On 2/22/2025 at 1:37 PM, swansont said:

That’s the exact example I had in mind. 

I am not sure if the youtube and science document are meant to confirm that you are able to get some kind of reversibility??

I would not expect the 3 blobs to be re-constituted after being so largely smeared.

It is interesting that things can be re-constituted.

Is the current universe a reconsitution?

1 hour ago, julius2 said:

I am not sure if the youtube and science document are meant to confirm that you are able to get some kind of reversibility??

I would not expect the 3 blobs to be re-constituted after being so largely smeared.

It is interesting that things can be re-constituted.

Is the current universe a reconsitution?

Sorry, IS THE CURRENT UNIVERSE A RECONSTITUTION?

16 minutes ago, julius2 said:

Sorry, IS THE CURRENT UNIVERSE A RECONSTITUTION?

If this is the case, more research needs to go into how things reconstitute.

Experiment:

    Study how things reconstitute. Then devise experiments that seek to "pull apart" objects. (in time)

    If this holds true, then this would be empirical evidence of a reconstituted universe.

Caveat:

    This is the danger of going from what we do know and can be readily measured. Better is to ASSERT a theory and then look for evidence that fits the theory. Not enough assertion is being done.

If the universe is a reconstitution then we can SKIP the big bang idea.

6 hours ago, julius2 said:

I am not sure if the youtube and science document are meant to confirm that you are able to get some kind of reversibility??

I would not expect the 3 blobs to be re-constituted after being so largely smeared.

It is interesting that things can be re-constituted.

Is the current universe a reconsitution?

No. The reconstitution happens under very limited circumstances, and the universe is nowhere near that set of circumstances.

On 3/16/2025 at 1:04 AM, swansont said:

No. The reconstitution happens under very limited circumstances, and the universe is nowhere near that set of circumstances.

The question for the universe, is where did all the matter come from? I know this is one of the great mysteries of science.

If the universe is a reconstitution of previous time(s), the question still remains, where did all the matter come from , from those previous time(s). So still a mystery.

E = m c 2. Indicates the interchangeability between matter and energy. So really would we just have to investigate why energy exists?

What makes energy come in to existence? (From physics, electricity comes from interaction between kinetic energy and a magnet)

41 minutes ago, julius2 said:

The question for the universe, is where did all the matter come from? I know this is one of the great mysteries of science.

If the universe is a reconstitution of previous time(s), the question still remains, where did all the matter come from , from those previous time(s). So still a mystery.

E = m c 2. Indicates the interchangeability between matter and energy. So really would we just have to investigate why energy exists?

What makes energy come in to existence? (From physics, electricity comes from interaction between kinetic energy and a magnet)

No it doesn't, actually. This is a common misunderstanding. m denotes mass, not matter and what the equation says is that a system with a certain amount of energy will have a corresponding mass. i.e. BOTH mass and energy at the same time. One is not converted into the other. Mass and energy are both properties of physical systems of various kinds. Neither mass nor energy is a thing in its own right. You can't talk about energy without saying the energy of what.

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

No it doesn't, actually. This is a common misunderstanding. m denotes mass, not matter and what the equation says is that a system with a certain amount of energy will have a corresponding mass. i.e. BOTH mass and energy at the same time. One is not converted into the other. Mass and energy are both properties of physical systems of various kinds. Neither mass nor energy is a thing in its own right. You can't talk about energy without saying the energy of what.

Thanks for highlighting the point.

I have read that pure energy can exist. For example electric and magnetic fields carry energy without requiring mass.

5 hours ago, julius2 said:

E = m c 2. Indicates the interchangeability between matter and energy. So really would we just have to investigate why energy exists?

What makes energy come in to existence? (From physics, electricity comes from interaction between kinetic energy and a magnet)

Can you say what the energy of the universe is? It could be zero.

6 hours ago, julius2 said:

Thanks for highlighting the point.

I have read that pure energy can exist. For example electric and magnetic fields carry energy without requiring mass.

No, “pure energy” is Star Trek, not physics. As I say, energy is a property of a physical system, not “stuff” with an independent existence. But a physical system can include fields as well as matter, for instance electromagnetic radiation, which as you say is massless. To account for that you need the long form of Einstein’s equation, dealing with entities that are moving relative to the observer. E=mc² only deals with things at rest. The long form is: E² = (mc²)² + p²c², in which p is momentum. For systems at rest relative to the observer p=0, so the 2nd term vanishes and you get good old E=mc². But for massless EM radiation, m=0. Then it becomes the 1st term that vanishes and you are left with E=pc. So yes, light has momentum, even though it has no mass. We observe this actually, in the form of “radiation pressure”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure

🙂

Another aspect is that a static electric or magnetic field does not exist on its own. You need to consider the source of the field, which will have mass, and other properties, like charge.

It is interesting to investigate the concept of energy. But if we could just go back to the concept of spacetime for a bit.

If there is a mug sitting on top of a table (stationery) then it's footprint in spacetime might look something like:

(0, 0, 0, 5). at t=5s

(0, 0, 0, 10) at t=10s

(0, 0, 0, 15) at t=15s etc.

That is, it's "world line" would be vertical as the mug passes through time.

If the mug were to move through space it's "world line" would be slightly diagonal as time slows down.

Is it possible to have a spacetime which is more like (x, y, z, t, t1, t2)?

Where t1 is time from a previous universe and t2 is time from another previous universe.

So in other words adding more parameters to spacetime?

Assuming that previous universes did exist.

1 hour ago, julius2 said:

Is it possible to have a spacetime which is more like (x, y, z, t, t1, t2)?

Lots of spacetimes are mathematically possible, but do not reflect the spacetime we are in (e.g. Galilean is another one, which ends up having unphysical implications)

In this case you have to explain how t1 and t2 manifest themselves; what does it mean to have three time coordinates? Are they orthogonal, like spatial coordinates, and what does that mean?

On 4/16/2025 at 5:42 AM, swansont said:

Lots of spacetimes are mathematically possible, but do not reflect the spacetime we are in (e.g. Galilean is another one, which ends up having unphysical implications)

In this case you have to explain how t1 and t2 manifest themselves; what does it mean to have three time coordinates? Are they orthogonal, like spatial coordinates, and what does that mean?

Good question.

It seems that our current time / universe seems to be explained perfectly well by 3 spatial coordinates and 1 time coordinate. So why the need to add another time coordinate? Having 2 time coordinates leads to 2T physics. It seems the research has already been done with such a scenario with advantages / disadvantages of the theory. And it is even more complicated / problematic with a 3T model (apparently).

Put simply, space time (Einstein Field Equations) help explain gravity at the least.

55 minutes ago, julius2 said:

Good question.

It seems that our current time / universe seems to be explained perfectly well by 3 spatial coordinates and 1 time coordinate. So why the need to add another time coordinate? Having 2 time coordinates leads to 2T physics. It seems the research has already been done with such a scenario with advantages / disadvantages of the theory. And it is even more complicated / problematic with a 3T model (apparently).

Put simply, space time (Einstein Field Equations) help explain gravity at the least.

Looking at the universe, would one say our current universe is a living thing?

Are stars classified as "living" or just giant gas balls. We know the current universe DOES contain living things (e.g plants, animals).

Where is the boundary?

My proposal is non-living things have the parameters (x, y, z, t1) whereas living things have parameters like (x, y, z, t1, t2, t3, t4, t5, t6, t7, t8) so a much higher depth.

Where t2, t3, t4.... resemble pathways to different parts of "time eternal". So living things (plants, animals etc) contain much more complex pathways in time.

Non-living things have a much shallower depth in time.

That is the proposal.

6 minutes ago, julius2 said:

Looking at the universe, would one say our current universe is a living thing?

Are stars classified as "living" or just giant gas balls. We know the current universe DOES contain living things (e.g plants, animals).

Where is the boundary?

My proposal is non-living things have the parameters (x, y, z, t1) whereas living things have parameters like (x, y, z, t1, t2, t3, t4, t5, t6, t7, t8) so a much higher depth.

Where t2, t3, t4.... resemble pathways to different parts of "time eternal". So living things (plants, animals etc) contain much more complex pathways in time.

Non-living things have a much shallower depth in time.

That is the proposal.

What evidence supports this, and/or what experiment would confirm it?

53 minutes ago, julius2 said:

My proposal is non-living things have the parameters (x, y, z, t1) whereas living things have parameters like (x, y, z, t1, t2, t3, t4, t5, t6, t7, t8) so a much higher depth.

Where t2, t3, t4.... resemble pathways to different parts of "time eternal". So living things (plants, animals etc) contain much more complex pathways in time.

Non-living things have a much shallower depth in time.

That is the proposal.

Multiple temporal dimensions causes some extreme problems with physics, from what I understand, based on this paper by Max Tegmark. Lots of instability and unpredictable outcomes.

Just some simple notions pop up - how does the time flow “know” to change when something changes from being nonliving to living or vice-versa? You kill food and eat it and it becomes part of a living thing again. Does the C-14 in it decay at a different rate when it changes state? Does K-40 decay at a different rate in a rock than in a potato or banana?

On 4/23/2025 at 3:06 AM, Phi for All said:

Multiple temporal dimensions causes some extreme problems with physics, from what I understand, based on this paper by Max Tegmark. Lots of instability and unpredictable outcomes.

Interesting article. My understanding that the PDEs for nature become elliptic or ultrahyperbolic for more than 1 time dimension.

Incidentally there could be merit in M-theory or superstring theory. Here the scientists propose that many different spatial dimensions are "curled up" making them unobservable to people.

The problem with any "work" on spacetime and any time history is that you are delving into a really difficult area because the empirical evidence is very difficult if not impossible to obtain.

On 4/23/2025 at 3:16 AM, swansont said:

Just some simple notions pop up - how does the time flow “know” to change when something changes from being nonliving to living or vice-versa? You kill food and eat it and it becomes part of a living thing again. Does the C-14 in it decay at a different rate when it changes state? Does K-40 decay at a different rate in a rock than in a potato or banana?

The notion is that for a living thing, the body (if animal) is a "vessel" for the other time dimension components.

So if you were to eat a banana for instance, the banana would become a part of the existing "vessel". Obviously, if this line of argument were to be pursued, there would be a complex interaction between the "vessel" that we know and the other t2 - t8 time dimensions.

Actually, it may not be t2 - t8 time dimensions, but st2 - st8 different space times. Compacted and curled up, as described in string theory.

8 hours ago, julius2 said:

The notion is that for a living thing, the body (if animal) is a "vessel" for the other time dimension components.

So if you were to eat a banana for instance, the banana would become a part of the existing "vessel". Obviously, if this line of argument were to be pursued, there would be a complex interaction between the "vessel" that we know and the other t2 - t8 time dimensions.

Actually, it may not be t2 - t8 time dimensions, but st2 - st8 different space times. Compacted and curled up, as described in string theory.

How do you test this idea?

On 5/10/2025 at 10:19 PM, swansont said:

How do you test this idea?

Let's take a step back and look at what the scientists have already done (string theory).

I understand that the curled up dimensions are much smaller than the Planck scale ~10 -35 m. So this makes it hard to test. Maybe impossible using existing physics and scientific equipment.

The attraction is that string theory talks about extra dimensions.

So to what extent would string theory help explain life? Assuming that life has these extra dimensions????

2 minutes ago, julius2 said:

Let's take a step back and look at what the scientists have already done (string theory).

I understand that the curled up dimensions are much smaller than the Planck scale ~10 -35 m. So this makes it hard to test. Maybe impossible using existing physics and scientific equipment.

The attraction is that string theory talks about extra dimensions.

So to what extent would string theory help explain life? Assuming that life has these extra dimensions????

Looking at spacetime again.

Theory has already looked at different types of spacetime: e.g. Minkowski spacetime, De Sitter and Anti-de Sitter spacetime and Kaluza-Klein spacetime.

The problem occurs when you use a certain spacetime to explain what we see in the current universe. In other words the spacetime has to fit within the laws of what we currently see.

If there was time before the big bang, the question may be what did it look like?

Let's say it was (x, y, z, t1, t2). With two dimensions. The point is that it doesn't need to fit our current universe. It existed before.

5 hours ago, julius2 said:

Let's take a step back and look at what the scientists have already done (string theory).

I understand that the curled up dimensions are much smaller than the Planck scale ~10 -35 m. So this makes it hard to test. Maybe impossible using existing physics and scientific equipment.

The attraction is that string theory talks about extra dimensions.

So to what extent would string theory help explain life? Assuming that life has these extra dimensions????

The thing about extra dimensions in string theory be “curled up” is that they are only important at very small scales. Life is macroscopic by comparison. IOW, if you say it affects life there has to be a way to test it on the scale that “life” has meaning

On 5/12/2025 at 10:15 PM, swansont said:

The thing about extra dimensions in string theory be “curled up” is that they are only important at very small scales. Life is macroscopic by comparison. IOW, if you say it affects life there has to be a way to test it on the scale that “life” has meaning

The thing about string theory is that it can be quite complex.

I mean you are dealing with 10 or 11 dimensions so you can't visualize it like you can in a 3D world.

So I am assuming that describing the 10 or 11 dimensions properly is probably best done using mathematics.

Just now, julius2 said:

The thing about string theory is that it can be quite complex.

I mean you are dealing with 10 or 11 dimensions so you can't visualize it like you can in a 3D world.

So I am assuming that describing the 10 or 11 dimensions properly is probably best done using mathematics.

Given a look / survey of existing scientific theories, it would be likely that if there is existence before the BB, it is probably complex.

For example, the theories of electromagnetism, general relativity and spacetime are a little bit complex. We know about these from studying our current universe.

It seems to be the "trend" to have both straightforward rules and non-straightforward rules. The "trend" of nature.

So any previous universe, if existed, is likely to have it's own mind-bending phenomenon etc.

32 minutes ago, julius2 said:

The thing about string theory is that it can be quite complex.

I mean you are dealing with 10 or 11 dimensions so you can't visualize it like you can in a 3D world.

So I am assuming that describing the 10 or 11 dimensions properly is probably best done using mathematics.

Yes, but we humans don’t notice these dimensions, because they are only noticeable on a very small scale - as you say, Planck scale or smaller. So you can’t have it be true that they’re important for life but also we don’t notice them. They would have to have effects above the atomic scale, meaning there has to be experiments that would reveal them.

On 5/15/2025 at 11:43 AM, swansont said:

Yes, but we humans don’t notice these dimensions, because they are only noticeable on a very small scale - as you say, Planck scale or smaller. So you can’t have it be true that they’re important for life but also we don’t notice them. They would have to have effects above the atomic scale, meaning there has to be experiments that would reveal them.

It is interesting to note that experiments have been done with particle colliders to see if certain particles escape in to the extra dimensions as described by string theory.

1 hour ago, julius2 said:

It is interesting to note that experiments have been done with particle colliders to see if certain particles escape in to the extra dimensions as described by string theory.

For living things, I don't think it would be as simple as vibrating strings in 10 dimensions.

On 5/15/2025 at 11:43 AM, swansont said:

Yes, but we humans don’t notice these dimensions, because they are only noticeable on a very small scale - as you say, Planck scale or smaller. So you can’t have it be true that they’re important for life but also we don’t notice them. They would have to have effects above the atomic scale, meaning there has to be experiments that would reveal them.

It is interesting to see Brian Greene talk about consciousness. He says that how can you take a bunch of molecules / atoms, arrange them in a certain way and have consciousness? He says if these fundamental blocks (molecules / atoms) have no consciousness themselves how can this be?

Alternatively, if these fundamental blocks do have some consciousness, then a non-living thing, like a chair or table, should (in theory) have some kind of consciousness.