brunardot

Thanks for unaccustomed compliment.

The Big Bang, according to theory, was just one Bang counter to the illusion of gravity’s attraction. This single bang cannot account for observed accelerating, galactic recession; nor, can it explain how “light” (energy) “backs-up” to create mass. Then again; What was it in when it banged?

Sir Fred Hoyle named it derisively; Einstein detested it. Both went to there graves without much change of mind. It took eight years after Einstein’s death to get it accepted ; with less proof than any other standard paradigm . . . all of which verge on the metaphysical; as, they are irreconcilable internally . . . and with one another. Abbé Georges-Henri Lemaître first proposed the BB in 1927; probably, as a viable solution for reconciling the Roman Catholic Church with science.

Reality is cyclically unending. The four unending cycles are referred to as congeneric realms of Coalescence, Propagation, Compression, and Dissipation. It is very difficult to otherwise explain the super galactic clusters; quasars; gamma-ray bursts; high-energy, background radiation; galactic cohesion; “attraction-at-a-distance”; etc.

There are no solutions to the equations, as they are contrived and do not reflect Nature in its subtleties.



Your questions are many and complex. I will be pleased to answer them if you will prioritize them and ask them one at a time.

Much of what you allude to is rational; some is not.

There is only one singularity, by definition, and it is beyond Reality.

Non-locality is a phenomena directly related to the geometry of triquametric, seminal motion.

Keep in mind that the most complex, must be the simplest.



To paraphrase Rutherford and Einstein: It’s not much of a theory if the barmaid can’t understand it.

As the academic disciplines of Science, Theology, and Philosophy mature, so too does argot and obfuscation.

Canute

Brunardot

You seem to know your stuff so I'd like to ask a few questions. Could you elaborate on the idea of there being no BB? What do you suggest as the alternative? What is the current status of the steady state/continuous creation hypothesis? Has it been completely ruled out? Is de Sitters' massless universe dead and buried now or still a possible solution to the equations?

On the non-locality thing what mccrone says seems to make a lot of sense to me. Does it to you? If there is a fifth dimension (or category of dimension) then this must be the hyperspace of science fiction, the only sensible way to travel. If this hyperspace is unextended in space and time it can be interpreted/represented as a singularity. Enter hyperspace and hey presto one is already where one is going, since all points in spacetime are the same point in this unextended dimension. (But I'm not really suggesting one can flit in and out of it with a spaceship!). I know some physicists suggest this dimension may be a centimetre away from us, but I find this an absurd idea. If there are other dimensions then they must surely be right here right now. If all points in spacetime are connected to a spacetime singularity in this way then this seems to explain non-local effects. (To me it seems to have the potential to explain the wave-particle duality also, but that's another discussion). Leaving out the science fiction does it make sense to say that a fifth dimension/hyperspace must be considered a spacetime singularity?

Funny how the fundamental phenomena underlying the existence of the universe turn out to be so easily understandable in terms of ordinary everyday things like water waves, particles of dust, bits of string and so on.

brunardot

It is difficult to reply to your question without the context of my entire posted statement, which I include below. The post was deleted from this thread because it contains statements “…contrary to those currently held by the scientific community.” With such censure, I am not certain how a meaningful discussion of that which remains enigmatic can be carried on between sensible persons in a forum dedicated to intelligent inquiry. The statements concerned have generated interest and some agreement from Linus Pauling, Philip Morrison, and John Schwarz; as well as many physicists in commercial research (TRW, Space and Defense; and, EPRI).

To the point: John Schwarz, during a long personal discussion, politely averred that the concepts were interesting and may have merit.





You are absolutely correct. They do. In fact, they “play a part” within all phenomena.



The Big Bang is not a required paradigm if “strings” are properly defined. Currently, the Big Bang is a requirement; as, it is the only structural force in the pomo elitists’ armamentarium of dogma that can counter gravity. The relative, hierarchic compression of “string’s” evolved, critical coalescence is an important factor in the illusion of “attraction-at-a-distance.”



"It" would “head off”; but, rather than from a point, the motion would be in a triquametric manner at hyper-relativistic speeds.



Your understanding of the relativistic phenomenon seems to be generally quite good; though, a bit clumsy in expression.



You are correct in that resonance is salient. Fundamental resonance is cyclic separation of time-related, complex oscillations that manifest as fundamental bonds and non-locality.



Locality is strictly a manifestation of the evolution of “light” (“strings,” energy, whatever . . .) to mass at the point of critical coalescence.



Your concept is close. Technically, entanglement is shared, extreme, loci with independent axes and cyclic time. There are different types of entanglement concerning “light” and mass.



Too many flaws to elaborate. A good start would be to eliminate the Big Bang paradigm from your concerns and concentrate on the manner that energy morphs to matter; what hold matter together; what causes accelerating galactic recession; why a wave acts as a particle, etc. etc.

As for your concern with ST, I quote Patricia Schwarz:

The two don't talk physics much at home, she said.

She's interested in geometrical approaches to
space and time, and he thinks algebraically.

"When he starts talking about (exotic kinds of) algebras,
I just think, 'Yuuuccckk.' "

'A Lot of It's Guesswork'

In reference to Patricia and John Schwarz
Los Angeles Times, November 17, 1999

mccrone

[QUOTE=brunardot]You are quite correct with your intuition that "...all parts of the universe would be in touch almost instantly..."; the trick is to explain "Why?"

All Pulsoids ("strings") share the same limits of locus; however their cyclic time and seminal axes are independent of one another. Contrived "Lightspeed restrictions..." within the dyosphere, do not apply!
QUOTE]

Yes but have you seen reference to this point in the mainstream string literature at all?

To be clear, it would seem strings would have to play a part in both local and nonlocal effects.

The basic image presented by string theorists is of a nine dimensional space (leaving time as a dimension out of this for the moment). Three of the dimensions become unbound at the Big Bang to form a hypersphere. The rest stay compact and writhe into some six dimensional geometry (such as a Calabi-Yau space).

It would seem from this image that any event started from a point in space would head off at lightspeed in all nine directions at once. In the Planck-scale "string-verse", the event would in effect orbit the whole space almost immediately (in the Planck time). Meanwhile in expanded 3D space, it had hardly gone anywhere (but with infinite time, could also complete a whole orbit).

Again from a very naive interpretation of this image, you can see how resonances might be the result of an event trying to propagate in the string-verse while out in the 3D world, the event crashes into something else, particle meets particle, and history gets crisply rewritten. The resonance in the stringverse - which represents the particle's properties - gets changed.

So the universe has locality because events take time to propagate in 3D space. These events can carry with them their stringverse properties as they are simply resonances in a realm which exists at every point of 3D space.

This set-up would also seem to support non-locality because if - quantumly - events can remain entangled, then there does not seem to be any real problem in how "far apart" two particles become in the 3D realm. They are still on top of each other within the shared space of the string-verse.

Note that the speed of light could still rule both 3D space and the stringverse. But communication at Planck scale would seem almost instant.

Now I'm not saying I believe this story. I can't yet see how it would include nonlocality across time. I also prefer quite another tale about how the stringverse may texture our 3D world. But I do feel puzzled that you don't see these kinds of interpretations of compactified dimensions being advanced in the literature. This would suggest that there is some obvious flaw in the idea. So what is it?

mccrone

How are you imagining the string dimensions here? They might be curled up at every point, but they would not make a lot of separate points - an array of local string worlds. There would be just the one string world to which every point of the 3D world would be connected.



As I said in another thread, nonlocality is a general thing and applies to temporal set ups like quantum erasure and delayed choice.

And even if nothing physical is being transferred, no FTL signalling involved, there is still a very definite fact of non-locality to be explained.

vanesch

Many reasons come to mind, I guess the foremost is that string theory is just "another quantum theory" and from within quantum theory, there is no need to "explain" this non-local communication. You'd need something ELSE than quantum theory to explain the properties of quantum theory. Remember that "non-local" EPR effects are a PREDICTION of quantum theory, not something that needs to be "explained". If you want to explain how this mechanism in quantum theory comes about, for sure you cannot do that with quantum theory itself.

But I guess that what you are aiming at, is: can the compactified extra dimensions not give us A LOCAL REALIST theory (NOT a quantum theory) which reduces to quantum theory in our 4-dim spacetime. As string theory does not take up that stance, I think it is useless to do so that way. But you could of course think up a very complicated topology in more dimensions which allows for apparent superluminal classical dynamics through "tunnels" between points.

cheers,
Patrick.

Sherlock

By "nonlocal communication" do you mean events at the
spatially separated wings of a typical Bell test setup affecting
each other instantaneously or via ftl 'influences' of some sort?

There's no evidence that this happens.

What *is* happening instantaneously (actually 'simultaneously'
would be a better word to describe it) is that when you change
the setting of one or the other polarizer, then the *global* variable,
the Theta of the two polarizer's settings, is simultaneously
changed -- which simultaneously affects the probability of
coincidental detection.

Events at A are not affecting events at B. Nothing is being
transferred physically from A to B. So, there's nothing
to explain as far as these considerations are concerned.