Mystery111

The Problem of Time in physics is one born out of the Wheeler de Witt equation. The Wheeler de Witt equation fails to describe the universe with a time evolution because the right hand side of the equation does not contain a time derivative. The Field Equations Einstein derived describe motion in time which arises as a symmetry of the theory, not true time evolution itself [1]. I propose that it is a matter of not being a true time evolution in one case where there are pure gravity solutions to Einstein's equation. By allowing to choose two conformal time descriptions in the Wheeler de Witt equation [math]t = \chi[/math] and [math]\tau = \alpha[/math] you can describe two unique fields which we can use under the true definition of what allows the motion of real clocks to be measured. To explain this more accurately, it is conjectured that the diffeomorphism contraints on the Hamiltonian of the Universe which leads to the vanishing of the time derivative should be taken as the analogue of a universe with only objects who's frame of reference ceases to exist because of Time Dilation. Chronological description of evolution of events in a universe where relativity treats the parts as moving in the null trajectory leads to no time description. Such a universe could be one with simply a radiation field and no matter at all. In fact, primordially-speaking this was the fundamental makeup of the universe at one point in it's history. It was just a soup of gamma radiation. Matter Fields and for that matter (fields which defined moving clocks) appeared when a processes of geometrogensis [2] appeared when the universe sufficiently cooled down. Matter at the high energy scale implies the conditions we attribute to the early universe. That means by those calculations, the universe had to cool [math]10^{20}[/math] times less than what it is observed to be today and that high level is the level which quantum gravity is speculated to merge all the forces known to nature. So matter fields are attributed to low energy theories of our universe. In the fundamental theory, Fotini Markopoulou has remarked that geometry will no longer be involved. On this limit, my theory would be advocating the presence of only radiation fields. Some may find this difficult to still understand because essentially we can only model our known field theories on Langrangian's which is measured in a space [math]dx^3[/math], but Fotini may be closer to the truth than we could realize. Perhaps when we are invoking the laws of physics in higher temperatures we are needing to change the view we are looking at the geometrical properties of the vacuum and how matter becomes manifest from this geometry and curvature. The application and understanding of how matter fields could alter the way we view a Hamiltonian for a universe described by the state vector [math]|\psi>[/math] may imply the possibility of there being atleast in description, two different outcomes for when time can be logically applied to the Hamiltonian in the normal theories constraints which traditionally tend to favor the time derivative vanishing. To make this work, you must assume that the interaction has two solutions, one which is physical and the other pure radiation. But before that is even mathematically-presented, anyone familiar with the Wheeler de Witt equation will know it by the form: [math]\hat{H}|\psi> = 0[/math] I will present this another way: [math](H + (\alpha^2 - g^2\alpha^4))|\psi> = \hat{H}|\psi>[/math] This part [math](\alpha^2 - g^2\alpha^4)[/math] plays the interaction of the Hamilonian. [math]\alpha[/math] for now can be known as a scale factor. The full Hamiltonian of the WDW-equation is [math]H_{WDW}=H_{T}=H_{\phi, h_{\mu\nu}} - H_0[/math] This comes from the implicit assumption [3] one imposes conformal time gauge conditions on the Hamiltonian. There is a physical component of the total Hamiltonian, the metric perturbation [math]h_{\mu \nu}[/math] recognized most famously from weak metric limits in General Relativity [4]. In a proceedure of seperation of variables [math]|\psi> = |\phi_\alpha>|\chi_{\phi, h}>[/math] leads to two equations [math](H + (\alpha^2 - g^2\alpha^4))|\psi_a> = E|\psi_\alpha>[/math] and [math](H + (\alpha^2 - g^2 \alpha^4 dt))_{\phi, h}|\chi_{\phi, h} > = E|\chi_{\phi, h}>[/math] Where [math]\chi[/math] is a matter field acting as time. In fact, in these equations in the superminispace model you can freely choose between using the scale factor [math]\alpha[/math] or the matter field [math]\chi[/math] as your choice of time coordinate. Interestingly, you may be able to break your Hamiltonian into a matter field [math]\chi[/math] and a radiation field [math]\alpha[/math]. You may be allowed toconstruct a time for a universe where real clocks can be measured, but if the constraint lets [math](\alpha^2 - g^2\alpha^4 dt) \rightarrow 0[/math] determine whether it is a massless radiation field, which cannot be used to measure the motion of clocks due to relativity. This means under certain limits matter fields can vanish. Matter fields are trivial in General Relativity. Trivial scalar fields like a matter field in conformally flat spacetime is in fact a non-gravitating part of the theory. Vanishing matter fields would be akin to pure gravity solutions of General relativity. Assuming the inertial part [math]\chi[/math] of [math](H + (\alpha^2 - g^2\alpha^4 dt))_{\phi, h}|\chi_{\phi, h} > = E|\chi_{\phi, h}>[/math] vanishes when the potential reaches the ground state then you are dealing with two different potentials. You find these potentials as: [math]\alpha^2-g^2\alpha^4 = V(\alpha)[/math] for a radiation field [math]a= \tau[/math] and [math]\chi^2 - g^2\chi^2 = V(\chi)[/math] For your matter field. You retreive these potential terms by treating the wave function in the WDW-equation as being [math]\Psi(\alpha,\chi)[/math]. If there is an inertial part then you have the presence of a matter field, you obtain the equation [math](\frac{1}{4} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \chi^2})\psi_{\chi}(\chi) = E\psi_{\chi}(\chi)[/math] So in order to solve the Time Problem of Physics resulting from the time derivative vanishing, why don't we just adopt the idea it depends on your choice of restraint and what field you use to try and define your clocks? The only premise that would need to be adopted is that the derivative vanishing as a statement of having your Hamiltonian in two different states: one allowing clocks to be defined in the matter state [math]\psi_{\chi}(\chi)[/math] and for those where relativity naturally does not permit time passing, pure radiation fields [math]\psi_{\alpha}(\alpha)[/math]. [1] - http://www.fqxi.org/...ou_SpaceDNE.pdf [2] - def - http://en.wiktionary...geometrogenesis [3] - http://arxiv.org/PS_...3/9503073v2.pdf [4] - http://ned.ipac.calt...3/Carroll6.html It might be worth noting that the approach is similar to the construction of the Freidmann equation where it is divided into a radiation part and [math]\rho[/math]-matter part. The radiation part of the pressure is usually ignored because the matter part dominates when a universe begins to cool down.

Consciousness is a real phenomenon that takes place in the world we see. Just a more cryptic way of saying what we see we can subjectively-associate to the experience of the event. How? As far as we can tell, whatever develops consciousness it exists inside the corporeal structure of our brains. There is no evidence suggesting consciousness can exist ''outside'' assuming you mean the objective world, and not in reference to some other human being. Well, last time I checked, human consciousness, indeed anyone's consciousness was a game played quite late in the universes history... There certainly wasn't anyone sitting playing poker and watching the universe come into existence. Saying consciousness is a dimension is technically ok, but you cannot claim it is the ''fundamental'' dimension of the universe. Consciousness as far as physics can tell is not needed to create the first structure of anything. Physics can be quite free from any observer-dependancy models. Seriously, we aren't that important.

Oh. No problem.

And what exactly where you doing, calculationally-wise?

In my opinion, one part of the question is asking whether a graviton is a real particle. The second part is asking whether they mediate gravitational forces. In my opinion of course. So a graviton could exist. Or it may not.

It's all about relativity. If you go fast enough, you can slow down time. If you could move at lightspeed, time would completely stop. If you could go faster than light speed (and still believing that Einstein's laws hold true up to this point) then you could potentially oscillate through time. In effect, you could violate standard laws of cause and effect, action and reaction.

This is the whole reason entirely why timelessness arises in physics. The Hamiltonian describing the universe has no time description. It happens because true time evolution in general relativity is a symmetry of the theory. Time is a special type diffeomorphism invariance which has constraints acting on the energy of the system. Moving clocks cease to exist and timelessness remains a problem for quantum mechanics. But if time were moving, it would be relative to space. Time is just the imaginary dimension of space. How can space move relative to itself? Relativity wouldn't allow that.

True.

The physically apparent but nonexistent force needed by an observer in a noninertial frame to make Newton's laws of motion hold true. The centrifugal force is a pseudo force. Also called fictitious force. Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/fictitious-force#ixzz1bKkiVeeR

The Higgs Boson gives particles mass. Simple.

This is true.

hahaha... nice one... Anyway.... .... the question of what makes something, is the same as saying what came first, ''the chicken or the egg.''

Depends, because, if gravity is a psuedo-force, then it does not need a phsyical mediator by definition.

My comment was justified and I think the moderators agree. You simply require a little tutoring in how to analyze these subjects. Believe it or not, but these subjects are more philosophy at heart but in root it lyes in the physical foundation of quantum theory.

If someone asked me ''What is the opposite of entropy,'', I would need to say it was the opposite of the definition itself of entropy. That would be it's a measure of an increasing order instead of an increasing disorder of your systems initial origin. The physical consequence would be that the system will contract in size, assuming we are talking about a system as being a universe where there are moving clocks (peices of matter) and it will continue to contract until it reaches a singular localized region. Assuming a pointlike particle is a system without extended structure (ie. dimensions) then this point in space accurately corresponds to to a singularity when you compress spacetime (and the dynamical fluctuations) into the point where the primordial time and space began then what you have is entropy at it's grund state. But if the singularity is to be taken seriosly, then this ''ground state order'' is in fact the same state we attribute to the presence of systems which correspond to infinite degrees of freedom for false vacuum states which have a reseviour of negative exotic (and potentially imaginary) energy/mass. It is almost like the battery which powered the existence of the appearance of matter and energy. Space and time must have been a consequence of quantum principles. Assuming quantum mechanics and field theory has it correct, then compressing matter and energy infinitely on top of each other into a dimensionless point will violate the Uncertainty Principle. No particle can be made to have an infinitely defined region of space, so expansion of space must be the result of allowing it's fluctuations to permeate greater degrees of freedom, expanded by three dimensions, four adding time Minkowski space. So the expansion of spacetime, must be a direct consequence of quantum mechanics, refusing matter to be compressed violating the laws of uncertainty.

Ok.... back in my youth (I'm still young but I feel old enough) I studied the fringe theory topics of consciousness and explored many idea's. The sum of consciousness can be achieved if one is willing to take in the idea that the location of consciousness can never be pin-pointed to any where in the human mind. It seems to be an emergent property of a collection of particles, atoms, cells and molecules (the human brain consists on average 10^30 particles [1]) all working in a coherent fashion as to send information into the ''holograph'' of the three-dimensional phenomenon of perception. The reason why it is a phenomenon, is because scientists (physicists included) cannot provide a reasonable explanation as to how the brain takes a two-dimensional image from a photon hitting the retina and reconfigure it into the three-dimensional phenomenon of visual perception. The world we see, is not really the world at large. No human on planet earth has ever seen the ''real world''. Our sight is really a hologram of perception which is generated by the particles in our brain, working in the harmony of coherence... which is a quantum mechanical property itself. So all these particle are consciousness, but there is no location in the human body which we can pin-point and say ''this is the origin of consciousness.'' (1) - A Brief History of Time, Steven Hawking I don't know what else you said, but I saw this comment and needed to say something. I try not to make theories on consciousness any more, I find theories outside this realm much more pleasing nowadays. Consciousness is certainly not a physical reality. However touching a tv is not a physical reality either. The reality you sense is still a by-product of electrical signals. Albeit to say, they hold classically enough information to state you are a valid observer of this property of matter which you may come to touch, but it is still a ''recreation of it's corporeal physicality'' inside the brain (which again, manifests as a holographic representation of the world outside). I agree though that ''it is more like the image on the tv screen that only exists while the power is on.'' The power in the sense I hope you mean it is that the energy exists to keep the brain functioning as we percieve it, and the image is what it produces.

Does no one else wanna tell me what they think? I think physics should never be underestimated... It usually goes beyond common sense.... Ajb, when you said tachyonic neutrino mixing, is this in reference to the generation oscillations of the nuetrino? Or is it something a bit more technical? Had me intruiged and I shuld have mentioned it the the day.

This is most likely right, Einstein was well aware of this fact when he made his statement. I also made it clear that an arrow of time cannot exist because that would invoke a set of ordered events, but the elapsing of time allowed for events to happen between two observers can differ. But what is interesting to note, is that even though they may ''disagree'' when the events happened, the event in their frame of references where in fact happening still in an asymptotic frame of reference. This is most commonly known as local time experienced by the observer which would be frame-dependant. This means even though two events are oddly dilated and occurring at different times involving two observers, the events still occurred within a present time. The time we all come to experience on, is the present time. This is the definition of an asymptotic time by the way, in physics. But for time's histories, past and future and time present (experienced because of a recording mind) to be relative, it must assume that there exists a psychological arrow of time. As I said before, the psychological arrow is the only arrow which really holds any meaning at all. The reason to that is simple, but I never explained why before. The reason is because it holds meaning to the way we describe the universe, but does not describe the universe directly. I have even speculated (and I may get a bad reputation for saying it, but hey ho) that time may not even really exist as part of the physical metric

I disagree strongly. Time's arrow is not relative. Time's arrow in the psychological arrow description (one of several arrows of time in physics) is an asymptotic phenomenon. The experiences of events are always within the present time frame. Duration of Events is when we record a series of events or ''happenings'' which we can catalogue through experience of when they happened (Or when order is illuminated by our sense of perception.) Time is relative however, but the idea of a linear ordered flow of time could never be a relative statement, because then you would need to tell me what time is moving relative to. If you can answer this, I will send you 100 pounds. That is roughly 150 dollars. There is no contradiction between me and Einstein. Einstein said it was an ''illusion'' because it does not really exist. What we experience (which is just a bunch of electrical signals interpretated by the nueral networks of our brains) is in contrast a gathering of information which ''recreates'' the world as we experience it. To experience the world, the brain required memory to make sense of why we can somehow move from one present frame to another. The illusion is that our brain recreates the world under the impression that the real description of ''now'' is one between a boundary which time would be a past and a future. The past and future are ''experiences'' only. Not physical artifacts of the world. You seem to not understand this very well. It is not that the future is not yet present and the past is not still present, it is actually a matter that there is only the present time. Remove the idea that events are ordered, (invoked by the fabricated and misused arrow of time) and just accept that all events are equal and happening now. And you cannot have a universe devoid of clocks and say there is still motion. That is in direct violation of relativity. I don't think he's a troll at all. But ill-informed and erreneously opinionated.

It is possible that a single photon could be caught up in a toroidal knot. This creates charge. So this toroidal knot causing charge removes the problem of charge as an arguement matter can not be made from light. Spin is also called into question, but if the spin corresponds to angular momentum but since the toroid causes charge, then spin can be easily found to be related to the spin-magnetic moment which could easily account for deformations (contractions or increases) in spin signs. It must be said, that it is an interesting coincidence that there seems to be a symmetry in nature where particles and antiparticles of the same family can come together and convert back to photon energy. This is the main question though, at least I believe ... that being ''is it merely a coincidence, or is the symmetry for all particles to do this indicates that photons are somehow involved in a sub-structure motion which makes the electron? Indeed all particels?'' I don't even know if we can test this yet. It should be within the dimensional range of string theory as closed strings. It would also mean the photon becmes an extended object in multidimensional space when it gets caught into the knot configuration.

According to some theories this is true.

No one? No suggestions?

............ got my answer from someone else.