Very old nightsky

[MiR]

Fridger,

Unfortunately, a proper exposition would require more time than I currently have.

Yeah, because without "time"...

Wikipedia is not a good reference in these matters (where the actual qualifications of the writer about such subtle matters remains entirely unknown...)....

I agree. But for an overview wikipedia isn't bad for amateurs like me. It's an opener, a door not only for a sophisticated society. There are many related sites and references listed for those who want find out more specific knowledge. (At least it's better than the million-answer-google-confusion, i think)

The main reason why i've posted the wiki-links above... almost all of my "favorites" about this topic are written in german. (Among others DESY's kworkquark-pdf's by Dirk Rathje).

And - please remember - Wikipedia is made in the same spirit like Celestia...

Michael

[t00fri]

Fridger,

Unfortunately, a proper exposition would require more time than I currently have.

Yeah, because without "time"...

Wikipedia is not a good reference in these matters (where the actual qualifications of the writer about such subtle matters remains entirely unknown...)....

I agree. But for an overview wikipedia isn't bad for amateurs like me. It's an opener, a door not only for a sophisticated society. There are many related sites and references listed for those who want find out more specific knowledge. (At least it's better than the million-answer-google-confusion, i think)

The main reason why i've posted the wiki-links above... almost all of my "favorites" about this topic are written in german. (Among others DESY's kworkquark-pdf's by Dirk Rathje).

And - please remember - Wikipedia is made in the same spirit like Celestia...

Michael

Michael,

writing an article that addresses other experts is in a sense much easier than writing a "door-opener" review that addresses laypersons. The latter task is actually the higher challenge of the author's competence! Notably, in order not to be entirely misleading, it is crucial for a short door-opener article on the above cosmological subjects, to focus attention on the essential conceptional fundaments.

In that context the quoted Wiki paper failed miserably (as happens frequently when more complex subjects are at stake).

Therefore it is usually much more profitable to read (short) reviews by famous physicists that have both many years of experience in research AND in teaching students. In case of Wiki we can't even be sure whether the writer is a professional physicist. (I can usually tell... )

Fridger

[MiR]

Therefore it is usually much more profitable to read (short) reviews by famous physicists that have both many years of experience in research AND in teaching students. In case of Wiki we can't even be sure whether the writer is a professional physicist. (I can usually tell... )

Fridger,

no question. Sometimes I'm a lazybone . With Wiki I only tried a little time to economize...

Michael

[t00fri]

Therefore it is usually much more profitable to read (short) reviews by famous physicists that have both many years of experience in research AND in teaching students. In case of Wiki we can't even be sure whether the writer is a professional physicist. (I can usually tell... )

Fridger,

no question. Sometimes I'm a lazybone . With Wiki I only tried a little time to economize...

Michael

Then we agree entirely. Actually, you may have read about the recent Wiki conference in the news. The issue of improving the reliability of Wiki articles was a central point, apparently. No doubt, it is impressive to witness the timeliness of Wiki articles (compared to classical print media) as well as the high level of completeness of subjects.

Fridger

[Fenerit]

Fridger,

Unfortunately, a proper exposition would require more time than I currently have.

Yeah, because without "time"...

Wikipedia is not a good reference in these matters (where the actual qualifications of the writer about such subtle matters remains entirely unknown...)....

I agree. But for an overview wikipedia isn't bad for amateurs like me. It's an opener, a door not only for a sophisticated society. There are many related sites and references listed for those who want find out more specific knowledge. (At least it's better than the million-answer-google-confusion, i think)

The main reason why i've posted the wiki-links above... almost all of my "favorites" about this topic are written in german. (Among others DESY's kworkquark-pdf's by Dirk Rathje).

And - please remember - Wikipedia is made in the same spirit like Celestia...

Michael

Michael,

writing an article that addresses other experts is in a sense much easier than writing a "door-opener" review that addresses laypersons. The latter task is actually the higher challenge of the author's competence! Notably, in order not to be entirely misleading, it is crucial for a short door-opener article on the above cosmological subjects, to focus attention on the essential conceptional fundaments.

In that context the quoted Wiki paper failed miserably (as happens frequently when more complex subjects are at stake).

Therefore it is usually much more profitable to read (short) reviews by famous physicists that have both many years of experience in research AND in teaching students. In case of Wiki we can't even be sure whether the writer is a professional physicist. (I can usually tell... )

Fridger

I agree. This multilevel and metalingustic discussion is interesting. It shows the two classic approach to the culture, in my opinion. Of course the method followed by Celestia is scientific, while in Wiki's case is humanistic. The interaction astronomy-informatic must be that or the things doesn't works. Wiki has the tales's structure, instead.
Let's suppose that one do write an article about a phantomatic Celestianus Fenerius and that does present him as a medieval scholar lived around the VII century somewhere in Europe. Furthermore, let's suppose that all the false data where presented well, so to be credibles; such swindles have been done in the past, I do not say nothing new. Now, who and how does check it? How one can say that such man has never been existed? And then: such check is of the same kind (cognitive, axiologic, epistemologic and methodologic) of the the solar/lunar eclipses's check? In my humble opinion: NO.

[MiR]

@Fridger,

You wrote two postings before (i'm sorry for the delay):

In that context the quoted Wiki paper failed miserably (as happens frequently when more complex subjects are at stake).

Well you're probably right with regard to a scientific explanation; but the internet is full of sites (scientific sites as well) where this is verified: "virtual particles exists for a very short length of time..."

Then we agree entirely. Actually, you may have read about the recent Wiki conference in the news. The issue of improving the reliability of Wiki articles was a central point, apparently.

I know about this.
On the other hand i don't care much about Wikipedia. i think the idea is good and should go on. (But I was only searching for a site where the circumstances about virtual particles are explained... )
But thanks for the detailed clarification (I'm still learning ).


@Massimo,

Of course the method followed by Celestia is scientific, while in Wiki's case is humanistic.

Of course, there are big differences between Wiki and Celestia, but "scientific" and "humanistic" aren't opposites.

Let's suppose that one do write an article about a phantomatic Celestianus Fenerius and that does present him as a medieval scholar lived around the VII century somewhere in Europe. Furthermore, let's suppose that all the false data where presented well, so to be credibles; such swindles have been done in the past, I do not say nothing new. Now, who and how does check it? How one can say that such man has never been existed?

But should we abolish science, because we are knowing now that Newton (and - during the centuries - many, many others in science) was wrong? Definitely no. Or should we throw away the computers, because their operating systems are faulty? - no - To go without books, 'cause in some (unfortunately more than "some"...) is written always the same story (where only names/places changed)? No! Or should we put our shiny expensive super widescreen-TV's right in the...
right in the...
er, wait a minute -? :-] - what did i say? - hm, just let me think.. ? hmmmmm... nnno; No, there are some good documentations every eleven months available in my television-box...

Nothing is a priori perfect.
Problems do not exist that we run away from them...

But you were (half-)right relating to the virtual particles; their existence is only measurable indirectly. But they need also time to exist.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/63
So thanks for your important objection.


Sorry guys but the discussion about Wikipedia was boring me a bit. I remain convinced that everything in our world needs mainly first and foremost time to exist.... (I'm still "looking" for a suitable signature; maybe I'll take this )
So I hope it is okay with you if we come back to the beginning (providing that you are still interested)...?

At first i should tell you that i look upon the universe in a more philosophical way.
To start from the premise that time is in dependence of mass/gravity (and vice versa) I might say:

I handle time as an unit, like a Lego-tile and I think that free space is stretching time(-units) => time/light is flowing quick. Near a very big mass (BlackHoles) time(-units) are very compressed (similar to the huge mass/gravity) and time is flowing very slow, or rather stands still (consequently light - photons, too). So my first question is: Is this thesis verified by (natural-)science?

Maybe you have an answer...

Thanks again to you both for this interesting conversation.

Michael

[MiR]

sorry, i have to correct:

The free space isn't "stretching" time; Better: in free space there are only a scant number of time-units because the minor mass (the more mass the more time-units and the slower time is flowing).

Each one sees his "own" world.
For example: If i (we) speak of "visible light", then indicates this that we are talking about a spectrum of light which we - as human beings - are able to see. Already animals - and not any old ET! - are seeing another spectrum of light (dogs, insects,...).

The same applies to sound waves.

And with time?

Some insects experience time different from men.
What i think is this: Maybe the experience of time - "our" experience of time - is also only a small part of a big spectrum of time...

Michael

[MiR]

Oh, I see; I'm boring you. I'm sorry. To bring my thoughts to an outcome one thing yet:

Near a big mass the course of time tends towards against zero. In principle: to start from this point (very big mass) it should be possible to travel in every conceivable "time"... At least on a mathematical way?
(I told you before I'm not a mathematician, but I know the mathematical language is based on the acceptance that 1 + 1 = 2. Although this is often doubted. My math teachers told me so... But I like Mandelbrot equations as well...)

Why do we exist. Why does something exist at all? In particle/quantum physics our reality is disappearing in chaos...
Sometimes reality is like a curtain, disguising us the right view for the truth.

Did anyone recognizes that the simulation showing the spatial distribution of galaxies in our universe looks like the structure of synapses and braincells in our heads..?

Okay, okay, I will stop here.

Well, I am just an english learning artist with an interest in science and liberal arts. Coming into a big house with nearly 4600 rooms (members) now. It's planned and build by other, more important guys than me. I'm only here to embellish some few parts of the huge building.

So I'm just putting my unfinished paintings in one of these rooms. Just an ugly, metal casing with the counting machine inside and a mailbox. For my free time this should be my virtual working area for a while... Guess I will stay here for a little bundle of time-units... Or 'til the work is done...

...better I move my tired bones right to the balcony...

The air smells clear and it's one of those starry nights. I raise my head and take a deeper look in the very old nightsky...

Bye

Michael

[Fenerit]

But you were (half-)right relating to the virtual particles; their existence is only measurable indirectly. But they need also time to exist.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/63
So thanks for your important objection.

An excerpt from the page above:

...David Deutsch claims support for the alternative histories approach, from the sum over histories concept, introduced by the physicist, Richard Feinman, who died a few years ago. The idea is that according to Quantum Theory, the universe doesn't have just a unique single history. ...Instead, the universe has every single possible history,each with its own probability... In some histories space-time will be so warped, that objects like rockets will be able to travel into their pasts. But each history is complete and self contained, describing not only the curved space-time, but also the objects in it. So a rocket can not transfer to another alternative history, when it comes round again. It is still in the same history, which has to be self consistent. Thus, despite what Deutsch claims, I think the sum over histories idea, supports the consistent histories hypothesis, rather than the alternative histories idea. ...It seems that what happens, is that when space-time gets warped almost enough to allow travel into the past, virtual particles can almost become real particles, following closed trajectories. The density of the virtual particles, and their energy, become very large. This means that the probability of these histories is very low. Thus it seems there may be a Chronology Protection Agency at work, making the world safe for historians."

I think that Hawking is asking for: In which "time" virtual particles become very large if we can see just their effects within "our time"? If these effects happens into "our time", which needs have they to increase their energy, whether "our time" goes necessary from past to the future? Thus, its reply to Deutsch is that they prevent the backward because they doesn't have "our time" but "them time", their consistent history (the "apple" ).

Did anyone recognizes that the simulation showing the spatial distribution of galaxies in our universe looks like the structure of synapses and braincells in our heads..? Okay, okay, I will stop here.

Analogies often are fruitfull. Your "philosophical" approach here is matter of aesthetics; instead if one view all the galaxies as the same galaxy (our galaxy) during the several steps of the cosmic evolution, then it raise a metaphysical view.

[John Van Vliet]

--- edit ---

[MiR]

@Massimo,

please google for "uncertainty principle"...

Analogies often are fruitfull. Your "philosophical" approach here is matter of aesthetics; instead if one view all the galaxies as the same galaxy (our galaxy) during the several steps of the cosmic evolution, then it raise a metaphysical view.

cells (better: cell components) also needed several steps in evolution (~four billion years) to become brain cells. here you can see an interesting comparison...
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/ ... APHIC.html

@John,
In the meantime I think we are in mutual agreement with regard to Wiki. Was my mistake ("lazybonable"). I wrote about this some posts above.

Michael

[t00fri]

@Massimo,

please google for "uncertainty principle"...
Michael

That is what is behind the possibility of virtual particles! Without Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle -- a basic aspect of quantum mechanics-- the most fundamental conservation of energy and momentum would be violated by the creation of virtual particles.

Fridger

[Fenerit]

@Massimo,

please google for "uncertainty principle"...

Michael

Hi Michal, my approach to the "uncertainty principle" and to the Quantum Thermodynamics go back to the booktexts, in which the reading wasn't "click and go", but "stand up and moving", "walking" and "climbing" on the scaffolds; so please, be more "constructive" in reply to my critics, at least on the philosophical basis. For example, in matter of "time", do you know what is and where is the conceptual difference amongst the "alternative histories idea" and the "consistent histories hypothesis"? The difference amongst events "here" and "there" and the events "here" or "there"? Then one can "choosing" amongst them, being aware to be within a philosophical realm, waiting for new experimental science. The philosophical discussions have to be follows the advancement of science, imho. I.e, of the two views stated before, the universe like an huge brain and the galaxies like the same galaxy, just the latter is falsifiable, not the former; thus the second view is "more scientific" of the first, as long as it remain within a single realm of methodological and experimental enquire, while the former, even though with the same methodology, does overlap differents ways of checks, not jointed throughout.

[MiR]

Massimo,

so please, be more "constructive" in reply to my critics, at least on the philosophical basis.

Maybe you're right. I apologize if I did show such a behaviour. But, Massimo, sometimes I don't really know what you mean; Is it this what I think what you're telling me or quite the contrary. Probably the reason is founded in my insufficient knowledge of the english language...

do you know what is and where is the conceptual difference amongst the "alternative histories idea" and the "consistent histories hypothesis"? The difference amongst events "here" and "there" and the events "here" or "there"?

I'm not a physicist. So, my interests in alternative histories, Parallel/Multiverse hypothesis is more peripheral; (at the moment) only a matter of an entertaining aspect.

being aware to be within a philosophical realm, waiting for new experimental science. The philosophical discussions have to be follows the advancement of science, imho.

The most important thing is to ask the right questions.

Massimo; "physics" and "philosophy" aren't opponents, not even rivals. More than brothers they are!
Please, take a look back in history; The founders of "science" the Presocratics, Pythagoras, Socrates, Aristoteles and other wise men from Greece (~500years later in Italy as well) were philosophers, mathematicians, biologists, physicists, chemists... in one person!
Especially Aristoteles postulated - among others - "our earth must be a round sphere". Almost 2000 years earlier than Galilei...

And further; Kepler, Kopernikus, Newton as well, Galilei, too - our famous scientists - were (in their time) first and foremost alchemists and astrologers...

So physics and philosophy needs and enrichs each other...

The main reason why philosophy (or science) were splitting in several disziplines - The explanation is very simple and there is no matter of rivalry or a question of "who's the best": our brains are too weak to grasp and understand the immense knowledge of every faculty.

So, also if we see some things in a different light, that's normal for human beings... we're here to make a good job.

Regards
Michael

[Fenerit]

Pythagoras was also a geologist; its system isn't cosmologic but geologic.
Aristotle: place isn't space.
Aristotle vs Plato > matter vs form > Quantum Mechanics vs General Relativity.

[MiR]

Massimo, here you can find more interesting thoughts about time and other topics about BigBang, Multiverse,...

http://www.fqxi.org/community

If these pages are already known to you (I would not be surprised ); Maybe it's of an interest for other readers...

Michael