Something from Nothing

[labelwench]

This may be my sole contribution to this discussion, most of it being over my head, and I really should be in bed by now as I will be burning the midnight oil. Still, time plays a part in this thread, lol, so cut me some slack, svp....

Spacetime is the overall emission and unification of each and all gravitational fields as they blend and synchronize to align all of known space along a single synchronizing field in which each piece of matter and energy is contributing to non-locally and yet still in control locally. The nature of gravity is both local and non local alignment of gravitational fields as they continuously emit and synchronize. ... Michael Turner

Time keeping devices obviously came along considerably after we quit dragging our knuckles, at least Rolex, lol. Yet, our species has been "marking time" in one manner or another since we've been scratching on rocks, so what is it about the human experience that requires our observance of same.

A couple of asides for you to toy with:

1. The human body has a built in synchronicity with the cycles of this planet, referred to as circadian rhythm. Amazing little piece of work that we might want to take a closer look at. My thought is that it is tied in to gravity, and thus relates to the quote above.

2. Certain observable time cycles are changing. Does time evolve or only our perception of it?

Oh yes, I am a wing-nut for certain. Just remember, you heard it here first.

Later,

Labelwench

[Graybeard]

2. Certain observable time cycles are changing. Does time evolve or only our perception of it?

To be perfectly honest with you I don't really know what time is .... I don't really know if anyone does. But if I was pushed really hard, I suspect I would go with the quantum version.

cool bananas ... greg

[labelwench]

To be perfectly honest with you I don't really know what time is .... I don't really know if anyone does. But if I was pushed really hard, I suspect I would go with the quantum version.

cool bananas ... greg

This is a respectful thread, there is no need to push.

All things in time.....

Ah, yes, quantum theory.

Is that what allows our minds to comtemplate several trains of thought simultaneously, or is that only a female quantum thing?

I'm being serious here. LW

[Graybeard]

2. Certain observable time cycles are changing. Does time evolve or only our perception of it?

I feel its only our perception of it.

Is that what allows our minds to comtemplate several trains of thought simultaneously, or is that only a female quantum thing?

No ... I don't think so ... I think my vote would be for the the B-Theory of time...... CLICK

cool bananas ... greg

[melanie]

Hi Mel ... I think I have a more 'material' nothing in mind, a vacuum, or a empty field.

Hi greg my old buddy.

So what yer saying, you want to discuss a ''material' nothing?

And what do you mean by vacuum or-empty field in relation to the above statement...
bearing in mind that the concept ''nothing'' can have different meanings or interpretations.

Thanks....mel.

[analog]

According to Heisenberg this cannot be known with certainty. Or at least it value and its rate-of-change of that value can only be determined to a level of accuracy where their combined uncertainty is greater than Planck's constant.

This means, the way I see it, that just as a particle cannot have a definite position and a definite velocity, so a field cannot have a definite value and a definite rate of change. Further ... The more definite the fields value, the more uncertain the rate of change.

As you know and contrary to popular opinion, I don't interpret Heisenberg so literally. IMHO, his views are subjective interpretations pertaining to measurement and observation, and have no authority over objective physical material reality. I think a particle can definitely have a definite position and velocity, we just have to influence one to find the other due to the dynamics of measuring similar to the observer effect; thus one is always in question or 'uncertain' to us, not to the universe or all of the other physical interactions that follow in the chain reaction we call 'existence' due to the position and velocity of that particle throughout its entire existence. The wave interactions and such of QM are objective and very real physical interactions in a materialist's views, due to the substance composing the wave interference (whether constructive or destructive) being actual matter. Pair production and such thus becomes the emergence of uniformly moving matter from a randomly moving material field due to constructive aethereal interference.

A Field with a zero value. A nothing field......

.......Why can't a field with a value of Zero, have a wildly fluctuating rate of change ? If you measure its value here at this moment as zero.....

My question still remains. In terms of energy, when have we ever determined a zero value? Even vacuums have measurable amounts of energy. I'm not certain that the value ever drops to zero even if it is in minor fluctuation.

If we are truly speaking from materialist terms, then only moving matter creates 'energy'; thus only stillness or a broken instrument...lol...would give a true zero energy value, but stillness or absolute rest is related to the entire system and is much more complex than just envisioning an arbitrary area in space and implying it may be quantumly placid due to that being a probability or uncertainty or any other concept. To have a true 'nothing field' the system would have to manifest it, and this requires a recognition of many universal mechanics, IMHO.

Hmmm ... how do you describe a conventional singularity ?

I see singularities as breakdowns in our mathematical methodologies and such, but not as physical entities or actual states. I would put an initial three dimensional volume at the beginning of an inflationary model.

This is the part I want to talk about, after this inflation takes over, evolution, life

I'm listening then.....

You'll need to do better than that old buddy ... lol. I can see that we will need to discuss this part.

Still listening...lol.

But in general, I don't think that I am in agreement with all of the above quote

I would have never guessed....lol.

later buddy,

Tim

[Graybeard]

According to Heisenberg this cannot be known with certainty. Or at least it value and its rate-of-change of that value can only be determined to a level of accuracy where their combined uncertainty is greater than Planck's constant.

As you know and contrary to popular opinion, I don't interpret Heisenberg so literally. IMHO, his views are subjective interpretations pertaining to measurement and observation, and have no authority over objective physical material reality. I think a particle can definitely have a definite position and velocity

Tim .... before we go any further ... and there are things in your last post that we will need to discuss further, I need to understand what your saying.

It does not matter how you interpret uncertainty. If, like Heisenberg, you interpret it as 'matrice mechanics' or like Schrodinger, as a wave function, which he meant only as a construct, not literally. Or whether you interpret the wave function as literal, or even if you accept Bohm's 'hidden variable' theory.Or even the sum of waves.

They are all just interpretations. They are all templates created by observations in order to explain the end results.

But none of them, not one, changes the fact that particles/waves display uncertainty. This is the only fact we know. As an armchair scientist you know as well as I that this is our only empirical evidence that matches experiment, and therefore the only conclusion we are allowed to draw.

It has been tested times beyond count. You say you don't interpret it so literally ? Maybe so, but you cannot deny it's results ? It has never been observed to behave in any other way ?

I think I can legitimately use uncertainty predictions and be on firm ground. I'm saying nothing about its ultimate underlying, (if their is any .. lol) causes.

If you don't agree with this, then you don't agree with QM, and you would need to provide an alternative to account for its spectacular alignment with results. Otherwise, I have no theory to discuss.

Interpretations are subjective, observation is objective.

Greg

[austintorn@aol.com]

I think it has even been proven that there cannot be any causes or hidden variables beneath and within the quantum realm, thus making it indeterminate.

This is kind of what we call 'nothing', without it being a total nothing, like the 'zero-state' that is not really 0.

[labelwench]

For those who may be wondering why I should thank posts that I most likely do not comprehend, understand this:

It is only through respectful discourse that new ideas can be turned about and fully explored, examined and pondered.

Each of you has invested much time and thought to this pursuit, and it is for your time and effort in seeking precise words, defining and clarifying, posting links, that I offer you my thanks and respect.

I have learned much, and I trust that you will continue to your purpose, that I and others may continue to learn from you.

Respectfully,
Labelwench

[austintorn@aol.com]

Always happy to get a free thanks for 'nothing'!