From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Feb 22 2003 - 12:52:32 MST
Serafino writes
> > "The Big Bang theory supposes that at the instant of creation, the
> > quantum singularity that became the universe would need to have infinite
> > density and temperature."
Let us examine the question from the point of view of topology.
Now (for those, excluding scerir, who don't know what I'm talking
about, an "open" interval (0,1) does not contain its endpoints, 0
and 1, while the closed interval [0,1] does).
Our concepts of the early universe often involve extremely early
instants in the chronology of the universe, e.g., 10^-43 seconds
(the Planck time). A number of our conceptual troubles, it seems
to me, arise from insisting that the point 0 be included in our
discussions. Why not regard the instant of the big band itself,
0, as not existing?
In other words, we think of the open "segment", and, upon a proper
mapping, simply imagine the true time-equivalent to reach infinitely
far back "towards" zero. So, we might speak of 10^-N seconds, for
all positive integers N, and never deal with the troublesome limit
point itself, where N takes on the dubious value of infinity.
Is this a common idea?
> Let us imagine it is possible to build a consistent model
> of photons (and gravitons? why not?), with a "retarded" wave
> (from the past to the future) plus an "advanced" wave (from the
> future to the past). Ok it is the usual Feynman-Wheeler approach.
I'm following.
> But the "advanced" wave (we can imagine) needs the "existence" of
> a "target". Because the photon comes into existence if there is a
> "source" (emitter of the retarded wave) and also a "target" (emitter
> of the advanced wave).
Yes! I had always wondered about that. After all,
when you study Special Relativity, you understand
that the from the photon's point of view---if we
may indulge ourselves---its emission and absorption
occur at the same time. Thanks very much for this
explanation.
> I remember that John Bell, talking with Davies, told him that a
> "super-determinism" would perhaps solve the business of QM (The Ghost
> in the Atom, page 47). Now the retarded + advanced waves model actually
> imposes a "super-determinism" on the universe.
Fascinating.
> Now imagine there is a discrete and real "target" out there (hence
> in a different time).
>
> In example, assume the earth is x years old. An emitter of the retarded
> wave, far away from the earth, required (x light years ago) that the
> forming earth ("target") must emit the advanced wave backwards in time.
>
> A highly collimated laser radiating into the outer space, with
> a very very small angle, could show some effect.
Do you really think that it would?
> Because if waves were beamed, at various directions
> in outer space, and some power fluctuations in the
> transmitter were observed, it could mean that outer
> space is not uniform. That is to say that sometimes
> there are, or there are not, out there, "targets"
> receiving retarded waves and emitting advanced waves.
Your explanation is wonderfully clear. And so Tipler
and others may totally use this argument! After all,
we think the universe to be accelerating in its
expansion, with sufficiently distant galaxies receding
from us faster than light. (Not of course, actually
moving through their own space faster than light---
that would be impossible according to relativity.)
So, the fact that all our photons appear to be eventually
collected can only mean that the universe ultimately
collapses. Or does it?
> Ok here we might find something similar to the Olbers'
> paradox! So, better to stop here.
One man's paradox is another man's escape from prison! ;-)
> Oh no, wait. Sometimes science >> fiction. I do not remember if
> Greenberger or who else wrote that it is possible to write down
> a quantum state [I remember this state written on a blackboard]
> in which (not just 2 but) 3 particles are entangled in a very
> peculiar way. This one. If particle 1 is found to have the spin 'up',
> then particles 2 and 3 are entangled. If particle 1 is found to have
> the spin 'down', the particle 2 and 3 get disentangled. Now let us
> put particle 1 in a remote (say space-like separated) region.
> Yet a 'chance' event, befalling particle 1, strongly influences
> the mutual relationship between particles 2 and 3!
I will have to dwell for a while on the implications of
what you are saying here.
Thanks,
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 22 2003 - 12:48:34 MST