How? What is the medium in which this wave exists and how is it propagated? What is the wave made of? Since the wave is unobservable except retrospectively as an effect why does reality not create the effect that the observer defines as a wave?JSS wrote: A wave of affect crosses another wave of affect.
The relationship between time and gravity has been known for a century. They bear a precise mathematical relationship to each other which is inversely logarithmic in its nature and this relationship must obtain all the way down to the most fundamental scale of physical reality. Irrespective of which arbitrary units we use as a metric for these when we specify one we automatically specify the other so they must be regarded as two different ways of expressing the same thing, which is obviously the rate of change in a physical process. Because they are simply two different ways of expressing the rate of change they can be quantised equivalently in a single entity which is very easily defined. The smallest possible "bit" of physical reality is the smallest possible interval of time in which we can meaningfully say that something has actually happened and since the speed of light is finite so too must be this time interval.JSS wrote: You can't validly quantize time, even if you could quantize gravity (although you can't do that either).
Too easy in my case. The gold standard for any scientific theory intended to replace current theory is that it yields a prediction which differs from that of current theory and that this prediction can be tested in a repeatable experiment. If you want to replace the spacetime model then you'll have to first empirically falsify it. That's the only thing which will get the attention of the geeks and that's as it should be. The gravity/time continuum yields such a prediction because it unambiguously falsifies SR, on which the entire spacetime house of cards is founded. Without SR they're got nuthin'.JSS wrote:What would it really take for you or uwot to change your mind about anything on this forum?
People of good will can always exchange meaningful ideas without necessarily convincing others of their validity. I'm not trying to persuade anybody about anything but merely trying to explain the conclusions which I've arrived at and how I arrived at them. Mine is not a physical theory but a different way to think the world which explains why the epistemic models of physics actually work even though they don't describe a physically real world. The problem of physics was always all about the observer and everybody knows it. Until the geeks can be dragged back into the fold to understand that an observation is an act of cognition then they'll remain trapped in their conceptual cul-de-sac indefinitely.JSS wrote:I seriously doubt that it can be done.
This is an unworthy comment since it was me who was refuting the notion of "stuff" in the first place. "Stuff" is just an emergent form of energy. Furthermore zero is an unrealisable abstraction which has no analogue in the physical world, as is infinity. I don't care whether you call a photon "stuff" or not but since a photon can be a causal agent of change it is undoubtedly physical. When an electron either emits or absorbs a photon it effects a change of state in the atom which means that an atom changes state at the speed of light. Since the rate of change of the atom is also gravity-dependent this means that the speed of light can be quantised equivalently with it. This should not be at all difficult to grasp.uwot wrote:Energy is not 'stuff', it does not exist in its own right, stick a zero where the m is and E=0.
I've never disputed this idea because this is essentially what I'm saying when I equate energy and information. The "hot big bang" is simply the universe in a highly disordered informational state which in conventional physics is defined as a high energy state. In a quest for a unification model it's not a good idea to make semantic distinctions between equivalent constructs and to say that a subatomic particle is simply "made up of" discrete packets of energy is an easy enough idea to grasp. That these particles can be made to collide with each other and release these packets of energy across a broad spectrum of wavelengths has been satisfactorily demonstrated so to suggest that they are in any sense fundamental is clearly bollocks. What is fundamental are the discrete informational quanta which define them as what they are but this specification is NOT a function of what these quanta ARE but rather a function of what these quanta ARE DOING. Reality is a PROCESS, or more precisely, a non-linear COMPUTATION.uwot wrote:Like I said, it is my hypothesis that matter and energy are distortions in big bang stuff; they emerge from it, if you like.
Yes. A dimension is a mathematical object only and my gravity/time continuum is no different. To say that the universe exists only in a fractal time dimension is just as much a metaphorical and epistemic statement as it is to say that it exists in a 4D Cartesian manifold. Like Wheeler I rather prefer the Poincarean idea of an n-dimensional universe where n represents the large but finite number of informational quanta which encode for physical reality. However, whichever way we choose to think this through, the important thing about any dimension is that it is merely a mathematical heuristic used to codify the dynamic relationship between matter and energy. Reality is that which is continuously BECOMING but the reality we observe is a reality which exists no longer and it is this no-longer-existent reality which we codify in terms of dimensions, or for the benefit of JSS, as an affectance "wave".uwot wrote: Those that believe that spacetime dimensions are 'real' will struggle,
I never make notes and couldn't refer you to a precise quote or quotes but he often refers to spacetime as a mathematical representation of a physical model rather than a physical model itself. Einstein had a lot to say over the course of his long career and he often contradicted himself in the process but there can be no doubt that he never intended the spacetime paradigm to be regarded as a physically real model of the universe.uwot wrote: Which of Einstein's words should I read closely where he specifically refers to a "geometric aether"?
"Space and time are modes in which we think, not conditions in which we exist" ....Albert Einstein.
True. In fact Schrodinger told the cat story as a joke at his own expense. It was only ever intended as a piss-take to illustrate the point that QM was not a physical model and should not be considered as such. Everett's bollocks is not a physical model either but a desperate attempt to salvage a theory by appealing to the invisible hand of the supernatural. Shoving your explanations beyond scientific enquiry is a neat trick but it's not fucking science. It was all Minkowski's fault, of course, because he's the bloke who spatialised time and gravity out of physics.uwot wrote:More physicists believe the many worlds interpretation than Copenhagen,
That's what I mean too, so I'm agreeing with you. But if the big bang was hot then what else could this stuff be but quanta of energy, which I prefer to call informational "bits" for the sake of Occam economy. Don't think of a matter particle as a bit of "stuff" but think of it as a physical process being maintained in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium by the "bits" which are encoding for it. Think of an electron as being ALIVE, if you like, and then you can answer Hawking's arresting question. "What is it that breathes fire into these equations and brings forth a universe for us to observe?"uwot wrote: By big bang stuff I mean the stuff that properties emerge from.
It all boils down to a single question which I've posed several times before.
Is the speed of light a constant or is the speed of light proportional to the speed of the clock on which this speed is being measured?
MINKOWSKI GOT THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION WRONG