And now the universe itself isn't cooperating

[JHL]

I would like to look at this article a little different way. Once you get past the journalist headlining, and the presumptive dribble of the introduction paragraphs, the writer actually captures the truly tentative nature of honest scientific inquiry. A questioning of assumptions about the data.The open admission that we don't really "know" what we thought we did. The relentless pursuit of a better theory. The insightful look into how actual scientists feel about the mysteries they are trying to come to grips with. With this honest approach, the universe DOES cooperate!

Of course. I spoke with tongue in cheek and referring to that seemingly - and increasingly - faulty universe as opposed to whatever universe we actually witness. It's the cooperating universe - if you'll permit me repeating myself - that bears exploring.

What exists exists, and that is right now.

Yes and no. What exists exists but what exists also has a relationship to itself, a paradoxical state as I see it because that relative existence calls for an underlying frame or mode of sub- or extra-state communication and agreement. Whether that's aether or Higgs or what have you, the element that it seems to me at least that resists discovery - probably because it's logically impossible - is that sub-state that ties all states together, whether as an accepted Force on the very small end or as a guiding aspect of cosmology on the big end (both of which being articles of faith as much as material conditions).

In other words, how can there be a single relationship - the spinning ice skater and the universe that lends her substance and inertia - w/o what amounts to an undiscoverable instantaneous ephemeral matrix, whether between the related subatomics or the simple large scale Newtonian physics.

That's why I got such a kick - as I'm sure many of us did - when the Higgs turned out to more or less disprove both kinds of universes. The weight was wrong, as if, with all deference to MM in this thread, the metaphysical G-d of the God Particle chuckled momentarily and went back to His work, pleased at the sheer conundrum of it all. (I suspect crawler has the right of it but aside from thinking about it metaphysically, that's beyond my grade...)

Hypothesizing an undetectable aether that wisps in and out of existence does not solve this problem.

But hypothesizing an aether fixes it. In point of logical fact, it's probably the only thing that can.

[webolife]

Of course the universe is cooperating, and we're the interlopers. That understood, the universe "behaves" at every level across space. Only if the aether is an actual or virtual solid can "action at a distance" be laid to rest. AAAD is the undeniably observable phenomenon that just doesn't go away at any scale of fluid aether without the invocation of absolute deterministic first cause. Just wondering how metaphysical a universe can you tolerate? Perhaps I'm inquiring about your recognition/tolerance of faith as a fundamental aspect of any physics?

[JHL]

Perhaps I'm inquiring about your recognition/tolerance of faith as a fundamental aspect of any physics?

Perhaps you are.

[webolife]

what exists also has a relationship to itself, a paradoxical state as I see it because that relative existence calls for an underlying frame or mode of sub- or extra-state communication and agreement. Whether that's aether or Higgs or what have you, the element that it seems to me at least that resists discovery - probably because it's logically impossible - is that sub-state that ties all states together, whether as an accepted Force on the very small end or as a guiding aspect of cosmology on the big end (both of which being articles of faith as much as material conditions).

Tell me more about your sub/extra state of communication and agreement.
As a believer in a unified field, I accept, recognize and anticipate that the nano-realm and macro operate according to the same set of underlying principles, governing light, gravitational and electrical phenomena alike. Unified infers connection in every level of existence.

[JHL]

Tell me more about your sub/extra state of communication and agreement.

Not to be obtuse, but I don't have one. I'm asking, not stating: It seems that since things inexorably do what they seemingly must that they are tied into an instantaneous or nearly instantaneous matrix, whether that be the most minuscule of states or the scale of the Universe itself.

Unified infers connection in every level of existence.

Indeed. And not to be specifically metaphysical, existence defies the default, which is void. It also defies purported internal law about itself, which seems to any elementary view to be one whale of a clue...

[webolife]

Can an object exist without "internal space"... how is this distinct from your precluded "void"?
Can two objects exist without space between?
Can you tell me more about the evasion of "internal law"?

[JHL]

Can an object exist without "internal space"

What sort of object? Is the universe such an object?

... how is this distinct from your precluded "void"?

I don't see that a void is precluded; it isn't in the standard model so it enjoys whatever credibility that infers. The void may be a default state (presumably, of statelessness) and the universe - to the point that its constants exist on a razor's edge of probability - may defy that state, assuming we can know or assert anything whatsoever about it which logically we cannot.

Can two objects exist without space between?

I haven't the faintest idea. Can objects exist as such so as to enjoy an intervening space?

Can you tell me more about the evasion of "internal law"?

I'm under the impression that entities cannot be created, only modified. Could we call that a natural law or would that be implausible?

I also don't know how any of that connects with actions at a distance or thought of whatever it is that connects everything in the causal relationship we call the universe, which I thought was the point. Do you what ties everything together, if anything?

[webolife]

Do you [have any idea] what ties everything together, if anything?

Here's the rub:
In an infinite universe, there can be no largest object/particle, but by definition neither can there be a smallest paricle. Therefore whatever aethereal matrix you concoct must be "turtles all the way down" so to speak, logically and virtually a solid [infinitely "dense"] aether. On the other hand, a finite universe must have a largest and smallest particle, which therefore have a finite space or diameter defining the[ir] size[s], and by logical necessity space between. If all these objects are set in motion, no universe as we know it will form. Some force/pressure acting in the space between [or beyond!] is required to congeal or otherwise form the objects into systems. That pressure is centropic, or gravitational in action, and operates across distance. That is what is observed, and that is what physics must describe, even if hard pressed to explain... "I fein no hypotheses" -- Sir Isaac
The holding force is measurable yet omni-prevalent.it manifests as atomic forces [electrical] and astronomic [gravitation]; and in my theory it is also the fundamental nature of light. In addition, mass and inertia, as well as angular momentum [the universal motion of objects], and entropy... all can be described as the result of universal centropy. Hence my frequent quip: Centropy is entropy.

[JHL]

Here's the rub:

[...]

The holding force is measurable yet omni-prevalent.

It surely seems to be, as it would in finite constructs in an infinite space: The contents of a universe consist only of a single astronaut, his feet strapped to a motorized turntable. Switch it on and presumably his arms fly out, the classic figure skater and Newton. Blink it out of existence. Does he pass out from the immediate change in state?

Reanimate the astronaut and introduce a single hydrogen atom an impossibly long distance away. (Or introduce our universe an impossibly long distance away.) Can he spin, by any means, if the relative arc of this atom approaches or exceeds C? Is there a limit to this limit, and which of the two original objects determines it? And how?

Can any of this occur in your construct? Are relationships (holding forces) relatively local and filamentary in a void that cannot limit this omni-prevalence?

Incidentally, any stack of turtles becomes illogical - which is why they were logically concocted - just as the two explanations we have for existence are equally unfathomable. The EU reconnected me, at least, with the metaphysical, from which the standard model became all the more obtuse. I'm not proposing an answer; in these ways I'm proposing there aren't any, and that the Wu Li masters only dance.

The whole place is as counter-intuitive as it is absolute.

[webolife]

Can any of this occur in your construct? Are relationships (holding forces) relatively local and filamentary in a void that cannot limit this omni-prevalence?

"Local" is whatever hierarchy you are looking at, atomic to astronomic. The field is unified.
"Filamentary" is a bit too one dimensional for me. I know a local geometer who reduces the fundamental geometry to a one-dimensional structure. But I definitely see a hexagonally based framework in the universal matrix. Force/pressure gradients operating angularly to the central action vector[s], etc.

The whole place is as counter-intuitive as it is absolute.

Perhaps, but the metaphysical paradigm switch may yield different intuition over time...
It may be simpler than anyone can think!

[JHL]

"Local" is whatever hierarchy you are looking at, atomic to astronomic. The field is unified.

That's the thing: If the field is unified local becomes problematic; and if the local is filamentary - by which I mean only related along its own channels in their here and now - then actions at a distance become problematic.

On the other hand, if C - which is a turgid, snail's pace in any large scale - is not what somehow binds everything, then whatever does bind everything renders the universe a very small construct across which C takes tens of billions of years to reach opposite points. Maybe the whole place is small, with an ability to become incredibly smaller within itself.

These are arbitrary, pointless abstractions, but the upshot is that these relationships seem to be as faithful - subatomics do subatomic things because they do - as they are absolute.

but the metaphysical paradigm switch may yield different intuition over time...
It may be simpler than anyone can think!

I think that's right. We're groping in a large, dark closet, inches from the face of the G-d we can never touch.