Something from Nothing, Our Universe is a false premise? (Page 2)

fieldofforce: We have been inventing an entity to explain the unknown since we lived in caves. How about we work the problem.

Let's take for example quantum entanglement and "spooky" action at a distance. We don't know the answer to this problem yet.

A conjecture is Symmetric Change. Presently we can only observe Asymmetric Change. The speed limit of Symmetric Change is instantaneous. The final step is the Asymmetric Change in spin of the entangled particle which we can observe. All of the steps in between are Symmetric Change. We are presently unable to observe those step(s).

suchso: I'm not sure what you mean by asymmetric and symmetric change. I'd like to understand the physics, not sure if I can.
Maybe we exist in an eternal or timeless cycle of energy.
The symmetry is in the cycles where everything repeats, -

The asymmetry is in between the cycles where there is change.

But I think we are in a spiral rather than a cycle, getting refined and closer to the truth/reality.

fieldofforce: Symmetric Change - An equal sided square is rotated from one side to another. An impartial observer looks away while the square is being rotated. When the impartial observer looks back he will be unable to detect whether the square has been rotated or not.

Asymmetric Change - The change we observe everyday even when we look away and then look back.

Asymmetric Change - speed limit is the speed of light (186,000 miles per second)

Symmetric Change - speed limit is instantaneous

suchso: Thanks, it's very interesting.
The impartial observer is an objective point of view. We humans only have a partial or subjective view of the reality.
I must ponder on this.

fieldofforce: Gravity is another example of Symmetric Change. We cannot see, hear or feel that space is warped by the matter of the sun. We can feel the tug of the earth when we jump up. But we would never have figured out that it is actually because space is warped around the earth that we are pushed down because of the warped space.

Consistent with Symmetric Change we cannot observe the warping of space. But we can detect indirectly by light curving because of the warped space that it is passing thru.

MagicMoments: "Consistent with Symmetric Change we cannot observe the warping of space. But we can detect indirectly by light curving because of the warped space that it is passing thru."

This gets tricky; we have to pay close attention to what we say here.

I used to enjoy an ongoing debate with a friend (invariably over beers) over which of the following statements is true: (and for present purposes the truth of general relativity is assumed)

1. Light is bent (curved) by massive objects, or
2. Light is not bent; it follows the shortest path through non-Euclidean spacetime

Both of us were able to adduce an endless number of quotes from experts in the field to confirm our respective positions. An apparent contradiction! but one that, I think, can be nicely explained and resolved by Kuhn's notion of "incommensurability", i.e., the partial breakdown in communication between proponents of rival paradigms due to conceptual differences in identical terms..

Meanings are key here. If by "bent" or "curved" you mean "deviates from the shortest path between two points" then it is not true that light bends. And until the 19th century it was universally assumed that "straight line" (i.e. one that is not bent or curved) and "shortest path between two points" coincide.

On the other hand, if by light "bending" or "curving" you mean that it deviates from the shortest path AS REPRESENTED IN TRADITIONAL EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY, then it IS true that light bends.


If Einstein is right, then light isn't bending at all, despite appearances to the contrary (since we're applying Euclidean concepts to non-Euclidean reality). It simply follows the shortest route from A to B.

I hope, but am not entirely convinced myself, that I've got this straight.

MagicMoments: Put another way, if I claim "dogs taste good" while you claim "dogs taste bad", it would appear, at first blush, that we're disagreeing with each other.

However, if on closer examination we discover that what I mean by "dog" is the kind that comes in a bun, while you mean the hairy barking kind, then clearly we are neither agreeing nor disagreeing-- we're simply talking past each other.

Similarly (on Kunn's account) when the Newtonian makes some claim about "mass", say, and the Einsteinian makes another, possibly contradictory, claim, they are neither in agreement nor disagreement inasmuch as one's concept of "mass" is not the same as the other's. They're talking about different things!

This is what's troubling about Kuhn's account for many people: most of us intuitively feel that Einstein IMPROVED on Newton, which is to say, we now have a better theory about the same subject matter. If Kuhn is right, though, we don't have two theories about the same concepts; we have two theories about DIFFERENT THINGS. How, then, can we speak of "improvement"?

fieldofforce: Getting mired in the ultimate meaning of meaning was where philosophy reached a dead end. However, if a post, a long list of mathematical formulas and functions suddenly appears here to explain what was posted in words, we would lose at least 95% of readers.

The point to be made is that with Symmetric Change we cannot see the infinity of steps that it can take to reach Earth's 1 gravity. In the same way we can see and mathematically describe every step in increasing and decreasing acceleration (Asymmetric Change). Yet General Relativity sometimes equates Gravity and Acceleration.

My conjecture is that quantum entanglement and "spooky action" at a distance is an example of Symmetric Change.

MagicMoments: "Getting mired in the ultimate meaning of meaning was where philosophy reached a dead end."

Perhaps so; perhaps not; philosophical analysis of "meaning" is an ongoing project. Be that as it may, talk of "ultimate meaning" seems entirely irrelevant to my posts above. We must have some understanding of the terms we use, otherwise we might as well be talking gibberish.

John says "I think Claire is beautiful". Bill says the same sentence. Are they agreeing or disagreeing? What if they're talking about two different "Claire"s?

You do see my concern, don't you?

fieldofforce: "... We must have some understanding of the terms we use, otherwise we might as well be talking gibberish..."

All languages are symbolic, words arbitrarily chosen to mean something. It is all gibberish. Because of that when 2 people are standing together looking at a tree. When one of them points at the tree and says tree they are in agreement as to the definition of the word "tree'. But if they both say tree as they point at the tree, to a man standing behind a wall where he cannot see the tree there is no agreement between the\ 3 of them as to the definition of the word "tree"

And, now you see my concern, don't you

MagicMoments: "All languages are symbolic"

How could they not be? Name a non-symbolic language.

fieldofforce: What I see is that you want to engage in a philosophical discussion. I don't

MagicMoments: Ok, sorry.Continue with your terms that no one understands.

fieldofforce: Finally an admission of wanting to engage in irrelevancy and gibberish. If you disagree, then explain why they haven't built a Large Hadron Collider of philosophy

fieldofforce: Propose an experiment:  simultaneous test of matter warping space and quantum entanglement "spooky action" at a distance where the spin of the other particle instantly changes to clock or counter clock.  Will the result be that both Symmetric  Changes  are instantaneous?  Or will it be like the old experiment in the race between light and sound.  Where from a distance we can see the  hammer striking the  metal fence pole a few seconds before we hear the corresponding sound? 

fieldofforce: The challenge is to  find a way to determine how fast matter causes the warping of space. 
For now I have thought of  the Voyagers out there in empty space  as a way  to determine how fast space warps in the presence of one of the voyagers.  Difficult yes, but I wonder if it is possible.
If anyone can think of  other methods  please post your idea(s).

fieldofforce: Another thought.  The only Symmetric Change that Dark Matter is known to cause is the warping of space (Gravity).  I know of no other published change that Dark Matter causes.  If anyone knows of any other published or non-published results please let us know. 

fieldofforce: We can't see the 4th dimension, yet we don't dismiss the dimension as totally impossible. Knowledge about the nature of "dark matter" or whatever it is will be or is now information that gives us an advantage in SURVIVAL SKILLS in this universe.