chron44

Have to rather much scrutinize my four just earlier physics - all too hasty reasoned - criteria points. Probably I have to leave the subject, definition of Time, though being too comprehensive for any layman in physics. Although, these are the updated four points, in my personal effort of minimizing mixing with standard physics vocabulary and stand. (Some or much is not recognized for being common physics.) 1. All sorts of - energy - is needed for to "roll" matter. Noticed as time. 2. The here specified "microcosm" substance - energy - is from the searched mathematical idea - identifying, telling, the substance. 3. The mathematical idea, a physics theory, should and must finalize in matter. And its life-span as energy-matter. 4. This gives that entropy, for instance, is - mathematically revealing - the arrow of time - in universe's evolution, resulting, that Time only going in one direction. The 4:th point is a bit over-worked. "Tried" to cope the true physics meaning of "entropy".

Hi, again. Yes, that's totally right, of course. Physic is in its essence measurement. I have finally understood this. (Being an interested layman.) The big, really big problem, raised in Sagan's line, is due, to my view, the obvious "microcosm" entity involved. Magnitudes under any possibility to detect with novel tech. The - mathematical idea - for supporting the experimental evidence; ALSO is hinting extreme low energy levels for the energy evoking matter. And matter is the only "device" which - again, for my view - manifests [Time]. When matter in it self is exposing duration. "When matter rolls." -This is time. 1. All sorts of - energy - is needed for to "roll" matter. Noticed as time. 2. The here specified "microcosm" substance - energy - is by the mathematical idea - identifying, telling, the substance. Which is questioned here above for. 3. The mathematical idea, a physics theory, should and must finalize in matter. 4. This means that - entropy, the arrow of time - by all means become involved in fields, bosons and fermions. Which is an unconditional physics criterion. The "only" problem, here, is that the math in it self is not yet written. Exactly what "swansont" asked for. The specific identification, expressed To my view this math hints extreme magnitudes below any detection's possibility. The evidence, detection, should therefore, in present tech level, be the theoretical finalizing of our existing elementary particles. Besides answers on odd anomalies which novel physics got. For example, why isn't any proton decay found during the last decades. -More actual, the natural physical "reason" why the photon seemingly hasn't any anti-particle, though this is fairly explained by the standard model, etc... We probably end up with some type of a TOE math. -If [Time] is to be defined. So, the evidence for this math is eluding all physics tech. Revealed to be the an elusive present situation. So, yes, the C. Sagan line is relevant and, probably also is what it says, "profoundly resistant" to a simple definition. /chron44

Hi, If trying to reason, without the possibility to measure any of the very/ extreme low energy and matter levels involved in the 4 Time postulates: -Merely maybe trying to cope or just "accept" Einstein's basic view of a probable "substance" responsible in his GR equations, for instance. The basic idea, is that "energy" being the least, smallest, possible "substance" in space. Definitively magnitudes under any known elementary particle's energy level. Hence impossible to measure with present tech. In a physical and mathematical sense the starting microcosm energy (substance) must follow laws of entropy and statistics, and so on. Also incorporate the basics of the universe as we physically knows it: -Holding electromagnetism and gravity as starting "entities" for supporting the known forces and particles. (Bosons and fermions.) -Also the inevitable law of symmetry must be fulfilled. And so on. This is feasible with math and physics standard expression(s). Think of statistics applied on microcosm "entities" evoking some massive or massless particle(s). -Any exotic, non-massive or massive, particles may be evoked holding energy: Aka the massless boson(s), or a "prestate" of a such. -Then several continuing "entropy" processes leading to the manifesting of "Time". Therefore"time" is in need of "matter" for to be seen and noticed by any tech available. Even "fields" of any sort becomes in this manner time-dependent. This reasoning IS - NEW - as "joigus" noticed. And, this is the Speculations section. /chron44

Sorry, Of course the postulate 3 is reversed at the word .. the "most" microcosm .. Should be .. the "least" microcosm ... Therefore postulate 3. should be: I've got some problems with my working-memory. Not to mix with my general arguing ability /chron44

ok... For to make the opening 2 time postulates comprehensive - understandable. A third and a fourth "made-up"- postulates, drawn from Einstein's proposed basic view of the GR - theories. About specifically the GR "field" involved, is that this field should/probably consist of a "substance", or a similar expression from Einstein. Time postulate 3. Energy is the most "microcosm" entity possible. Time postulate 4. Matter is hence defined somewhere above this "microcosm" entity. These postulates are for the moment not able to be verified, because of present measurement limits. So, these totally four "Time postulates" cannot be verified today. Maybe in some years ahead. /chron44

I see your point rater well, for the other "moving parts". Still can't we just, for the "clean reasoning's" sake focus on one specific "moving part"? My tough reasoning point should be "Mordred's" general (to my memory) statement of that even "energy" must consist of "something". And also the big A.E. was in line with such an idea. Maybe this aspect is too "illusive or visionary" for further reasoning about the two opening postulates? Then I have to end this issue myself here. /chron44

OK, Hi, studiot. I have done some work on this issue I'm raising here, actually. Sorry if you found my quest a bit, here, non-theorized. It's a hard issue, and I admit that. First I would have some clarifying from swansont, before going further in reasoning. I find this point rather fundamental for further advance in the issue of the 2 time postulates given in the opening quest. No as time also applies to non material things like fields. (studiot - asked) Think maybe this field-objection is, by the physics-community stand, included into my issue to "swanson" - the community's (math) stand about fields. Some of you here claim - no energy (field) - no matter/particles/no "substance". I think i is "Mordred". : |

Hi, Have to reveal that I'm no expert. So my fundamental reservation may be physically inaccurate. -To my knowledge the only boson here "suitable" for this specific objection/ reasoning is/ are the "photon", inclusive its 2 more energetic "versions". First, are these 3 photon-variants, defined in physics being, fully massless? For my knowledge also the standard photon may have some extreme small mass in "reality". Though the phys-community is by "consensus" giving the photon, the X-ray photon and the gamma-ray photon 0 mass, all three. (Mathematically.) Can we maybe first sort out this consensus stand - and - the issue of maybe some of these photon variants having some extreme small mass, in "the reality", that to say. Is this settle-out issue relevant or not, for further reasoning, on this specific aspect?

Hi, Time postulate 1. The cause of time is created by all forms of energy. Time postulate 2. The effect, duration, of time is only applied on matter. These two "time" postulates are hereby proposed on the Speculations section. Any objections? Or some, maybe, aha.. sighs. /chron44

If I may have some idea or vague opinion (being a layman in physics), is that the "construction" of nature (the physics part especially discussed) is fully dependent on how the universe truly is originated. The cosmological origin and further development set all such linear and non-linear, and other mathematical behavior by the original premises. I.e. if the BB is the cosmological origin, which much points on, the SM, QFT and the GUTs' among other BB sprung theories and its mathematics, all are part of the BB universal evolution line. Thus, this thread being a ToE parameters scrutiny also alternative cosmological origin ideas must be considered. Therefore, when GR have been verified so many times, this does NOT by automatics to 100% secure the BB cosmological evolutionary origin. And for to sum up my maybe a bit "easy and naive" arguing the "correct" cosmological origin does set the "fundamental thing about nature" where the "verified" GR may also suite different evolutionary lines.

Have in a layman’s manner tried to comprehend how GR works in an elementary manner. Can one easily describe adding mass and/or energy to a vacuum energy volume behaves like this? “I understand that G here is a very important constant (doesn’t change and sets the initial condition) and that the gravitational energy field is affected if mass or energy or both becomes present. One must hence note that the E=mc^2 very much influences the overall rise in this total resulting gravitational energy. -Like this famous "formula" is affecting all involved parts, the mass, the energy and the gravitational field in an intricate manner. In this way the spacetime “fabric” is altered and contributes to GR calculations being non-linear. Does this also mean that the energy related to only the gravitational field to a very extremely small extent is adding energy towards the present mass and energy? Yes, it does. “-Just like the dog is chasing its own tail”. 🙂 In this way it becomes hard to know how the total energy becomes configured. -Especially in extreme astrophysical conditions.” The underlying thought in this GR “statement” is the chase or hunt for the mystic G, the gravitational constant. Which must be an important part of a ToE’s parameters. (If I may alter a bit on the last posts focus.)

Tried to read this paper, and just focused on some paragraphs about noise at this type of detection attempt. The paper is declared/preceded in this manner: "Freeman Dyson has questioned whether any conceivable experiment in the real universe can detect a single graviton. If not, is it meaningful to talk about gravitons as physical entities? We attempt to answer Dyson's question and find it is possible to conduct an idealized thought experiment capable of detecting one graviton; however, when anything remotely resembling realistic physics is taken into account, detection becomes impossible, indicating that Dyson's conjecture is very likely true. We also point out several mistakes in the literature dealing with graviton detection and production." ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ The (theoretical) answer is furthermore given on 22 pages including appendix. Here is the paper's aspect, specifically of noise, concerning any laboratory- graviton detection setup: Excerpt: "This result, however, does not absolutely exclude detection of gravitons; one can imagine filling the solar system and beyond with tiny detectors. At this point, though, the possibilities go out of sight. Before that point, we must address two other issues. The first is noise. Any detector needs to be shielded against background noise. Two serious noise sources are neutrinos and cosmic rays. The cross section for the interaction of neutrinos with matter is about 10^−45cm^2, or at least twenty orders of magnitude greater than the gravito-electric cross section. In a typical white dwarf, neutrino emission exceeds photon emission, meaning that 10^13−10^14 neutrinos are emitted for every graviton. Therefore, without shielding, one would expect 10^33−10^34 neutrino events for every graviton event. A shield should be thicker than the mean-free-path for neutrinos, which for materials of ordinary density amounts to light years. Such a shield would collapse into a black hole. Unless one can find another way to discriminate against neutrinos, this appears to make detection of thermal gravitons impossible. In light of this result, we do not pursue shielding against cosmic rays, which would activate the detector material, inundating it with secondary particles." End of excerpt. The famous words of: "Huston, we have a problem.", is in this context a huge understatement. -Though the reasoning of the graviton not being "necessary" in a ToE also has to be noticed. Concluding issue: Is this paper really to be considered for the real physics graviton laboratory research situation? For to answer this issue by myself, or to guess what pro physicists will say: Yep..!!

And, for not to mention, concerning the enormous challenges discovering the proposed spin-2 graviton. Isn't the quantum noise in any QM laboratory setup an almost overwhelming obstacle for the "clean" observation of the graviton? Besides the lack of any present coherent and useful theory with any such graviton search. So, the mathematics obviously have to lead in this type of research. (And may be the only manner in which the graviton "idea" is secured.) I would call this for the ultimate "ghost chase".

Of what I have so far understood is that there is the problem with the graviton and its UV divergence for suiting a quantized construction... This, when GR theory in combination with LIGO, among other observations, point on the spin-2 construction of the graviton. This 4th force really is a tough challenge for a ToE.

Interesting, so Einstein's field equations imply "its" most possible graviton construction? Or just the bare entities, without its presumed (QM?) properties, of the graviton and the gravitational waves? Still confusing when GR doesn't - normally - calculate with bosons. It's a QM matter. Where the analyze and theories from the LIGO, for example, indicates a spn-2 boson?