Lee Smolin:
For Newton the universe lived in an infinite and featureless space.There was no boundary, ad no possibility of conceiving anything outside of it. This was no problem for God, as he was everywhere. For Newton, space was the “sensorium” of God-the medium of his presence in and attachment to the world. The infinity of space was then a necessary reflection of the infinite capacity of God.The Life of the Cosmos By Lee Smolin Oxford University Press; New York, N.Y.: 1997, Page 91
Should one think we should dismiss the historical context by assigning comments to the characters of that past? See the “Character of our Heros” for an update on my thinking.I think it is cheap what we can do sometimes, while this history has never been completely told? What is it I mean?
It is a way in which I look at life and the way in which it came together for me. If such a source is recognized that emanates the very constructive phases of all life, then, what was the underlying substance of this creation if it could not be expressive?
David Joseph Bohm (b. December 20, 1917, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania – d. October 27, 1992, London) was an American-born quantum physicist who made significant contributions in the fields of theoretical physics, philosophy and neuropsychology, and to the Manhattan Project.
If man thinks of the totality as constituted of independent fragments, then that is how his mind will tend to operate, but if he can include everything coherently and harmoniously in an overall whole that is undivided, unbroken, and without a border then his mind will tend to move in a similar way, and from this will flow an orderly action within the whole. (David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980)
If a shaft of light entering a prism is sufficiently narrow, a spectrum results.
In optics, a prism is a transparent optical element with flat, polished surfaces that refract light. The exact angles between the surfaces depend on the application. The traditional geometrical shape is that of a triangular prism with a triangular base and rectangular sides, and in colloquial use “prism” usually refers to this type. Some types of optical prism are not in fact in the shape of geometric prisms. Prisms are typically made out of glass, but can be made from any material that is transparent to the wavelengths for which they are designed.
A prism can be used to break light up into its constituent spectral colors (the colors of the rainbow). Prisms can also be used to reflect light, or to split light into components with different polarizations.
Dispersion
In optics, dispersion is the phenomenon that the phase velocity of a wave depends on its frequency.[1] The most familiar example of dispersion is probably a rainbow, in which dispersion causes the spatial separation of a white light into components of different wavelengths (different colors). However, dispersion also has an impact in many other circumstances: for example, it causes pulses to spread in optical fibers, degrading signals over long distances; also, a cancellation between dispersion and nonlinear effects leads to soliton waves. Dispersion is most often described for light waves, but it may occur for any kind of wave that interacts with a medium or passes through an inhomogeneous geometry (e.g. a waveguide), such as sound waves. Dispersion is sometimes called chromatic dispersion to emphasize its wavelength-dependent nature.
The Value of Time
I suspect this reflects the expectation many people have that time is not fundamental, but rather emerges only at a semiclassical approximation in quantum cosmology. If you believe this then you believe that the fundamental quantities a quantum cosmology should compute are timeless. This in turn reflects a very old and ultimately religious prejudice that deeper truths are timeless. This has been traced by scholars to the theology of Newton and contemporaries who saw space as “the sensorium” of an eternal and all seeing god. Perhaps the BB paradox is telling us it is time to give up the search for timeless probability distributions, and recognize that since Darwin the deep truths about nature cannot be divorced from time.
The alternative is to disbelieve the arguments that time is emergent-which were never very convincing- and instead formulate quantum cosmology in such a way that time is always real. I would suggest that the Boltzman Brain’s paradox is the reducto ad absurdum of the notion that time is emergent and that rather than play with little fixes to it we should try to take seriously the opposite idea: that time is real.
Configuration space to me would mean a relationship to the way tungsten bar of lead would have through it’s coordinated dimensions as shown below pinpointed the results according to the space that this measure occupies? Now this could mean some totally different to th way I am seeing it, yet knowing full well the scope of the spectrum , the evidence to the contrary of that one wave, would have been the refractive differences shown not only in that Prism, but the elemental consideration as signature by the elements presence.
Bar of Lead Tungstate Source: A Quantum Diaries Survivor-Calorimeters for High Energy Physics experiments – part 1 April 6, 2008
Calorimeters measure the collective behavior of particles traveling along approximately the same path, and are thus naturally suited for the measurement of jets-Dorigo Tommaso
See Previous post on the Calorimeters
When pushing back perspective it is of course used in concert with how we shall see the events unfold in the cosmos. Any measurement used in the LHC at this time is tied to that same understanding of events as they unfold for us, not only in context of this “whole universe,” but on any subsequent events that happen within context of parts of that same universe.
Bohmian Mechanics
Bohmian mechanics, which is also called the de Broglie-Bohm theory, the pilot-wave model, and the causal interpretation of quantum mechanics, is a version of quantum theory discovered by Louis de Broglie in 1927 and rediscovered by David Bohm in 1952. It is the simplest example of what is often called a hidden variables interpretation of quantum mechanics. In Bohmian mechanics a system of particles is described in part by its wave function, evolving, as usual, according to Schrödinger’s equation. However, the wave function provides only a partial description of the system. This description is completed by the specification of the actual positions of the particles. The latter evolve according to the ‘guiding equation,’ which expresses the velocities of the particles in terms of the wave function. Thus, in Bohmian mechanics the configuration of a system of particles evolves via a deterministic motion choreographed by the wave function. In particular, when a particle is sent into a two-slit apparatus, the slit through which it passes and where it arrives on the photographic plate are completely determined by its initial position and wave function.
Bohmian mechanics inherits and makes explicit the nonlocality implicit in the notion, common to just about all formulations and interpretations of quantum theory, of a wave function on the configuration space of a many-particle system. It accounts for all of the phenomena governed by nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, from spectral lines and scattering theory to superconductivity, the quantum Hall effect and quantum computing. In particular, the usual measurement postulates of quantum theory, including collapse of the wave function and probabilities given by the absolute square of probability amplitudes, emerge from an analysis of the two equations of motion – Schrödinger’s equation and the guiding equation – without the traditional invocation of a special, and somewhat obscure, status for observation.
See:Newton’s Space was the Sensorium
Dialogos of Eide 
Hi Plato,Nice piece and I would say to some extent a natural extension of what you have touched on earlier. It is also nice to see that you have focused more on the fundamentals as apposed to the phenomena. Except for Three Roads to Quantum Gravity and some of his papers I haven’t read much of Smolin and perhaps I should look at his thoughts on all this a little more closely. From what I gather thus far, his current views on time being fundamental, rather then an emergent entity seem to be much the same as I see it and why. For if process was involved to create this universe, then time would then exist prior to its beginning. Your reference to light also forms to be part of the puzzle; for light, according to Einstein, propagates only in terms of our time and not in its. What does this truly mean? Also, since time within space-time is an element of dimension that can only be distinguished from the others since it can appear to be only traversed in one direction, does this mean it is fundamentally different or is our capacity to perceive it form the limitation? That is if the speed of light forms to be a barrier or a threshold? If a barrier it is then one limited only to what we call matter/energy. Why is it that we can imagine a velocity that exceeds this and yet not cross it physically? Does this mean the mind can form what is the impossible or is does it mean that it is only the mind that can realize it’s not? So what then is the possible, a place of what we call the physical or a place of what we call mind?Best,Phil
LikeLike
Phil:It is also nice to see that you have focused more on the fundamentals as apposed to the phenomena.This popped out at me right away. I was thinking about the position you may of taken when you wrote it?At 7:07 AM, April 07, 2008, Blogger Phil Warnell said…”Newton in a statement he made at the end of his “Principia Mathematica” as follows:“But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phænomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phænomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phænomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.”and also,Then you have Einstein’s view, which I am always hesitant to quote, since it is often misused to have people believe he was some sort of a religious fanatic yet of course wasn’t. That statement was of course as follows:“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.”So I had to take this back to the context of the post to see what you mean. Maybe this could be explained a bit more.Just to add to this for a minute and to see if I am getting what you are saying, I have a way in which I move back to the world, and look at what measures are current and understandable, and bring this back home for reflection.We know in water Cerenkov radiation can move faster then light. Brane collisions used by Steinhardt and Turok, show the red shifting after these branes collided.Phil:Your reference to light also forms to be part of the puzzle; for light, according to Einstein, propagates only in terms of our time and not in its. What does this truly mean?There are two points that are quite toposensual(a new word Phil for some of the conceptual integrations ) to me. This is when I see Einstein on a slide of light, and “gravitational lensing presents itself.” The colour significance of this is elemental in my assessment as well as indicative of bringing the electromagnetism together with gravity. The other point is the relationship brought to bear by sound. Seeing Einstein in dream mixing ice in a glass and listening to the tingle was liberating to me, and why it directed me to look at Webber and his aluminum bar. How Grace satellite is bringing Earth’s shape into proper perspective by dangling a tether between two objects in space as it measure earth’s gravitational field, Or, Ligo’s two arms used in measure in relation to the speed of light? Kip Thorne was instrumental in the measure and size of those arms.The rest of your points in that comment are very important and are being set in mind for consideration.
LikeLike
Phil:It is also nice to see that you have focused more on the fundamentals as apposed to the phenomena.This popped out at me right away. I was thinking about the position you may of taken when you wrote it?At 7:07 AM, April 07, 2008, Blogger Phil Warnell said…\”Newton in a statement he made at the end of his “Principia Mathematica” as follows:“But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phænomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phænomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phænomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.”and also,Then you have Einstein’s view, which I am always hesitant to quote, since it is often misused to have people believe he was some sort of a religious fanatic yet of course wasn’t. That statement was of course as follows:“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.\”So I had to take this back to the context of the post to see what you mean. Maybe this could be explained a bit more.Just to add to this for a minute and to see if I am getting what you are saying, I have a way in which I move back to the world, and look at what measures are current and understandable, and bring this back home for reflection.We know in water Cerenkov radiation can move faster then light. Brane collisions used by Steinhardt and Turok, show the red shifting after these branes collided.Phil:Your reference to light also forms to be part of the puzzle; for light, according to Einstein, propagates only in terms of our time and not in its. What does this truly mean?There are two points that are quite toposensual(a new word Phil for some of the conceptual integrations ) to me. This is when I see Einstein on a slide of light, and \”gravitational lensing presents itself.\” The colour significance of this is elemental in my assessment as well as indicative of bringing the electromagnetism together with gravity. The other point is the relationship brought to bear by sound. Seeing Einstein in dream mixing ice in a glass and listening to the tingle was liberating to me, and why it directed me to look at Webber and his aluminum bar. How Grace satellite is bringing Earth\’s shape into proper perspective by dangling a tether between two objects in space as it measure earth\’s gravitational field, Or, Ligo\’s two arms used in measure in relation to the speed of light? Kip Thorne was instrumental in the measure and size of those arms.The rest of your points in that comment are very important and are being set in mind for consideration.
LikeLike
Phil:For if process was involved to create this universe, then time would then exist prior to its beginning. This is what one might call thinking outside the box.:) I point too, in terms of Veneziano and a painting.Cycle of Birth, Life, and Death-Origin, Indentity, and Destiny by Gabriele Veneziano In one form or another, the issue of the ultimate beginning has engaged philosophers and theologians in nearly every culture. It is entwined with a grand set of concerns, one famously encapsulated in an 1897 painting by Paul Gauguin: D’ou venons-nous? Que sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous? “Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?”See:Sunday, March 25, 2007Heralded from the 21st Century: String Theory I was important to find string theories place in all this and why relegating to the microseconds is an important perception whether one would like to agree on reductionism or not.Also, it sets the stage for the Coleman Mandula theorem that speaks to bubble nucleations. The false vacuum to the true. How are these expressed in the landscape, and you learn to see where the topological forms present themself, whether consistent with reality or not there is a mathematical framework.Looking at Veneziano allows you to entertain these notions about time and the relationship that this universe has with it’s constituents. Parts of the whole and how these insights can allow contributions to what this universe is doing. Even though considered as parts present, the cosmological constant for reference, there is a relationship in my mind to “Friedmann equations” and the relevance of how we see the universe in it’s motivations. What is contributing, and seeing how these parts relate to the whole is bring Relativity back into the role of what happens at the fluidity of the QGP. This is why I speculate as to the values of Navier-Stokes as being relevant at those times as well. This to me is where QM and Relativity mes.The graduations in thought pertain to how I see colour and sound together. These may be analogies to you, but these have become a part of my “conceptual integration.” For it to become “toposensual,” it has to become part of you.I still do not discount the foundational aspect of our thinking.
LikeLike
Phil:For if process was involved to create this universe, then time would then exist prior to its beginning. This is what one might call thinking outside the box.:) I point too, in terms of Veneziano and a painting.Cycle of Birth, Life, and Death-Origin, Indentity, and Destiny by Gabriele Veneziano In one form or another, the issue of the ultimate beginning has engaged philosophers and theologians in nearly every culture. It is entwined with a grand set of concerns, one famously encapsulated in an 1897 painting by Paul Gauguin: D\’ou venons-nous? Que sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous? \”Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?\”See:Sunday, March 25, 2007Heralded from the 21st Century: String Theory I was important to find string theories place in all this and why relegating to the microseconds is an important perception whether one would like to agree on reductionism or not.Also, it sets the stage for the Coleman Mandula theorem that speaks to bubble nucleations. The false vacuum to the true. How are these expressed in the landscape, and you learn to see where the topological forms present themself, whether consistent with reality or not there is a mathematical framework.Looking at Veneziano allows you to entertain these notions about time and the relationship that this universe has with it\’s constituents. Parts of the whole and how these insights can allow contributions to what this universe is doing. Even though considered as parts present, the cosmological constant for reference, there is a relationship in my mind to \”Friedmann equations\” and the relevance of how we see the universe in it\’s motivations. What is contributing, and seeing how these parts relate to the whole is bring Relativity back into the role of what happens at the fluidity of the QGP. This is why I speculate as to the values of Navier-Stokes as being relevant at those times as well. This to me is where QM and Relativity mes.The graduations in thought pertain to how I see colour and sound together. These may be analogies to you, but these have become a part of my \”conceptual integration.\” For it to become \”toposensual,\” it has to become part of you.I still do not discount the foundational aspect of our thinking.
LikeLike
Hi Plato,“I was important to find string theories place in all this and why relegating to the microseconds is an important perception whether one would like to agree on reductionism or not.”For me reductionism has a limitation if only what we call the physical is thought to be its sole constituents. I have always maintained that the mind demonstrates that there are aspects of reality that cannot be accounted for if only this is considered. This is not to suggest that in anyway we form reality as a whole or some such thing. It does imply that what is of mind transcends the physical. For instance we shape our surroundings with structures, machines and process. What is there in the physical fundamentals that can explain this? What phenomena other then life seems to reduce entropy in a limited scope while increasing it in the overall to do this? How many space stations or garbage bags would be found in a universe without life? Most important is where in the physical is there explanation that would lead to them? Are these natural or are they something that is extra to it? Dark energy is 75%, dark matter 21%, what we call matter/energy 4%, with organics a mere fraction of this and only exist after and through the evolution of some stars in their end cycles. This forms questions that should not be ignored while we search to expand our understanding and require more then reduction to discover. Regards,Phil
LikeLike
Phil:For me reductionism has a limitation if only what we call the physical is thought to be its sole constituents. I have always maintained that the mind demonstrates that there are aspects of reality that cannot be accounted for if only this is considered. This is not to suggest that in anyway we form reality as a whole or some such thing.Most string theorists believe that string theory is an emergent process. What ever one chooses to use as abilding blocks. his is the lesson Robert Laughlin imparted for me as I was trying to understand the depth and perception of our universe is greatly increased.L1 and L2 in terms of Lagrangian? Space station in it’s proper location. I tend to look at the universe as if it had a bulk perspective. This is the way it is for me as I see it right now.But to your point.The Emergent Age, by Robert Laughlin The natural world is regulated both by fundamental laws and by powerful principles of organization that flow out of them which are also transcendent, in that they would continue to hold even if the fundamentals were changed slightly. This is, of course, an ancient idea, but one that has now been experimentally demonstrated by the stupendously accurate reproducibility of certain measurements – in extreme cases parts in a trillion. This accuracy, which cannot be deduced from underlying microscopics, proves that matter acting collectively can generate physical law spontaneously. Physicists have always argued about which kind of law is more important – fundamental or emergent – but they should stop. The evidence is mounting that ALL physical law is emergent, notably and especially behavior associated with the quantum mechanics of the vacuum. This observation has profound implications for those of us concerned about the future of science. We live not at the end of discovery but at the end of Reductionism, a time in which the false ideology of the human mastery of all things through microscopics is being swept away by events and reason. This is not to say that microscopic law is wrong or has no purpose, but only that it is rendered irrelevant in many circumstances by its children and its children’s children, the higher organizational laws of the world.”So you are not alone Phil. The other thing I would think that would be counter productive would be for Laughlin to thin that his course on line serve no purpose? He would circumvent this I think by the points Bee raised?I’ll see you on Sunday night if you respond.
LikeLike
Phil:For me reductionism has a limitation if only what we call the physical is thought to be its sole constituents. I have always maintained that the mind demonstrates that there are aspects of reality that cannot be accounted for if only this is considered. This is not to suggest that in anyway we form reality as a whole or some such thing.Most string theorists believe that string theory is an emergent process. What ever one chooses to use as abilding blocks. his is the lesson Robert Laughlin imparted for me as I was trying to understand the depth and perception of our universe is greatly increased.L1 and L2 in terms of Lagrangian? Space station in it\’s proper location. I tend to look at the universe as if it had a bulk perspective. This is the way it is for me as I see it right now.But to your point.The Emergent Age, by Robert Laughlin The natural world is regulated both by fundamental laws and by powerful principles of organization that flow out of them which are also transcendent, in that they would continue to hold even if the fundamentals were changed slightly. This is, of course, an ancient idea, but one that has now been experimentally demonstrated by the stupendously accurate reproducibility of certain measurements – in extreme cases parts in a trillion. This accuracy, which cannot be deduced from underlying microscopics, proves that matter acting collectively can generate physical law spontaneously. Physicists have always argued about which kind of law is more important – fundamental or emergent – but they should stop. The evidence is mounting that ALL physical law is emergent, notably and especially behavior associated with the quantum mechanics of the vacuum. This observation has profound implications for those of us concerned about the future of science. We live not at the end of discovery but at the end of Reductionism, a time in which the false ideology of the human mastery of all things through microscopics is being swept away by events and reason. This is not to say that microscopic law is wrong or has no purpose, but only that it is rendered irrelevant in many circumstances by its children and its children\’s children, the higher organizational laws of the world.\”So you are not alone Phil. The other thing I would think that would be counter productive would be for Laughlin to thin that his course on line serve no purpose? He would circumvent this I think by the points Bee raised?I\’ll see you on Sunday night if you respond.
LikeLike