position but total solar eclipse occurs at the perceived position of the sun that is supposed to be creation of our mind.
This is what is 'The Eclipse Paradox'. Totality occurs at the place where sun does not exist in reality.
Now move to the double-slit experiment, what happens in the double slit experiment when one fires single electrons with a detector in place?
Now, your question, 'how do quantum computers work if this something does not exist at more than one place?'
To answer this question, I had to write a book; so I guess it cannot be answered in one comment (more importantly, such forums are not for discussing one's own work) but be rest assured that your question has an answer.
sunil.thak...
12/09/2009
Posts:22
TrevorArth...
12/11/2009
Posts:1
Fourth and fifth and further dimensions require higher levels of math than most of us lay persons
posses, but if it is possible to concieve of the idea of the big bang theory, then it is also possible for us to accept notions of limitless discovery of dimensions beyond our(lay persons) comprehension.
Of course,until we are all virtualized, with limitless intelligence, and unlimited "life" spans, we must rely on all you disciplined and riqorous scientists to prove or disprove these new and future theories.
Zukunft
12/09/2009
Posts:1
If you are running a 100 meter race then it has a finish line; one may continue to run for miles but such running will be meaningless. Every discipline has some fundamental principles, it sets the limits for exploration like science has set the limit that it will not attempt to explain anything that our sense organs cannot perceive (it allows the limits of our sense organs to be augmented through the use of external aid like a telescope or a microscope; here it does not set any limits); more appropriately, science cannot explain a phenomenon unless it creates an effect that can be attributed specifically to one cause only. All it tries to do is explain the cause-effect relationship. If science crosses this self-imposed limit then it is bound to end up in chaos where someone might come in and say that universe was created because God moved a magic wand. How do you examine such proposals scientifically? This is the limit set by the science.
If a theory suggests that effect determines the cause then such proposal has to be beyond the basic tenet of science.
In any case, what is future? It is something that has not happened; it is an unknown, abstract phenomenon. How do you make predictions based on the unknown abstract phenomenon but more importantly how do you establish the relationship between the two?
We do not know why there are three generations of particles because apparently, two generations of particles do not create an effect except to discern themselves physically. If someone suggests that there are physical entities that are created because of mere existence of the remaining two generations of particles but we cannot perceive these physical entities then there is no way we can examine this proposal scientifically.
Take the case of extra-dimensions; it is quite possible that someone may propose that 1111 or 11111 and not just 11 dimensions exist but they do not manifest themselves to us. If we cannot rule out the possibility of 11 dimensions then we cannot rule out the existence of even 11111 dimensions.
It is quite possible that in future our observational capabilities may improve (because here we do not set any limits) and extra-dimensions may manifest to us but till then we cannot assume that extra dimensions exists.
Moreover, our mathematics is designed to explain only three dimensional universe. The moment we imagine extra dimension, we first have to evolve a new mathematical structure.
So friend, before commenting on an article or a comment; just ensure that you understand what is being discussed.
sunil.thak...
12/09/2009
Posts:22
Perhaps, the result that the past crystallizes from the future stems from the anthropomorphic (or anthropic?) principle. I believe it goes something like this: The presence of an observer gives meaning and history to the universe. So whenever an observer causally will identify a moment(object) in the future, the act will give meaning (existence) to that event and therefore reveal it's past. So only when the event has been observed that it has history. That is why the past chrystallized from the future. That is how the block theory described it. (I hope I am clear.)
I agree with you that presently there are conclusions and extrapolations that don't make sense. Most scientists accept the possibility of infinite universe where we have infinite copies of ourselves branching from the present based on quantum mechanics. They fail to realize that quantum mechanics only work at particle level. Yet, they somehow extrapolate the theory into the relativistic world. I can disprove time travel and multi-dimentional universe in one swoop with a thought experiment which goes like this: If there are infinite manifestations stemming from this moment then the possibilities are infinite. Then if I say I will cross the dimension or travel back in time to say 'thank you for thinking up this experiment' at this moment, then it will happen! If there are infinite possibilities then I should get a message from me thanking me right NOW... wait, whoa!.. I hear a doorbell...
doanwon
12/09/2009
Posts:62
Let me put it this way, we as observers have certain observational limitations and one of the biggest limitations we cannot overcome is that we cannot perceive any entity directly; we can only perceive the information generated by an entity and information is neither self-explanatory nor it is self-evident. Information must manifest itself to us (as stated in earlier post, we can augment the range of our observation) and then we have to interpret it properly to understand the laws of the nature.
What it means is that we can only explain what is manifested to us. This explains your observation that presence of observer gives meaning to the universe. This is precisely the reason why quantum mechanics must add the two words 'for us' in all its observations and if it does that then all its observations make sense.
There are some questions, we can not answer scientifically e.g. we cannot explain why energy cannot be created or destroyed or why universe appears to be three-dimensional. As observers, we have to accept the things as they are and then move to explain why things appear to be as they do or why things do not appear to be as they actually are. This is all science can do. However, at times we may mistake and in fact, we often do, in believing without adequate scientific examination that this is the way things really are e.g. before Newton explained that things tend to fall towards earth because of gravitational force, people probably believed that this is the way things really are. This is why Newton's observation marks a linear development in physics even though his universal law of gravitation may have limited applicability. Newton showed us that this is not the way things really are and that opened new possibilities for us.
Now, as far as the observations on the past crystallizing from the future is concerned; our understanding on the cause-effect relationship is quite clear (thank god). Effect must pre-exist as potentiality (not as probability) in the cause and cause can manifest itself only through the effect. Neither the cause gives meaning to the effect nor does effect give meaning to the cause. It is their mutual relationship that allows us to understand the processes that go on in this universe.
Even here we face some tricky questions; take for instance the instantaneous emission of electrons in the photoelectric experiment. Apparently, absorption of energy is the cause and emission of electron is the effect but the essence of cause-effect relationship is that there has to be some interval between two events or else we cannot conclude that 'x' caused 'y' esp. as electron is not necessarily ejected from the point where energy is absorbed and theory of relativity prohibits instantaneous communication of information but in this case, there is not only instantaneous communication of information but there also is instantaneous reaction (if we can call it reaction). So, the experiment that got Einstein his noble prize invalidates his own theory.
Theory of relativity does not allow instantaneous communication of information but field equations of Einstein do not allow for any time interval for communication of force (in fact, as per theory of relativity, it is not force as Einstein explains the phenomenon though warped spacetime and yet he feels the need for existence of gravitational waves and that means there has to be time interval because nothing can travel faster than speed of light.
It is all messed up stuff. So, what is important is to ask right questions. If ask right questions like why does motion cause time to run slower (or if we go by the relationship (x=ct)=(x'-ct')then time to run faster) when length contracts. One can see another contradiction in the proposals of theory of relativity.
If we keep on asking the right questions then answers evolve themselves.
I think post is already too long. For detailed discussion, please visit my website http://www.norlabs.org and if you feel that we need to discuss any of the observations then please post an observation in the discussion forum on the website.
sunil.thak...
12/10/2009
Posts:22
I wouldn't be so defeatist, because there are more and less comprehensible model and the AWT model of space-time by water surface is simple enough to be understood and reconciled with the more complex and abstract theories.
What the Ellis and Rothman are basically saying is consistent with Aether theory, in which vacuum is formed by fluid and the matter is condensing from fluid like droplets from saturated vapor. Their boundary isn't sharp, for example we can consider whole galaxy as a single huge droplet, the surface of which is formed by many others, smaller ones. Such surface is formed during condensation of dense gas, for example during condensation of supercritical fluid.
http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/aether/supercritical2.gif
ZephirAWT
12/09/2009
Posts:295
sunil.thak...
12/10/2009
Posts:22
Why gravitational force exerted by Milky-way galaxy and Andromeda galaxy on each other does not reduce with distance? Apparently, farthest points of these galaxies experience same force that closest points of these galaxies do (or else, the two galaxies would have disintegrated).
If galaxy exerts its own gravitational force that is either the combined force of the gravitational force of its stars (none of our gravitational theories allows galaxies to have their own gravitational force) or a force that is independent of stars then there has to be duplication of forces as total mass remains same but it exerts gravitational force as two different entities.
For more detailed examination, please visit http://www.norlabs.org
sunil.thak...
12/10/2009
Posts:22
sunil.thak...
12/12/2009
Posts:22
I'm a non-specialist (a philosopher who's been claiming for years that he works at the boundaries between aesthetics and metaphysics, despite the fact that such a boundary doesn't exist).
But this strikes me as the sort of idea that might have interlinks in places we wouldn't expect.
I have been using the idea of a hermeneutical crystal to replace the idea of a hermeneutical circle in Heidegger for a couple of years now --- the idea is that a good understanding of the present would be constituted through the push-back b/w the future understood as pure possibilility and the future that will have happened (and that will be seen to have been "caused" by the past).
I've been writing about this mostly in terms of problems in the philosophy of art, but recently have turned to applying this to an alternative model for explaining strange entanglement.
Where would you suggest that a non-physicist who is conversant in the basics of quantum mechanics and relativity and can follow mathematical notation would go to understand the kind of model you're arguing for?
ammona
12/09/2009
Posts:1
In AWT the spreading of transversal waves of light in space-time formed by vacuum could be modeled by spreading of transversal waves at surface, formed by density gradient of massive particles. From this follows, the vacuum is formed by gradient of massive particles as well and the time dimension is direction parallel with this gradient, whereas spatial dimensions are formed by remaining directions, which are perpendicular to time dimension.
http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/09/aether-and-definition-of-time.html
From more general analysis follows, the time dimension is in fact reversible like any other dimension, we just don't perceive it so. In AWT the space-time brane is in fact formed by pair of dual time arrows: radiation and gravitational one, which are both manifestation of thermodynamic time arrow from dual perspective.
http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/08/awt-and-cosmological-time-arrow.html
ZephirAWT
12/09/2009
Posts:295
Well, mainstream physics is now in the phase, when the number of various theories developed in formal models in rather ad-hoced way increased above critical level, so that new meta-theories started to emerge. These meta-theories are now in their protoscience state like vague density fluctuations forming inside of dense gas - but we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water too soon, because the formal approach apparently reached its limits. We can call it an informational singularity, but I'd prefer rather gradualistic view of this process, in which phase-shifted boundaries of both formal, both non-formal approaches are fuzzy and they travel together like crystallization zone through block universe - or like light wave through vacuum.
ZephirAWT
12/13/2009
Posts:295
MuttBreath
12/19/2009
Posts:1
Sunil Thakur
http://www.norlabs.org
sunil.thak...
12/29/2009
Posts:22
jimgerrish
01/03/2010
Posts:1
Norian
01/16/2010
Posts:1
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16121735.000-cosmic-crystal.html
As for the past being classical, Roger Penrose disagrees. He's actually treating the big bang with the same fuzziness that quantum mechanics ascribes to future outcomes.
RobertRob
02/26/2010
Posts:3