Please click here for a brief summary of the ideas presented in this blog.

According to some physicists we live in a universe made up of fixed blocks of space-time while defining the change brought on by time in terms of our movement through each successive block. However, it is also possible it is not the result of us moving THROUGH but IN them.

But before we can continue, we must first define what time is.

Some define it only in the abstract saying that is an invention of the human consciousness that gives us a sense of order, a before and after so to speak. However, many physicists define it in terms of the physical properties of a space-time dimension.

Yet, the observable properties of time are something that most of us can agree upon.

One of the most persistent is that it is not directly perceived as matter or space but as a physical, chemical, and biological change in physical space.

This indicates a unit of time may be measure of sequential ordering of change similar to how a unit of length is measure of the position of an object in space. This is because similar to time, length is perceived only as measurement of where in relation to arbitrary reference point in space an object is located.

However, Einstein defined the energy required for a change in space in terms of a dynamic interaction between space and time.

For example, he defined the change caused by gravity NOT in terms of their rigidity but in terms of a dynamic interaction between them

But in his block universe he did not define change in those terms because according to it each block, with a different spatial configuration already exists and what we perceive as change or the passage of time is caused by our movement THROUGH them.

However, this suggests your birth death and every other moment of your life is out there in space-time waiting for you to arrive.

This also suggests that free will does not exist because your future is etched in a block of space-time waiting for you to move through it and there is nothing you can do to change it.

However, Einstein provided another interpretation for the changes the human consciousness associates with time when he as was mentioned earlier defined gravity in a space-time environment in terms of a dynamic interaction between them. This is because it gives us a physical mechanism for defining the ordering of change.

One can understand why by using an example of two dots “living” on the surface of a balloon. The “surface” of the balloon will represent the “surface” of three-dimensional space and the three-dimensional space outside of it will represent the time dimension in Einstein theories.

For example, if one pushes down on its surface, it will change spatial the configuration of the two dots. The change in its surface would be define not only by the distance it move but by the direction.

As was mentioned earlier, Einstein defined gravity in terms of the dynamic interaction between the space and time dimension. For example, the energy of a rocket will change the configuration of the “surface” of three-dimensional space with respect to the time dimension. This means, similar to the balloon one can define that change NOT in terms of the rigidity of space time but in terms of its dynamic properties.

If true as was also mentioned earlier change is a result of a dynamic interaction between space and time it means the future is the result of an interaction of the past with the present and the decisions we make can and do affect the future.

However, another advantage of assuming that is it is that gives us a way to define why human consciousness perceives it to be irreversible in terms of its spatial properties.

For example, if we removed the pressure on the balloon the two dots would return to their original position. However, that removal causes the dots to move in the opposite direction from were when it was applied. Yet even though their positions are indistinguishable from their original ones the dots “living” on its surface would know they had not moved backwards in time because they can observe the sequential ordering of the changes that brought them there. In other words, it would tell them they had not moved backwards in time even though they occupied same points in space.

Putting it another way the sense of order that tells the human consciousness time always moves forward is a result of the fact that consciousness also gives them the ability to observe the order of the spatial changes take place in our environment.

However, assuming it is a measure of the sequential ordering of change ALSO tells us why the laws of physics are NOT reversible with respect to it even though they appear to be. This is because as was mentioned earlier if it is measured from an arbitrary reference point in space the change caused by their reversal will ALWAYS repeat ALWAYS create a new event (with respect to that point) in the sequence of events that returned it to its original configuration.

Therefore, if one accepts time as being a measure of the sequent ordering of a spatial of change in an environment the future or forward movement of it can NEVER repeat NEVER be reversed.

In other words, if we assume the universe is made up a flexible ball of space-time as Einstein’s definition of gravity suggests instead of rigid blocks one can understand how and why the human consciousness perceives sense of order and why we feel time always moves forward even though the laws of physics it MAY not.

Please click here for a brief summary of the ideas presented in this blog.

According to Einstein we live in a universe made up of fixed blocks of space-time while defining the change brought on by time in terms of our movement through each successive block. However, it is also possible it is not the result of us moving THROUGH them but IN them.

But before we can continue, we must first define what time is.

Some define it only in the abstract saying that is an invention of the human consciousness that gives us a sense of order, a before and after so to speak. However, many physicists define it in terms of the physical properties of a space-time dimension.

Yet, the observable properties of time are something that most of us can agree upon.

One of the most persistent is that it is not directly perceived as matter or space but as a physical, chemical, and biological change in physical space.

One reason why most humans perceive time as only a measure of sequential ordering of change MAY be because similar to length it is perceived only as measurement of where in relation to arbitrary reference point in space an object is located. Putting it another way time MUST be define as measure of when an event occurred with respect to an arbitrary reference point attached to the sequence of the events it is a part of.

As was mentioned earlier Einstein define the passage of time in terms of our movement through successive fixed blocks of space-time.

However, this means your birth death and every other moment of your life is out there in space-time waiting for you to arrive.

This also suggests that free will does not exist because your future is etched in a block of space-time waiting for you to move through it and there is nothing you can do to change it.

Yet, he provided another way to explian

the past, present and future when he derived the energy required for them to occur in terms of a dynamic interaction between space and time. This is because it gives us a way to define how and why change occurs in terms of us moving IN space and time instead of moving thought static ridged blocks of it.

One can understand why by using an example of two dots “living” on the surface of a balloon. The surface of the balloon will represent the “surface” of three dimensional space while the time dimension is represented by the space surrounding its surface.

If one pushes down on its surface, it will cause the two dots to move. But if someone releases the pressure on the balloon the dots would return to their original position. Putting it another way the dynamic interaction of its surface with space is responsible for the movement of the dots

Additionally, if one accepts the definition of time given earlier that it is a measure of the sequential ordering of events one would know that it did not travel back in time because the return to its original position is the next event in a sequence of events.

As was mentioned earlier, Einstein derived gravity in terms of a dynamic interaction between the space and time dimensions. This means, similar to the balloon one can define the energy associated with change NOT in terms of its rigidity but in terms of its dynamic properties.

Putting it another way one can define the changes most humans associated with time in terms of us moving IN a dynamic space-time environment instead of moving THROUGH rigid blocks of it.

However, if one accepts the definition given above that time is a measure of when an event occurred in relation to arbitrary reference point attached to the sequence of the events one can understand why time is irreversible. This is because when one chooses a reference point to define when an event occurred the time required for the next event in a sequence such as returning to its starting point must be added to it.

Putting it another way the reason time MUST always move forward is because to measure it one must anchor it to when the first event took place and returning to the same place would constitute another event in a sequence of events.

However, it also tells us why the laws of physics are perceived to reversible with respect to time even though they are NOT because in most cases they ONLY define the time for change to take place from where they are applied. However, this would not be the case if they were anchored in the first event of the series such as the beginning of the universe.

In other words, if we assume the universe is made up a dynamic “ball” of space-time as Einstein’s definition of gravity suggests instead of rigid blocks one can understand how and why the human consciousness perceives sense of order and why time MUST always move forward even though the laws of physics tell us it does not have to.

Please click here for a brief summary of the ideas presented in this blog.

One thing all theoreticians especially physicist should be aware of is the fact there are many ways to predict observations but only one can define the reason why they occur.

History has shown assuming the existence of something based primarily on the predictive powers of mathematics and not on observations of how an environment evolves can be dangerous.

For example, in the Ptolemaic or geocentric system of astronomy, many thought the existence of epicycles, were required to explain the retrograde motion of the Moon, Sun, and planets.

It was not until scientific investigations were stimulated by Copernicus’s publication of his heliocentric theory and Galileo’s observation of the phase of the moons of Jupiter did many European scientists consider the fact that epicycles did not exist.

This is true even though many Greek, Indian and Muslim savants had published heliocentric hypotheses centuries before Copernicus.

However, why did it take almost two thousand years for them to realize their ideas were incorrect?

One reason may have been because the math that used epicycles was able to predict their positions within the observational tolerances of the equipment they used to define them. However, if the scientists who assumed the existence of epicycles had taken the time to observe how objects moved on earth, they would have realized there was a problem because, at least on earth, objects “naturally” did NOT follow the curve path associated with of epicycles.

However, because they were still able to make accurate predictions of a planet’s position based on the existence of epicycles, they were able to ignore those observations and suppress the more accurate Greek, Indian and Muslim ideas for almost 2000 years.

Yet they could not ignore the direct observational evidence provided by Galileo Galilei when in 1610 when he observed the evolution of phases of Venus that planets did not revolve around the earth. This caused a paradigm shift in our understanding of the universe.

Putting it another way, the heliocentric concept of our solar system could have become the dominate paradigm long before 1610 if European scientists had not ignored the how of objects moved or evolved on earth.

However, it would still be possible to use the math associated with the geocentric model along a powerful enough computer to predict the position of the planets within the tolerance of our modern instrumentation even though that math does not correctly define the evolution of their movement.

This FACT tells us that it is even more important now that we use observation of how a system evolves as well math to verify our understanding of their environments today. This is because the advance state of mathematics and computing makes it even more likely that models can be made that are within the tolerance of our observing equipment even though they may be based on a false mathematical premise.

For example, the proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics assume particles exist in a state of superposition or exist in many different places before observed based solely on mathematical evolution the wave function. But it cannot explain why a particle only appears when it was observed in terms of observations of environment it is defining and therefore cannot be validated as a solution to its evolution.

However, it is possible to validate a mathematical solution in terms of the environment by using its observable properties to define the math instead of using math to define those properties.

For example, the science of wave mechanics and Relativity tells us an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from moving through time by someone or something interacting with it. This would result in it being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional “walls” of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause the energy of an electromagnetic wave to be concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency that the wave function associates with a particle.

Putting it another way when an electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving through space time either by being observed or encountering an object it is reduced or “Collapses” to a form a standing wave that would define the quantized energy quantum mechanics associates with a particle.

The physicist Richard Feynman is credited with saying “The weird thing about Quantum mechanics is that no one really understands it” in part because it defines reality ONLY in terms mathematical properties a wave function which only collapses to it when it is observed or interacts with something in its environment. However. it cannot explain what causes that to occur.

However, as was shown above one can understand why in terms of the OBSERVABLE properties of our universe if one assumes that it represents an electromagnetic wave in a space-time because as was shown above if it is prevented from evolving through space by an interaction with it, it WILL and MUST present itself as a particle.

Scientists ESPECIALLY physicists should realize math is only a TOOL to define define reality NOT a replacement for it.

15

Please click here for a brief summary of the ideas presented in this blog.

The cosmological constant problem or vacuum catastrophe is the disagreement between the observed value of the vacuum energy density or the small value of the cosmological constant and the theoretical large value of zero-point energy suggested by quantum field theory.

Depending on the Planck energy cutoff and other factors, the discrepancy is as high as 120 orders of magnitude.

In quantum physics, the vacuum or zero-point energy is the amount of energy in a point “volume” of space as prescribed by Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principal. Its existence is derived from that principle which tells us the mathematical point in space quantum mechanics uses to define particles have an inherent fuzziness. Therefore, it is assumed that it oscillates or fluctuate around that point.

One reason for the cosmological constant problem MAY be because Quantum Mechanics states that all fields, such as the electromagnetic one, must be quantized at each and every point in space. It also assumes the evolution of the oscillations associated with the uncertainty principle are defined by wavefunction. Therefore, according to theory, even a pure vacuum has a VERY, VERY, VERY large number of point oscillators each contributing to its energy.

However, this would be true if and ONLY if all fields including an electromagnetic one is quantized at each and every point in space.

For example, Johannes Kepler was able mathematically define the laws of planetary motion in terms of a HYPOTHETICAL point called the center of gravity which defines the evolution of their orbits. This is because in physics, the center of mass is the unique point where the energy of the distributed mass sums to zero.

However, we know a planet has a volume bigger than the unique point which defines its center of gravity,

Similarly, the point in space that quantum mechanics uses to define the evolution of quantum system may ONLY be a hypothetical one which defines the UNIQUE point where its energy distribution of that system sums to zero

This conclusion is supported by the fact the fact particles such as an electron can be diffracted because it is impossible to explain that if was a mathematical point that has no volume. Another observation is that particles are observed to collide in particle accelerators. This could not happen if they had no volume.

However, to understand zero-point energy and why the cosmological constant predicted by quantum mechanics is so high in terms of dynamics of space-time we must first establish a connection between evolution of the wave function which defines a quantum environment and the properties of the space-time. This can be accomplished because in Relativity its evolution is defined in terms of an electromagnetic wave while, as was just mentioned the wave function defines how a quantum environment evolves to the point where it is observed.

This commonality suggests the wave function could be a mathematical representation of an electromagnetic wave in space-time.

One can connect them because the science of wave mechanics and Relativity tells us an electromagnetic wave would move continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from moving through time by someone or something interacting with it. This would result in it being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional “walls” confining the movement of both an electromagnetic wave and point defined by the wavefunction will result in it being reflected back on itself thereby resulting in the creation of a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. Additionally, it tells us its energy can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency of that standing wave while at the same time. Additionally, it tells us the particle defined by the wave function would have an extended volume equal to the wavelength of its standing wave.

Putting it another way if an electromagnetic wave or the wave function is prevented from moving through space either by being observed or encountering an object it will be reduced or “Collapse” to a form a standing wave that would define the quantized energy quantum mechanics associates with a particle.

However, as was mentioned earlier the fact that a particle has an EXTENDED volume suggests the point the wave function uses to defines its evolution MAY ONLY be a hypothetical one which defines where its energy distribution sums to zero similar to how the point called the center of gravity can be used to define the evolution of a planets position.

As was mentioned earlier the discrepancy between the vacuum energy predicted by quantum mechanics and its observed value may be due to the fact that it applies the uncertainty principal to each and every mathematical point in space.

Therefore, to understand why this discrepancy occurs one must show how and why that would NOT define the vacuum energy in quantum system.

As was just shown Relativity and the science of wave mechanics tell us the energy of the standing wave would be distributed over a volume of space-time that corresponds to is wavelength. However, as was also shown earlier the mathematical point quantum mechanics uses to define a particle position MAY only represent where energy of distribution of this standing wave sums to zero.

This means to accurately determine the vacuum energy in a quantum system one must FIRST define why one should NOT repeat NOT apply the uncertainty to the mathematical point defined by the wave function BUT TO energy “volume” of a particle.

The fact that both of these theories assume that energy or information volume of a system can nether be created or destroy provides the basis for the connecting the uncertainty principal to the dynamics of a space-time environment and the cosmological constant.

THIS IS BECAUSE IT DEFINES THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPAL AND WHY THE MEASUREMENT OF ANY ONE OF THE PROPERTIES OF THAT VOLUME INCLUDING THE MOMENTUM OR POSITION WILL AFFECT THE OTHER.

As was mentioned before quantum mechanics defines both momentum and position with respect to a one-dimensional point in the mathematical field of the wave function. However, the accuracy of the information as to where that point is in relation to the center of its information volume is directly related to how much of it is taken from the system. This means the more accurate the measurement the more information regarding it must be removed from the system and the less is available to measure its other component.

For example, as was mentioned earlier because the information volume of a system remains constant the more of it is taken out regarding its momentum means there will be less to define its position. This makes the determination of its position more uncertain because there is less information left in its volume to define its position. While the more information taken out of it regarding its position will result in there being less to define its momentum. This makes this determination of its momentum more uncertain because less information left in that volume to define it.

However, the same would be true when measuring either the momentum or position of a particle in a relativistic system because its energy is also conserved. Therefore because, the accuracy of a measurement is directly related to the amount to energy taken out of a system; the measurement of each component of a momentum or position will affect the other. For example, the added energy required to make a more accurate measurement of a systems momentum will result in there being less to define its position. This makes the determination of its position more uncertain because there is less energy in that system to define it. While the more additional energy required to make a more accurate measurement of its position will result in there being less to define its momentum. This makes this determination of its momentum more uncertain because less energy left in the system to define it.

As was mentioned earlier quantum mechanics define the cosmological constant in terms of the summation of amount of energy in a point “volume” of space has as prescribed by Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principal

However as was also mentioned earlier the point in space that quantum mechanics uses to define a system may ONLY be a hypothetical one used to define its evolution similar to how the center or gravity is used to define the evolution of objects in orbit.

This suggest, to define the vacuum energy of a quantum system and the Cosmological Constant one would have to derive it NOT by applying Heisenberg’s uncertainty principal to all mathematical points in space but to the extended volume of space that point represents.

THERE ARE SEVERAL EXPERIMENTAL WAYS OF VERIFYING THIS CONCLUSION.

For example, we can determine the cross section and therefore the volume of a particle by the frequency of their collisions in particle accelerators. Then using that volume determine how many oscillators occupy a given volume and apply the uncertainty principal to them instead of every mathematical point to calculate the how much vacuum energy they would create. Then compare that value with the observed one.

Hopefully this may greatly reduce or eliminate the disagreement between the observed value of vacuum energy density and the one suggested by quantum field theory because it would reduce the number of oscillators in a given volume of space.

01

Please click here for a brief summary of the ideas presented in this blog.

All of our modern sciences take their names from ancient Greek. In the case of physics, that word is “physik” which translates to “knowledge of nature and is dedicated to understanding how and why “our world” behaves the way it does.

Proponents of this definition like Einstein focused on developing mathematical theories which not only quantified how gravity works in terms of a curvature in space-time but why it does terms of how objects in “our world” follow a curvature surface. Putting it another way they gave us the ability NOT ONLY to mathematical quantify “our world” but understand WHY and HOW one made up of space-time behaves the way it does.

However, there is another definition of physics that assumes it should ONLY have to quantify what we observe and therefore we should NOT attempt to understand how and why it exists

Proponents of this definition have developed a system of mathematics called quantum mechanics which ONLY quantifies what we observe. However, it DOES NOT follow the rules that define the behavior of “our world” because it assumes it exists in several superpositioned states at the same time which reduced to one when they are observed. Putting in another way they believe science should only be concerned with defining best way to quantifying observations and not about why or how they come about.

However, we believe the ancient Greeks would disagree because as was mentioned earlier they defined a physicist as someone who was dedicated to NOT only quantifying “our world” but understanding how and why it behaves the way it does. Therefore, they MAY not have felt comfortable in calling Quantum mechanics a valid theory of “our world” or its proponents physicists because they do not attempt to understand why it behave the way it does.

Even so there are some proponents of quantum mechanics who have suggested that because, to this date its system of math is only one that can accurately quantify the quantization of energy in “our world” it MUST be product of that mathematical structure

However, because most if not all of the constants in the equations used to define its mathematical structure are derived from “our world” it is difficult to determine if it is a product of its mathematical structure or if that structure is a product of it

But the math of quantum mechanics may not be the only one that can define how and why we observe what we do in “our world”

For example, one can use mathematics to determine why we observe 4 apples on a table by assuming that originally there were two on the it and two were added or there were six and two were taken away but only one of those equations define how and why they actually got there.

Putting it another way there are in most case many ways to quantify both the number of apples on a table and what we observe in “our world”.

This suggests there MAY be able to find another mathematical system other than the one provided for by quantum mechanics that can define why energy is quantize base on how it behaves in “our world”.

For example, in “our world” observations, the science of wave mechanics and Relativity tells us an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from moving through time by someone or something interacting with it. This would result in it being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional “walls” of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause the energy of an electromagnetic wave to be concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency that the wave function associates with a particle.

Putting it another way when an electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving through space time either by being observed or encountering an object it is reduced or “Collapses” to a form a standing wave that would define the quantized energy quantum mechanics associates with a particle.

As was mentioned earlier there are in most cases many ways to mathematically quantify both the number of apples on a table and what we observe in “our world”. Therefore, we should not assume the solutions provided by quantum mechanics are the only ones that will make accurate predictions of its behavior.

What we as physicists and mathematicians MUST decide is should we allow math to define our existence or have existence define our math because it is possible a new system of math based on the behavior of “our world” could open doors to new technologies that will enable our civilization to advance beyond were one based on quantum mechanics can.