The Physics of Pure Time Sequence

[labelwench]

Hello Carey,

All this is conceptual, not perceptual. What then are the moments in themselves? Some of them are human mental events. The others are non-human mental events. Mental events are internally furnished with phenomenal fields and qualia, as direct experience attests.

Though I lack the tools to discuss time as conceptual, I would like to share this observation of time from my own perception.

When I am working the graveyard shift, I experience time quite differently than when I am on day cycle. Four years of such work now, and I am paying close attention to my own biology and psychology, using myself and colleagues for field study, with purpose.

Learning more about time and how it affects our biology may assist people in this employment cycle, which is ever growing and has been proven to increase health risks.

How we perceive time also affects how we communicate, ideas more so, than basic numerical data, for example. My night work deals mainly with basic numbers, a personal strength, which remains constant for me, day or night.

Thank you for the opportunity to post this aside in this thread.

Labelwench

[Wick]

Motion seems to me a difficult thing to disregard. Ptolemy ignored motion and look where it got us--geocentricity. It took the minds of Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo to set the universe in motion. Together Newton and especially Einstein have returned us to an unmoving system. Space-time, as you suggest, exhibit no motion. All moments are ordered in the universe and they exist in their lattice in an unmoving state.

But I think we will find that the way we have constrained time to a lattice is the very reason why quantum mechanics and general relativity fail to find common ground.

Another question:

You suggest that your theory gets rid of infinities, but I don't see how that could be. Take a given moment in time. There are still and infinite number of values for the electromagnetic field in any finite portion of space. And the the force of gravity approaches infinity the closer one approaches a black hole. How does your theory get rid of these troublesome infinities?

Thanks for your time, Carey! And please forgive the questions and doubt. I am interested and trying to make sense of your theory from my peculiar frame of reference.

Regards!

Wick

[Carey]

The following link is to a recently posted paper which incorporates "A Theory of Everything for Physics" plus subsequent developments including the structure of the nucleus and the origin of mass in causal set theory: http://vixra.org/abs/1006.0070 -- Carey

[SteveA]

The following link is to a recently posted paper which incorporates "A Theory of Everything for Physics" plus subsequent developments including the structure of the nucleus and the origin of mass in causal set theory: http://vixra.org/abs/1006.0070 -- Carey

I just began reading your paper and enjoy the general flavor. You may already recognize this and I should read ahead, but I wanted to toss out a couple thoughts.

Events in time appear to contain two components - both properties/things/characteristics that are persistent and allow a continuity across time to exist, as well as a novel component that makes the context of their detection unique and in your example of your ordered pairs of events {(a,b),(b,c)} this could be similar to either a third element or a requirement that all these pairs be unique in some manner (though that might be too restrictive and add unnecessary complexity, but it does appear a real influence)

When multiple past states appear to lead to a single present state, a loss of information occurs (we have a compression/reduction of possible states). Similarly, when a single past state appears to lead to multiple possible future states, this is under-determined and requires additional information be "added".

A conservation of information exists over time when n possible detected states remain as n possible states evolving over time.

If we look at this locally, then a 2:1 compression of states, would require a manner of retaining this information (similar to an undetected or virtual particle) in order to later "decompress" this - basically, the fundamental motion in time of a conserved quantity of information is in a loop of n states, or a wavelength.

Branches or mergings of these represent information being exchanged and an interesting observation is that the quantity of those branches or mergings at a point and an interesting thing to note is that these are only compatible when these share common factors (for example, no finite quantity of 2:1 compressions would supply information precise compatible with a 1:3 splitting ... though such could be approximated on large scales of space or time).

This gives a manner that such exchanges of information occur in discrete "spectral lines" associated with prime numbers, though information can also be encoded as the phase/distance/delay in time between states as well, and it appears you're already considering that in terms of ratios of distances between segments.

Something I was looking at that earlier that you might find a relationship with to your ideas as well is in regards to some correlations between Pascal's Triangle and atomic properties (the forms of growth you present are similar) - just a suggestion http://www.mi.sanu.ac.rs/vismath/vis...se2/index.html and also http://milan.milanovic.org/math/english/atom/atom.html

[Carey]

Thank you, Steve, for that interesting perspective from information theory, and even more for the links you provided. If you've read more since, you've found that there is no such thing as a "state" in the reduction of physics to causal set theory. Quantifiable information is only calculable in respect to a bounded region of time. The past is real, and it holds information on this theory.
The links you provided gave me excellent prospects to contact with my findings. The arithmetic of growth patterns and periodicities that characterize atomic structure, and the use of Platonic solids to model the nucleus, are only a step away from the use of causal sets to do the same. -- Carey

[SteveA]

Thank you for your reply and yes, I read more (in fact I printed it out in order to take it home for a read as well ). There were some nice general comments you made toward the beginning that I enjoyed seeing as well (i.e. your emphasis on the specific class(es) of phenomenon that could be considered provable or testable via. the scientific method as well as some other general observations that I also think are important considerations to maintain).

I also happened to see a very close link between your hex form and a train of thought I've been following for quite a few years now.

Typically, arbitrary binary information is considered to be represented by two symbols, but if we consider multiple arbitrary binary values, it appears to require at least 3 "absolute" states to communicate these. I've posted elsewhere regarding this, and I can give you a link, but basically imagine a triangle with 3 symbols for the vertices, A, B and C. If we "rotate clockwise", these could proceed (similar to your order pairs representations) as A->B, B->C and C->A. Counterclockwise rotations could proceed in the opposite manner A->C, C->B, B->A. These could be seen as transmitting either binary 1 or 0 values over time in the context of 6 observable states at any moment.

In your basic hex version, you have 4 possible paths leading from a single origin, and this could be seen as a pair of transitions in time from, for example, the A state as A->B->C (binary 11), A->B->A (binary 10), A->C->A (binary 01) or A->C->B (binary 00).

In the case of some of the horizontal transitions, you have state changes that are not visible in time and these would appear to correlate with duplicate transmissions of the same state in my version (i.e. observationally AAABBBAA appears the same as ABA as the "clock" is derived from observed transitions and the actually "external" duration of an event in terms of some other time reference is not observed, though we can determine some properties that may exist in some external reference for time by looking at non-uniform distributions of states as these can imply hidden states that are being transitioned to, though observationally superimposed - but that's more complexity than we need to worry about right now).

There's also another interesting correlation here. There are 6 ways to orient a complete "rotation" through A, B and C as ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB and CBA. These exist as pairs of 3 phase rotations, though we could also equate them similar to 6 observational perspectives of a single object (I prefer to consider the ordering to be from closest to furthest, so the initial element would be similar to an observational origin, but imagine we were looking at an aircraft with 3 colored lights on it - by listed the distances from closest to furthest we could described its orientation in space in terms of 6 quantized rotations).

A thought that's more directly related as a comparison between your model and Pascal's Triangle is that if we assume that a diagonal evolution to your sequences is possible, then we could describe all possible positions within this tiled space similar to accumulating -1 or +1 motions as each hex tile is passed through and this would evolve into a structure we could describe similar to a hexagonal version of Pascal's Triangle:



Each individual hexagonal element could then be described by a phase component as to what vertex (I know this image isn't identical, but I'm certain you get the general idea) a particle is at, as well as the fundamental length of time it took to reach that (it's fundamental, versus observed wavelength - the observed wavelength I assume from your model would be the vertical distance, whereas it's fundamental length, likely correlated with energy could then be the number of vertex motions to reach that position)

I admit I still need to read more closely your ideas and I don't really want to distract you much or bias your views much, but your approach is one that I enjoy (I prefer discrete systems, state machines and information theory - I do a lot of work with digital electronics and software engineering and I love the "nuts and bolts").

One question I had was regarding the vertical scaling on your diagrams showing an assumed photon, hydrogen and helium shell. How did you derive the n^2 scaling for the wavelengths? I can see how these patterns would evolve into triangular areas and approach such a squared relationship in terms of probabilistic area covered on macroscales (the area of a triangle grows proportional to (n^2+n) or n*(n+1) and for large n, this is approaches n^2), but I didn't assume that's what you were referring to.

Anyway, I still need to read more of your paper but thank you for posting the ideas.

[SteveA]

Hi Wick,
I'm attaching an article called "Eliminative Panpsychism." It has four parts. Part Two is "Physics Without Space," which reproduces the material in my published TOE booklet, slightly abridged and updated. The other parts address the epistemology and philosophy of science that led me to the theory. This is a "core dump" of everything I know in condensed form, so you won't need a copy of my published books. With luck, the article will be published later this year in a collection put together by David Skrbina.
The definition of mass-energy should be clear from the article. As to your other specific questions, let's see if the "ground plan" makes any advance on them. -- Carey

http://www.toequest.com/forum/attach...anpsychism.pdf

I checked out that pdf you posted and ... wow, congrats! Nice insights and once again it appears we tend to pursue similar views. Here's a link to a thread I put up recently that you might enjoy (I've been also trying to piece things together from a perspective of low level cognitive features that should be present and have been trying to connect the dots with physical observations using information and number theory, given a few very basic assumptions about how things must be simply that we can persistentently recognize and interact with an object - of course this wouldn't necessarily be limited to just physical objects then, though there can be a subset of this that represents physical interactions, which I believe arise from converting distinct qualities of experience into common units of quantity instead. This creates an informationally reduced description that can be observed in different orders in time and then can support multiple independent observers as an "objective" reality - so, for example, an object (subjectively) observed as a sequence A->B->C over time instead becomes an object "objectively" described as 1 A, 1 B and 1 C, though in any order (which correlates closely with a wavefunction and not a specific photon in quantum mechanics - "objective" reality is "blurry" because it includes different observations as a statistical structure in common - in reality observations are not vague statistical windows though and hence reality is divergent between observers). In that specific example, there are 6 positions in which this single object can be observed. In this specific case we could call these +x, -x, +y, -y, +z and -z. Larger objects with more properties can be observed, in common, on larger scales of space, though this can also appear restrictive if communication with observers able to detect all those properties of the object can't be established and so we can have the appearance of a reduction of visibility of large objects (for example, consider if you had an ability to display 10 possible states - 3 are required, at a minimum, to establish binary communication over time, which would leave 7 available to witness other objects - but you'd also want to establish bidirectional communication (which could require 4 symbols) as well as potentially communicate with multiple observers (which requires even more symbols) and this reduces the complexity of features that can be discussed in common as something "objective").

Anyway. I tend to ramble ... (an old habit )

http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...mputation.html

[Carey]

Wolfgang Ketterle, who won the Nobel for cold matter in 2000, gave his blessing to my modeling of Bohr's formula. It's important to glean how the frequency/wavelength numbers, for the spectral fingerprints of the atoms, are obtained from pure causal set theory. I've expanded the verbal explanation that goes along with the diagram. Ketterle only saw the "Topological Derivation of Atomic Spectral Data," a 1-pager which is attached earlier in this thread. I can't improve on the words any further. Study the diagram until the frequency labels, F1, F2, F3, make sense.
I may have to bring this thread to a close. It's called "The Physics of Pure Time Sequence" for a reason. There are no states, no particles, and no spatial relations or geometry in the theory. Your entries threaten to hijack the thread, because you contradict the founding premise with your talk of "states," "space," and "particles." I will conclude my entries with a final statement.
I've shown how all of physics can be constructed from a single ordering relation, requiring only two primitives: the individual moments of time, and the causal links connecting them. This constitutes a further reduction of Newton's original reduction to 3 primitives-- space, time and mass. Quantum Mechanics and gravity are unified. The mystery of mass is solved. The search for a "God Particle" is over. Quantum schematics of space-time and ordinary matter are now available for reference. The method for reworking the Standard Model to a causal set model is made clear. Physics, as Bertrand Russell correctly maintained, is only a conjecture as to the "causal skeleton" of the world. We now have a detailed anatomy of that causal skeleton. Physics is essentially solved. Any layman with an intuition for physical concepts can understand the theory, because of its elementary arithmetic. The theoretical physicists are in a terrible position, unable to grasp the solution without facing the futility of the training and careers they've invested their lives in.
The main importance of the solution to physics is that it puts an end to the mind-body problem. See Russell and Whitehead for that solution, or read my book on the subject.
Good luck to any and all. I'm signing off. -- Carey

[SteveA]

Yes, I don't want to sidetrack you much from your ideas, though I believe our approaches are actually quite similar except I'm trying to tie things together with conscious perceptions - basically, consider what it is that is being observed and how are forms and changes recognized as coherent objects. This actually does give, very similar to your ideas a "physics of pure time sequence", except that this applies to qualities of perceptions, which must possess unique and differentiable characteristics in order that multiple things can be recognized and this is where my references to observations of a sequence of properties, such as A->B->C->A arise as a closed cycle of observations between a set of properties (3 symbols/properties are the minimum to communicate binary information over time and there are 6 unique orderings of these - you can correlate this with your basic hexagonal form as a binary symmetry among 3 vertices).

So basically, I've been trying to put together the whys behind things and basically a manner in which we could begin with most anything and construct a physical model from the ground up, simply due to the manner in which things are perceived and comprehended and I believe this does arise in many of the properties that you described (though we should additionally find directions of exploration (especially in terms of mass and gravity) in which currently overlooked phenomenon exist). There also appear to be mathematical transformations that can perform the conversions between phenomenon on our every macroscale view of things and the microscopic realm, though something to consider is that these transformations can actually be what impose a view of atomic characteristics on microscopic scales - there's a question though as to which direction cause and effect work in this respect - it can be that the manner in which phenomenon are interpreted as occuring can give rise to an equivalent microscopic model, though assuming that this model of microscopic operations is then the foundation can be incorrect as it was derived from macroscopic observations and assumptions regarding how these must operate. Anyway, I believe there's still more to the picture and it can potentially simplify much of the links between various scales of phenomenon.

In any case, good luck and thank you again for posting your ideas.
Steve