Dubbelosix

I think there could be a number of things that contribute to it. First of all, things do not happen for no reason. Then things happen in a non-local way. This non-local nature to the universe, is the most challenging concept to understand in a deterministic model since classical signals are subject to the speed of light as well. 

So in a way, I believe there are things even happening we don't fully understand. 

In fact, the key to forbidding time travel may have to do with causally-related systems. For instance, If two events are timelike separated, then an object can travel from the former event to the latter event with a velocity v<c. In a space-like interval, an object can be present at both events only if it travels at a velocity v>c. That is, a spacelike separated object could only travel from the former to latter point by exceeding the speed of light. Since this speed is non-physical with ordinary matter, the two events will not allow itself to be causally-connected. Only those timelike systems, are causally-connected; perhaps Chronological Protection (as named by Hawking) is based on such principles, perhaps only causally-connected spheres are allowed to time travel, those which are spacelike, do not and could not, effect the causal structure of the universe.

If indeterminism was truly part of the wave nature of quantum mechanics, then a curious problem exists in the double slit experiment. The interference pattern still emerges when you are shooting only one electron through the apparatus - keep in mind, the particles are not entangled and they are not supposed to know where the previous particles have landed on the detector, yet somehow, they do, and the interference pattern will always emerge regardless. 

My feeling of this, for this reason, has a deep motive. 

If the particles have no knowledge of where the previous particles have landed, yet the interference pattern always will emerge, then reality could be argued as being somehow deterministic. Though people will recite the ''spontaneous decay'' as a reason to think indeterministic events goes on at the fundamental level and this is not what I have taken from physics. Almost everything can be described deterministically. In one case I have given, the wave function is entirely deterministic. 

Exhaustive, but logical. 

You still haven't demonstrated how the ball always falls down the hill if there is not an underlying causal process each time, which has to be related to the systems it is made of ie. particles. 

If the particles it is made of is not following deterministic paths, then why does the ball always fall down the hill? Surely in some circumstances, if not most, the ball should not even form, or maybe roll up the hill, or transform into a goblin. I mean, what are the chances random systems always cope with the same circumstances?

To me, it is more likely that particles follow deterministic paths which are determined by the forces which guide them. A ball falls down a hill because of the forces we use to describe them in a classical sense. Fundamentally, there still exists constraints on the system in the way of forces acting on them. Particles do not act randomly in my opinion, something is always guiding its path through space, if not often to create an ensemble of particles in some deterministic way for a classical system. 

3 minutes ago, koti said:

I think you're abusing the word "random" or at least this word means something different to you and me in the context of reality.

No I am not, abusing anything. Random means, without any fundamental or underlying processes. What is your definition of random?

4 minutes ago, Sensei said:

No, it does not have to always falls off the table, you can use x-ray machine, which will ionize egg (eject electron from egg shell), and use external electric field to hold in place levitating if you would like to.. as long as you want to..

Like in oil drop experiment..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment

 

I don't think you understand this. 

13 minutes ago, Sensei said:

No problem. You can check current model by yourself using Cloud Chamber, then Bubble Chamber, then Spark Chamber and so on, so on.. You SHOULD... Don't believe in just word...

 

Unstable isotopes in the above video are decaying in the random direction, and alpha or electron particles are flying, leaving traces..

 

Oh decay, one of those processes which we don't fully understand. Yet a decay process can be completely deterministic under the zeno effect which underlies some kind of deterministic physical rearranging process of the electron orbits. 

If the universe was fundamentally random. you need to explain not only why the egg falls off the table, but why it always falls off the table. 

Of course the world showing order is present. If it did not, the egg would not fall off a table, the ball would not roll down a hill, nor should ice always melt. No offence, but this stuff is simple. You either know what indeterminism actually means, or you crucially don't understand reality at large. 

which is it?

Well I will ask for one, I am asking what is a random generator? Then I am asking, how a collection of randomly interacting systems could give rise to otherwise, causally interacting macroscopic systems to give rise, to the ordered, causal world around us. It just wouldn't happen this way. 

1 minute ago, Sensei said:

Tell me about random number generator errors of this Universe, and I will fix them..

So, you won't have to bother about them..

 

What does a true random generator consist of?

27 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

2) How does this play with the fact you can put any interval of R in one-to-one correspondence with the whole of R?

 

 

This one studiot?

Well, show me what you mean. What random intervals have one-to-one correspondence? Does this not seem like an oxymoron?

You can correct me if you want. What other, coherent meaning of random can be attributed to reality as we know it?

Random has one meaning as related to nature... that is, it is not controlled by any constraints dictating anything. Does this sound like the universe, you know?

1 minute ago, Sensei said:

Rubbish. Who would bother making Universe which would always look the same..

That would be extremely boring Universe..

Repeated over and over the same..

 

maybe you've never heard of the bounce theories?

Some one asked about free will and I gave an opinion - No need really to talk about it unless required. 

A recent investigation has shown that free will may not actually exist. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/free-will-could-all-be-an-illusion-scientists-suggest-after-study-that-shows-choice-could-just-be-a7008181.html

45 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Not entirely sure what you mean here.

1) How do these assertions play with the phenomenon of emergence?

2) How does this play with the fact you can put any interval of R in one-to-one correspondence with the whole of R?

 

 

emergence tends to mean, more than the sum of its parts, so your question does not mean much to me. To think though an n-number of particles acting randomly gives rise to macroscopic order, is uncertain, to non-probable with me. 

45 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Not entirely sure what you mean here.

1) How do these assertions play with the phenomenon of emergence?

2) How does this play with the fact you can put any interval of R in one-to-one correspondence with the whole of R?

 

 

If you have a universe consisting of randomly acting objects, would you expect order as we observe it on the macroscopic level arise? I don't expect it to, since such order requires its constituents act in a certain way. 

8 minutes ago, koti said:

You assume that the universe understands what random, deterministic and causal is. Why?

The universe as we see it is causal. I base this as a matter of a set theory argument. A causal system cannot be borne from non-causal events. No more than any subsystem can contain enough information to encode the whole. The universe we see on a day-to-day basis appears to be constructed from causally set patterns in nature.

A wave function even at fundamental regions, shows that it is completely causally dynamic. The only thing our theory does not answer for, is how a wave function chooses a certain eigenstate. When we do not know why something happens, we tend to attach the ''random card'' to nature, when I do not find this acceptable physics. It's just lazy. 

Well, maybe and only maybe a system can be borne from non-causal events, but it is very unlikely. 

(edited for typo's)

No doesn't need to be in conjunction with number 6 because number 6 does not need to be so. 

I have no reason to think the universe is random, in fact, everything about nature points to deterministic, causal processes. If it did not abide by this, how does a causal universe like the observable one, arise?

Sorry, made a few mistakes there, but yes, the rotation can be linked to the charge. I'll demonstrate this quickly if I can. Spin is of course related to magnetism - in fact, the rotation or angular momentum of electrons result in the magnetic force of a system. The black hole has two poles, which can emit energy in very explosive ejections. This may involve magnetic fields as well in some form we are unaware of.

I want to make it clear, we do not know everything about black holes at all. 

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Indeed: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/K/Kerr_black_hole.html

And Kerr-Newman for a rotating charged black hole: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr–Newman_metric

And then there is charged but not rotating: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/R/Reissner-Nordstrom_black_hole.html

 

right, but I made a mistake before, let's just be clear. 

Of course, the ejection of gas from a black hole may not be from the inside, I am unsure how these models properly treat these ejections. It seems, that gas is ejected from near the poles from the surrounding gas of matter and energy https://phys.org/news/2017-03-ejection-gasses-black-holes-due.html but according to this link, still has origin in the magnetic field. 

It''s probably wise to think these ejections have nothing then, to do with the actual dynamics inside the black hole... or as I prefer, the frozen star

And its probably also wise to think a rotating black hole has magnetic dynamics. Just as a rotating electron experieneces a magnetic field. 

I'll see if I can find a reference. 

4 minutes ago, interested said:

ditto how does a spinning black hole produce a charge if nothing can get out, do they have a magnetic field no

 

If they are diamagnetic, then they will not, no. But there some recent evidence which suggests you can order magnetic structure inside of the superconductor, which holds importance to the notion of diamagnets in physics. 

sorry, read back, I got confused, kerr black hole is the non-charge solution

There are three solutions:

• its mass M (it will be called a Schwarzschild black hole if it has no angular momentum and no electric charge),
• its angular momentum J (and called a Kerr black hole if it has no charge), and
• its electric charge Q (a charged black hole is called a Reissner–Nordström black hole if the angular momentum is zero or a Kerr–Newman black hole if it has both angular momentum and electric charge).

If memory serves well, the Kerr Black hole is the rotating solution of the Schwarzschild black hole (non-rotating variation) which has no charge. 

Represented by a stress energy tensor, which is related to the geometry of the system. Nevertheless, The black hole dynamics are indeed established by three factors the mass, the charge and the angular momentum. The last two are mutually complimentary. That is, a spinning black hole produces a charge. Non-rotating black holes have in its earliest terminology been classed as ''stagnant black holes'' - earlier than that, the black hole used to be called frozen stars, I much prefer that terminology

1) I do not believe the universe is random inherently at the quantum level or otherwise. 

2) I do not believe that the big bang is all there is in the universe. The misnomer ''hot big bang'' should really have been reserved for models that involve initial conditions with extremely high temperatures. The reason for this will be revealed now.

3) I do not believe the universe needs to be described by the current model. There are acceptable alternatives which should deserve an exploration, such as a heating of the universe from some pre-big bang state. In my own investigation, this revealed itself as a radiation vapour Helmholtz transition from some more primordial, non-interacting condensed gas/liquid of matter particles with very little thermodynamic degree of freedom. 

4) That physics should today, take seriously other models which permit alternatives to the inflation tragedy, since, prominent scientists, even those involved with its creation, now question its ultimate validity. 

5) That over all vacuum contribution of energy is effectively zero today. The only contribution from the vacuum in my own studies from the work of Sakharov  shows that perhaps was only significant when curvature was significant - this indicates vacuum contribution was different today than what it was when the universe was much younger. 

6) I am open to the idea of a ''god'' but I use this word as a way to express some ''vague ideology'' of a higher being. I don't use it in any religious sense. I am only open to this idea, for the same reason Susskind is. He is open about such subjects, and I welcome this kind of honesty. He believes that god is actually possible because physics and cosmology at large, gives the scientist situations in which nature appears to be finely tuned for some ultimate ''goal.'' In fact, this is not disputed, the only thing disputed is whether the goal was accidental or intentional. Since the fine tuning constants seem to indicate that it is not a random configuration of variables, something needs to give. 

What are your thoughts on the subjects I have raised, you don't need to answer my own, but you can give your own interpretation of these problems if you wish.

https://www.math.ku.edu/~lerner/GR/Geodesics.pdf

A nice paper, on the dynamics of the geodesic in relativity. 

I think the coupling of the universe to matter (exponentially drops) with size. 

I think the coupling ratio to the size of the universe today should be a rough but good estimate for the dark flow. The universe, is so many magnitudes greater than it was once considered and even now, cosmologists are actually quick to recognise that there could be many magnitudes of space outside the observable horizon. At least, Susskind has mentioned  at least once that the universe is many orders of magnitude greater than we had perceived. He is also open to the idea that the universe also may not actually be spatially flat and over time we will ''detect a small curve'' in the evolution of galaxies. 

I point out a problem with the current acceleration model which should expose something ''fundamentally wrong with our theory'' in light that dark matter is ultimately superfluous. The ratio of critical to observed energy densities, as I have mentioned a few times (which you will be aware of Mordred), is many magnitudes off, (emphasise, the use of the word, many). Something appears to be wrong within the theory. Accepting dark matter corrections, it seems the problem is inherent in the equations as a matter of the geometry of the universe. And quite frankly, there has to be some overall influence of the gravity distribution in the universe - though the matter-energy ratio content is 1% next to the background space, it still means the stress energy tensor has to be non-zero. This should in the end translate into a small curve through time. 

Dark flow is terribly slow today - the rate at which it actually flows is so slow, that it has been disputed a number of times. This is a testament to the dynamics involved here: A loose grip of the coupling of rotation to matter doesn't need to have happened that long ago. But evidence to me suggests that it happened a while ago when the universe did in fact become exponentially large - but this exponential growth was subsequent to the exponential decay rate of rotation due to linear expansion, as suggested and proven by Hoyle and Narlikar. The final result, maybe surprisingly in such a universe, is that a rotary property may still be observable. But the fact the universe is many times more than the order for gravitational collapse suggests that the continued ''acceleration'' may be seen in terms of a cosmological consequence of Newtons first law. 

This means we would have it entirely backwards concerning dark energy - we would be using it to explain the dynamics today when the universe today can be understood as continuing acceleration because the rotary property of the universe provided enough initial rotation energy to push it out of the dense Planck region and out of the critical collapse density. The rotation was probably fully responsible for this, if it is a true property of the universe. 

Another important realisation is that the rotary energy required to do this, does explain why there is so little of the stuff in the universe as it is. It takes energy to do this, so there is a bulk to horizon transfer of energy in terms of an angular component to a universe.

An interesting relativistic question which arises often is, ''if the universe is rotating what is it rotating relative to?''

I ask, ''what stops it rotating relative to itself?''

Another important realisation is that the archaic models of temperature and energy transfer involves systems outside other systems to allow a ''transfer of heat or energy'' into or even out of a system. The universe is a complicated system though, subject to its own laws in various forms which does not necessarily conserve this kind of classical model of heat/energy transfer. Two different situations highlight this problem, for instance, Carrol has demonstrated verbally that the appearance of new spacetime from expansion should indicate a variation of the metric tensor. Fundamentally, this investigation led to a reasoning for this, but I did not find one in the fluctuations over spacetime unless a significant curvature was involved (since this allowed a non-zero value for/over the forth power of the momenta of virtual particles). 

So maybe, vacuum contribution to spacetime was only significant when there was a significant curvature in the past of the universe. 

I know, there is a lot of speculations going on here. But we are hitting new territory, (in a sense) since we are using a new kind of model here. The new aspects arises from our reformulation in a logical way, concerning the true (or absolute acceleration) of a universe. If initially, I had no concept of dark energy, I would look to the classical equations to answer why a universe accelerates at all. In this instance, it leads to the intrinsic centrifugal pseudo force field. 

What confuses me though, is when we speak of hyperfine structure, I tend to think of the Zeeman effect and in terms of angular motion, it translates into a spin orbit coupling equation and tends to split the hyperfine energy levels. The spin orbit coupling equations are actually quite beautiful. 

Still, anything that rotates, actually has a correction term

[math] E_{kin} = E+ E_{rot}[/math]

The statement that gravity affects the wave function implies that the wave function evolves owing to gravity, and it doesn't at a level measurable by atomic clocks

Not always, a wave function need not evolve due to gravity to have conditions which may satisfy gravitational interpretations. For instance, here is an interesting thought experiment. In an ideal experiment where you can isolate a single superpositioned particle such that there was no forces acting on it, could you calculate a decay time for a gravitational collapse due to a non-equilibrium in the gravitational binding of the system?

Note then, a wave function could evolve without any gravitational influence, but the collapse may be a different story when you consider a nice thought experiment like this above.

Just now, swansont said:

That agrees with what I said. But you said "gravity affects the wave function" earlier, which is not the same as "gravity affects the particles"

By default it would if gravity affects atoms all in the same way no matter what the energy level. This of course is to be expected to satisfy the weak equivalence principle. 

The work clearly states they were trying measure the acceleration of the superpositioned particles. Note, you cannot talk about gravity affecting the wave function and not the particles at the same time, since by principle the supepositioned states means the system is not local. It is like projecting the particle in different states through space by smearing the wave function. That implies you have a many-body problem. 

The best way to view uncertainty, is as a limitation to how much information we can gain from any complimentary system.

Note also, that doesn't mean that a wave function has to be indeterministic. The evolution of a wave function can be of course entirely deterministic. So we must be careful when we think about the uncertainty as a measure of probability because even probability isn't fully understood, for the model we choose is very important.