Matter Bias in the Universe? - spamming crazy stuff on 'physics' forums #27.

[Fivedoughnut]

I propose that leptogenesis in the early universe (thought to be just a few seconds after the 'Big Bang') produced equal quantities of both electrons & positrons. However, as the universe was expanding so rapidly, some of them separated beyond c (no, not tachyonic drivel - merely due to the spatial expansion between them) ..... and this really is key; Imagine two electrons; e1 & e2, undergoing 'superlumina'l velocity divorce - However, this may not be the case for their corresponding positrons (p1 & p2).
eg;- e1 & p2, e2 & p1 may well be relatively local ...... now here's the big "IF"

If an electron - positron pair are just mere points within a timespace hoop (I'd prefer it called "a self sustaining transdimensional, cyclic hypertoroidal to ring singularity wave ensemble) of specific rotational direction, (one in which the rotation/wave aspect transit goes from electron to positron) - could it be, that from the relativistic frame of the electrons - both local positrons appear to be electrons, brought about by means of a rotational inversion, created via superluminal departure of their electron twins? - This type of mechanism might hold true for all particles created within the inflationary period of the universe!

So there we have it - half the electrons in our 'section' of the universe may be simply 'backwards' positrons.

Forgive my crackpot idea - but I'm liking it, more an' more.

[Fivedoughnut]

Correction; inflation was over and done, long before any particle other than Higgs had arrived - should have done my homework before blathering ... please omit the "might hold true for all particles created within the inflationary period of the universe!" bit in the OP.

That aside - clearly, due to spatial expansion, many particles (and growing) now exist beyond our light horizon/observable universe. I wonder what the percentages were during the first 10 - 20 seconds after the BB (from the perspective of a newly born electron?).

[SteveA]

Yes, from a logical perspective - the "framework" of space had to exist before time within it occured. From there the first instant within this universe would be the initial asymmetry. The specifics of what would unfold were already in place as properties derived from the dimensions constructing/allowing the extent of space - the significant question appears to be what the dimensions of space are and how do we perceive their properties. A deterministic description of time would just be a linear progression - the universe is counting ... in what "language" though. It's observed via physical perceptions, known via mind, social communicated via language and physical motions etc. Those are some of the properties by which the known universe exists.

More than a single dimension of expansion is non-deterministic and so in a three dimensional context we have at least 2 dimensions of motion which aren't deterministic, unless we place them into a context of being predetermined and finite or alternately we could have a single dimension of expansion interleaved across multiple dimensions (which would create the equivalent of faster than light motions).

It appears we do need an equivalent of a tachyon or instantaneous process in order to allow/communicate/determine a common reference for rates throughout the universe and assure a deterministic/causal progression of events. Atoms across the universe manage to coordinate their oscillations and wavelengths effectively instantly through the universe and this could not be done via. independent light speed communications in parallel, without some common manner to allow them to perform this in parallel. The simple explanation is that the universe instead operates serially and a single process in time sequentially updates the individual state of every object in space, one at a time at an effectively infinite velocity. No other parallel/independent explanation appears to work as they all implicitly rely on something else, more fundamental than them to coordinate things. For example, a wave packet requires a mechanism or property of space to preexist that allows diverse components across the wave to move in parallel an similarly an aether theory requires a manner to communicate uniform properties across the medium effectively instantly and perpetually (a preexisting property to the space in which the aether exists), similarly a computer with "parallel" processors actually shares a single time reference in order to coordinate communications in time between them (for example, a bandwidth, clock frequency or baud rate).

So the simple explanation is that there is just a single "quanta" of time/space/quantity that everything in the universe shares. The properties/qualities of space we experience are then derived from all of the objects sharing this common property. (Maybe there could exist some other "quanta" of time "elsewhere", but that would be a completely detached existence unrelated to time here as there would appear no way to (re)synchronize without something already in existence to allow this - in which these two "universes" would then be one, but isolated by something similar to an event horizon).

[labelwench]

At the 'local level', nature appears to have synchronized an inordinate number of details to facilitate life as we know it.

It being our nature to extrapolate that which we 'know' or at least think we understand, onto regions where we have yet to fully explore, I tend to wonder if there is considerably more to understand about those things which are immediately to view?

The little detail of the method of synchronization and how it might work?

Does it work in the absence of light?

The above was not a rhetorical question.

Of course, without light, what have we got?

Then again, where does (did) the light come from, depending on whether one takes the finite or infinite view of matters.

[Fivedoughnut]

Then again, where does (did) the light come from.

My take of this conumdrum:

http://ip-67-205-94-94.static.privat....php?p=2099917

[Fivedoughnut]

More recent 'jazz': http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum...ad.php?t=13690

[SteveA]

As you point out, it would appear we'd need some perceivable influence for it to be relevant (and this could be similar to a photon detection or light/energy in an abstract sense), but the quantity of objective/subconscious change before some perceivable result was experienced/detected might vary, though again, to the extent this information remained objective/subconscious it would appear to, once again, be an irrelevant and unperceived or imagined unknown.

There's an interesting correlation with a wavefunction in physics - a single photon (despite some claims) when detected, doesn't have a specific wavelength. The wavelength is derived in the context of multiple photons and this is similar to saying that there is no distance between a single point and itself.

In order to determine a wavefunction, multiple photons need to be detected. Without any information, we couldn't determine that space existed nor its form or know where matter existed, or that it possessed some wavelength of a specific distance etc.

If we were to somehow be able to witness the first photon in a universe, it would have no previous context for it's location, size or position relative to anything else and it might as well, at that instant, define every property that exists in that universe.

If we then detected a second photon, it would appear that some difference must be observed, otherwise it would be the same as seeing the first photon and the difference between these could then provide a manner in which the second photon inherited a more specific and non-universal context.

Notice that this implies that a memory or permanent alteration is made by the initial photon and in physics we could analogize this with a transition in the energy state of an atom, or other alter or creation of matter, otherwise there should be no memory nor change in context after the first photon and all photons should be identical to the first (once again, that's the same as a single photon).

So we could say that a photon is also defined by a persistent material construction/accumulation/alteration.

Notice that we need not assume a photon travelled through space - it was simply a detected event within some context, which would be constructed by other events. Photons are not seen travelling through space, though we can take multiple photons and use those to construct information regarding a context in which some other photon had moved through space - the problem with that we're not really seeing all of them move through space in that case and which ones are interpreted to describe the space through which the others move appear arbitrary (this is one of those fundamental problems I think currently exists in physics - photons can't move through the same space that we see via. photons, in a similar sense that electrons striking a video screen are not moving within the same space as the image appears to exist. This is why there are 'holographic' theories in physics)

Anyway, I'll skip lots of details and justification - there are a lot of possible things we could imagine to be occuring, but fundamentally it's hard to imagine how anything other than an accumulation/counting can be occuring in time. Though whatever quantity happens to describe the universe, at present, could be for all intents and purposes with respect to our ability to determine it - infinite, and it would grow faster than we could construct representations for it and it could also be that the qualities of experience by which we perceive or interact with these quantities of (space)time are, in themselves, determine by quantities that surpass those (once again, potentially infinite).

A single "randomly selected" natural number 1,2,3,... would appear to contain an unlimited quantity of information, because it would have no upper boundary. If the upper boundary was "Infinity", then this "random" number would average ~Infinity/2 ... still infinite. The most natural form of interpretation in time of a quantity would appear to be in terms of a resonant wavelength (a "string theory", but with just one string), in which case the objects that can appear to be embedded within this would be factors of its length (for example, if it was an even quantity, it could appear to contain two identical objects).

If that's the case, a "universe" would contain nothing if it was of prime length. The probability of an ~"Infinity"/2 size universe being prime, I believe is ~1/log("Infinity"/2) ... an infinitesimal (I might be wrong on the exact form, but it's close enough). The period of time over which such a universe could continually expand and contain more than an empty space would be ~log("Infinity"/2) ... still infinite, though a different form ("infinitely smaller") of infinite quantity than the original "Infinity" and there would need to be a structure relating these two versions.

I don't know if this is specifically the case for how time proceeds in the universe, but it's the most likely version I can think of and it does describe something quite similar to a diverse spectrum of discrete wavelengths with semi-persistent properties over time and it matches a lot of the "wheels within wheels" properties observed in physics and astronomy.

Another interesting perspective on logic is that logic doesn't create information, though deterministic computations could reduce the information present (we would not necessarily be able to detect information that is lost). For example, if we added 1+2 to get 3. In a sense, there's more information contained in the 1+2 form as we could not invert this and determine that 3 was derived solely by adding 1+2, unless a precise manner of computing things was used. This would also give a "forward" bias in time as things would progress toward a state of less information (even if we could not measure this loss) ... so it would at least seem, from a logical perspective, that the universe either somehow retains information (in which case we have a problem describing how time can operate as there would be no changing information to describe what the present moment is) or counts down informationally as (non-linear) computations/selections proceed. (Again, as an example, the conversion from 1+2 to 3 would be irreversible) Though to what extent new information/entropy "enters" the universe could be a question also.

Anyway, I think any and all of these possible mechanisms still need to have a direct relationship to experience otherwise they wouldn't exist as anything considered to be a part of reality. A good question is how reliable memory is - though there wouldn't appear to any manner in which to be certain memories are accurate. If a memory was altered, it would require some other memory (also potentially subject to such an alteration) to determine that a change existed and even then the question of which was correct would remain. Once uncertainty is added, it doesn't appear it can be removed (from then on, it appears there's always a question as to what influence it had and no specific way to assure it is ever removed).

I've probably rambled enough and should get to bed.

Until next time ...