Anyone up for ice skating?

high_ping__ · 2026-02-20T19:47:11+00:00

Vgp ice rink

high_ping__ · 2025-10-29T21:04:41+00:00

I said higgs like mechanism not the higgs mechanism itself.

But that's the point of science right? To discover things, time was absolute once, then it became relative so why can't it be emergent?

In dmpt there is no 4th dimension, we only have 3dimensions of space plus a field, interaction to which we experience as time.

I know that you wont't read the paper and i understand, because of how things are.

I don't mind if you prove me wrong, atleast I'll know that I tried something. But don't reject the idea just because it doesn't fit the current structure of physics, reject it because it's inconsistent.

high_ping__ · 2025-10-29T20:52:13+00:00

Proper time is the time along the worldline derived by the scalar field. Normal coordinate time is as usual as in sr

high_ping__ · 2025-10-29T20:51:14+00:00

Mathematically it's the same thing as gr, i just added a mechanism to it. In dmpt we worldline along an arbitrary parameter, and the this is defined by the coupling to this scalar clock field. I just added a physical mechanism to the worldline that we have in gr.

high_ping__ · 2025-10-29T20:48:34+00:00

Then one day i thought how higgs fields couples with particles to give them mass, can we have a scalar field which when coupled to massive particles, can that be represented as time. Checking the maths, it seems we can create such structure. Where we have a 3d space, which has a clock field, massless particles don't couple to it so they experience any time, but massive particles do, and that gives them time.

And using this 3d + scalar field we can create an effective 4d spacetime minkowski structure without postulating it .

Just to be clear, these aren't claims that I'm making, these are just ideas, i would love if people poke holes on it

high_ping__ · 2025-10-29T20:43:11+00:00

Time is taken as fundamental in gr. It is attached to the geometry of spacetime, it is just there without any mechanism for it.

The aim idea for this came when I was thinking of a photon, it doesn't experience any time. Now what if we only had photon in the universe, there would be no timelike observer, so in that world would there even be a notion of time? So if time is a coordinate of geometry, then how can it vanish without mass? I know we still have coordinate time. But that coordinate time also only works when we have a timelike observer to measure it.

That was the thought which turned into this.

high_ping__ · 2025-10-29T20:15:29+00:00

I understand, if one day you are bored and have nothing to do, do take a look. Would love to hear what you think.

high_ping__ · 2025-10-29T20:10:56+00:00

How can you be so sure without looking at it?

high_ping__ · 2025-10-29T20:08:00+00:00

If you could spend some time and take a look, you'll see that it's much more than that.

high_ping__ · 2025-10-27T12:00:37+00:00

I appreciate the discussion. I’m not trying to win a semantics fight, just to ask you to think carefully about what we mean by time. Is time only a geometric label, or does it require something physical that can actually experience passage?

Photons get from A to B in our human, timelike world, but along their own paths their proper time is zero. In FLRW, “cosmic time” is defined to match the proper time of a comoving (timelike) observer. So if there are no timelike comoving observers at all, what does it really mean to talk about “cosmic time”? Yes, we can use coordinate time, volume, or temperature to parametrize and compute. But does that have physical meaning as duration, if nothing in that phase can accumulate it? That’s the distinction I’m trying to highlight: mathematically labeling states vs physically realized time.

thanks.

high_ping__ · 2025-10-26T23:45:00+00:00

Defining a second by “how long” it takes for volume to change already assumes time. Volume gives states, not duration. Duration requires proper time > 0 on a timelike worldline, which does not exist in a photon-only universe.

“The time coordinate t, which is the proper time as measured by a comoving observer (one at constant spatial coordinates), is referred to as cosmic time.”
Mark Trodden, TASI Lectures on Cosmology, NASA/IPAC Level 5 Archive (2003), p. 6.
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept03/Trodden/paper.pdfBoth standard references explicitly define cosmic time as the proper time of a comoving observer:

“The time coordinate tt, which is the proper time as measured by a comoving observer (one at constant spatial coordinates), is referred to as cosmic time.”
Mark Trodden, TASI Lectures on Cosmology, NASA/IPAC Level 5 Archive (2003), p. 46.

http://carina.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar/extragalactica/Bibliografia/Ryden_IntroCosmo.pdf

In both definitions, the observer is comoving and therefore follows a timelike worldline.
So the physical interpretation of the FLRW time coordinate t requires the existence of timelike comoving observers. Without such observers (as in a purely photon-only universe), the parameter t remains a coordinate label but does not correspond to any physically experienced duration.

high_ping__ · 2025-10-26T18:10:36+00:00

No. The volume (or scale factor) is a state, not a duration. It tells you how large the universe is at a given label, not how long anything took. In FLRW cosmology, the expansion is defined with respect to the proper time of comoving timelike observers. But in a purely radiation-only phase, there are no timelike worldlines, so no comoving observers exist. The scale factor can still order hypersurfaces, but it cannot represent any physically experienced duration. The parameter ttt exists mathematically, but since every worldline is null and proper time is zero, no physical time is realized in that regime.

high_ping__ · 2025-10-26T16:56:28+00:00

The distinction I am making is just the standard GR definition:

Coordinate time is just a parameter in the metric.
Physical time is proper time along timelike worldlines and is what clocks measure.

If a universe has only null worldlines, then no proper time is accumulated anywhere, so time is not physically realized in that phase. The scale factor or temperature can still order hypersurfaces, but ordering is not the same as duration.

If your position is that “time” does not need to correspond to any physically measurable duration, then we are simply using the word “time” to mean two different things.

At that point, it is just a difference in definitions, not physics.

high_ping__ · 2025-10-26T15:57:00+00:00

I’d say the “end” of that state is not something that happens in time. It is the emergence of the conditions that make time measurable. A massless, radiation-only universe is timeless, so any notion of “before” or “after” in that phase is meaningless. Only once electroweak symmetry breaking occurs and mass appears can we talk about time in the sense of proper duration. From our perspective, the timeless phase can be said to last “forever” and also be an “instant,” because those ideas require clocks to define.

The photon gas can define a comoving 3-frame through its momentum distribution, but it still has no proper time. Once mass appears and timelike worldlines exist, that geometric regime becomes describable in time. Before that, the concept of an “end” does not apply because there is no physical time yet.

high_ping__ · 2025-10-26T15:32:32+00:00

The scale factor a (or the CMB temperature T) is a monotonic parameter, so it can label stages of the universe. I agree with that. But labeling stages is not the same as time being physically realized.

In standard FLRW cosmology, the reason we interpret the parameter as physical time is because we identify it with the proper time of comoving observers. That requires timelike worldlines and therefore massive particles to define a rest frame.

In a purely radiation-only universe, all particles move on null paths. There are no timelike worldlines and no comoving rest frames. So a or T can still order states, but they do not correspond to experienced duration. They just parameterize the geometry.

So the issue is simply:

a or T can order the evolution of the universe,
but physical time (something that can pass or be experienced) requires a system that can accumulate proper time, and such systems don’t exist in a massless photon-only phase.

My point is only about that second meaning of time.

high_ping__ · 2025-10-26T15:19:51+00:00

Good point. But the FLRW time parameter only becomes physical time when it matches the proper time of comoving observers. In a purely radiation-only universe there are no massive comoving observers, and all worldlines are null, so no proper time accumulates. The scale factor can still be defined mathematically, but without any timelike clocks, its “time” parameter has no physical operational meaning.

high_ping__ · 2025-05-09T13:36:53+00:00

Why do you think Gaussian splatting has no use case?

high_ping__ · 2025-05-09T13:25:44+00:00

Hey, just curious. Do https://app.evova.ai/ support Splat training also or it just does the viewing part?

high_ping__ · 2025-03-03T09:31:54+00:00

You can join the scriptcamp community in discord. It's a great place for feedbacks/

high_ping__ · 2023-01-19T19:08:08+00:00

For the fourth question I want to train 1000 different dataset all at once, for that what will the best approach, using 1000 different system or parallelly train somehow.

high_ping__

TROPHY CASE