Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Vincent Vesterby: on 10/29/16 at 23:16pm UTC, wrote Hello Amrit, You wrote: “Time has only a mathematical existence.” ...

Jim Snowdon: on 10/19/16 at 20:19pm UTC, wrote Hi Vincent, I would refer you to my postings, that begin on...

Vincent Vesterby: on 10/19/16 at 16:00pm UTC, wrote Regarding the flow of time, Davies is correct, time does not flow. The...

Vincent Vesterby: on 10/5/16 at 19:01pm UTC, wrote Cannot get the links to work. will try again. ...

Vincent Vesterby: on 10/5/16 at 18:34pm UTC, wrote There is a paper posted to ResearchGate.net and to Academia.edu that...

DURGA DATTA.: on 6/29/16 at 4:11am UTC, wrote Let us just assume that time is a property in our universe. We can look at...

John: on 5/21/16 at 7:35am UTC, wrote The only way to look at it is philosophically. It will not make any sense...

Steve Dufourny: on 10/1/15 at 10:26am UTC, wrote Hello dear Ms Fractalwoman, Could you develop please a little,Id like to...



FQXi FORUM
March 25, 2017

ARTICLE: Q&A with Paul Davies: What is Time? [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Anonymous wrote on Feb. 17, 2014 @ 02:22 GMT
I'm not telling.

report post as inappropriate


Robert H McEachern wrote on Feb. 17, 2014 @ 04:37 GMT
"The time it takes for the signals to get to the brain and then through the motor system, back to the response, couldn't work. And yet..."

It does work!

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy"

Trouble is, the brain is not merely generating after-the-fact conscious reactions, but is responding to its own subconscious predictions of upcoming events, such as a tennis player hitting a ball, BEFORE the predicted event occurs, but not before the prediction itself.

"I think all of this is pretty fascinating stuff."

I agree, but there is nothing mysterious about it. This is, after all, what brains evolved to do.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Feb. 17, 2014 @ 11:11 GMT
To rephrase the first question and answer, on the stated assumption that as Paul Davies says "Time and Space are the framework in which we formulate all of our current theories of the universe" (and as what is good for the goose is good for the gander and both have even been married by some and called space-time)...

Is the motion of a place real or an illusion?

The motion of place is an illusion, and I don’t know very many scientists and philosophers who would disagree with that, to be perfectly honest. The reason that it is an illusion is when you stop to think, what does it even mean that a place (like a car) moves? When we say something moves like a river, what you mean is an element of the river at one moment is in a different place of an earlier moment. In other words, it moves with respect to place. But a place can’t move with respect to its place—place is place. A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that the claim that place does not move means that there is no motion, that motion does not exist. That’s nonsense. Motion of course exists. We measure it with speedometers. Speedometers don’t measure the motion of place, they measure intervals of space. Of course there are intervals of space between different places, that’s what speedometers measure.

Then,

"… if we have a multiverse with other universes, whether each one in a sense comes with its own time—you can only do an inter-comparison between the two if there was some way of sending signals from one to the other". So a universe can have its own time? Who then is picking quarrels with Sir Isaac Newton's Absolute Time as our own time?

Akinbo

*The above rephrasing was from Sir Isaac Newton, p.10/11, The parts of space are motionless...)

report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Feb. 17, 2014 @ 17:48 GMT
“The flow of time is an illusion…The reason that it is an illusion is when you stop to think, what does it even mean that time is flowing?”

“Time of course exists. We measure it with clocks. Clocks don’t measure the flow of time, they measure intervals of time. Of course there are intervals of time between different events, that’s what clocks measure.”

Time according to...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Feb. 17, 2014 @ 18:39 GMT
Having made this point way too many times before, it almost seems futile to keep making it, but the actual physics makes much more sense if we think of it, not as some 'flow' from past events to future ones, but the process by which events go from being in the future to being in the past. Ask yourself, does the earth 'flow,' from yesterday to tomorrow, or does tomorrow become yesterday because the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 17, 2014 @ 19:40 GMT
Actually, I am with you up until temperature...where you said,

"Temperature is every bit as foundational to reality as change/time."

Time is an axiom, but temperature is not an axiom and you seem to imply that temperature is axiomatic or foundational. Dimensionally, time is the differential of action with matter. Temperature is a property of matter, since dimensionally, temperature is the average kinetic energy of a large number of highly interacting particles or objects. Since energy is equivalent to matter, temperature is then a kind of matter and matter is the axiom, not temperature.

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Feb. 17, 2014 @ 21:56 GMT
Stephen,

Think of them as frequency and amplitude. The point is that if you can explain time as an aspect of action, then it's not an axiom. While we think of temperature as an average measure, on mass scales, temperature is the state to which energy reaches equilibrium, given more energetic particles give energy to less energetic ones, until the equilibrium state is reached. On the other hand, we think of time as more foundational than it is because our thought processes are sequential. Think how important the effect of temperature is to our metabolic functions. If you go to the most elemental state of energy, say the cosmic background radiation, or vacuum fluctuation, it would be described thermally, not temporally. It would only be when you began to isolate particular frequencies that any temporal measure could be ascribed to it.

I realize there is a lot of mental friction to seeing time and temperature on the same basis, but ask yourself, if that isn't due to mental processes being temporally based, whether narrative, or cause and effect logic. Temporal sequence is not actually causal. For instance, one day doesn't cause the next, nor does one wave cause the next. The sun shining on a rotating planet and wind across the water, vibrations, etc. are causal. It is the direct transfer of energy, not temporal sequence.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 18, 2014 @ 00:52 GMT
“…temperature is the state to which energy reaches equilibrium.”

Temperature is a property of matter. If you heat something up, it gains mass. That is not only how we think about heat and temperature, that is actually what happens when something heats up. An object does not have to be at equilibrium to have a temperature and an object can be at one temperature and still be far from its energy equilibrium.

“If you go to the most elemental state of energy, say the cosmic background radiation, it would be described thermally, not temporally.”

The most elemental state of energy is likewise described as matter, and also not as time.

“Temporal sequence is not causal…The sun shining is causal…”

It is true that time is not causal, action is. It is just not clear what that has to do with temperature. All action is in essence changes in energy of one kind or another or equivalently as changes in matter of one kind or another.

An axiom like time can only be defined in terms of all the other axioms, like the differential of action with matter is time. Time is not like just action and time is not like just matter. That doesn't mean that its not an axiom...that is the very definition of an axiom, that they define each other.

report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Feb. 17, 2014 @ 20:56 GMT
Whether spacetime has a prehistory fundamentally, how it emerges does not mean it is not real and that there exists a direct association with energy and thence, matter. I think it time to revisit the 'holy writ' of conservation laws and restrict the general application to the 'closed system' as meaning a discrete volume of energy existing as a field which can include a continuum of density variation precipitating (a) relative rest mass. Cosmologically, Hoyle deserves another look, and it is just as reasonable to conjecture energy as being a profoundly transit manifestation of continual recreation of the stress between the curvilinear and rectilinear geometrically when any tri-vector of space changes and so also projects a uni-vector (tensor) of time. Operationally the modern deficits observed in cosmology beg a 'continual creation' rationale. Count me among the uncommitted to the standard model. jrc

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 19, 2014 @ 17:30 GMT
Einstein not even mentioned? Hmm... Lee Smolin is more courageous:

"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

Philip Ball: "Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Roy Johnstone wrote on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 02:49 GMT
I think the first thing we need to do to really get to the heart of the fundamental nature of reality is to separate clearly the notion of what I call "operational time", which is what clocks measure, and actual *fundamental time*, which clocks cannot measure because they and the physical processes they are calibrated by can only occur *in* time.

For instance, the term "arrow of time" which is commomly framed in the context of thermodynamics or as Paul says the "asymmetry of time" has nothing to do directly with time, otherwise you get the absudity of time occuring in time!!

I think of time as purely a dimension in the same sense as space in that it is perfectly symmetric and notions of direction only emerge in the physical processes of objects in time as well as space, ie there are no directions of space only directions *in* space, the same applies with time.

Greater insights into the apparent time reversal symmetry violations in weak interactions might be gained if we approach it purely in relational terms using only the physical variables involved in the process themselves and not framing it in terms of varying "time" (operational only) intervals.

On the question fundamental or emergent? I there may be some sort of pre-space and/or pre-time, all I would say is the a timelike dimension must be a-priori to anything else that requires dynamics because without it *nothing* can happen. Wheeler said " time is what prevents everything from happening at once" (in the context of a GR "block universe" presumably). I would put it this way " time is what allows anything to happen at all"!

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 04:33 GMT
Roy,

There is very much a mental space of time all around us, memories, books, information, paths, virtually every perception is based on some continuity of events, but where is this dimension physically? Do the past and future physically exist and how, given the energy which manifested prior events was in a constant dynamic process of change to even make it physically real? If all those electrons and atoms and molecules and people were not moving about, then could they even exist? So since they are not in those prior moments, but are in the now moment, what is there to make those other moments real? What is more real; The event, or the present? Relativity treats the present as an illusion in order to say all events are eternally real, but it would seem from so much of the evidence around us, that it is only what is present which is real and it is constantly creating and dissolving those ephemeral circumstances, of which we all have spatially different perceptions and even orders.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 22, 2014 @ 16:01 GMT
________________________________________

”I think the first thing we need to do to really get to the heart of the fundamental nature of reality is to separate clearly the notion of what I call "operational time", which is what clocks measure, and actual *fundamental time*, which clocks cannot measure because they and the physical processes they are calibrated by can only occur *in*...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Feb. 22, 2014 @ 20:02 GMT
Main page of blog is broken since you put that line there. Will this fix?

report post as inappropriate


Fred Diether wrote on Feb. 22, 2014 @ 20:02 GMT
Nope. One more should fix. Someone can delete these two posts.

report post as inappropriate


Jim George Snowdon wrote on Feb. 25, 2014 @ 21:09 GMT
The Earth`s rotational motion is the fundamental physical mechanism responsible for maintaining our confusion over the nature of time.

Our rotational surface motion is approximately 1600 kilometers per hour at the equator. We live on a gigantic merry-go-round. We are physically immersed in this constant motionary milieu, at the same time, as we use this same motion, to measure duration elapsing.

We use the constant period of duration of our planet`s rotational motion, as the measurement baseline for our time keeping system. Duration elapsing is what our clocks measure. Duration elapsing is what we consciously experience.

report post as inappropriate

Jim George Snowdon replied on May. 25, 2014 @ 02:35 GMT
We have motion in our timeless Universe.

report post as inappropriate

Jim George Snowdon replied on Aug. 12, 2014 @ 16:16 GMT
Time does not exist as a thing or force in reality.

Space/time is really space/nothing. Real things exist, they endure, they happen. We consciously engage with what happens.

In the sense that one can say there is only the `now`, one can say there is only the `nothing`. We do have motion in our timeless Universe.

The title of my short essay in the first essay contest is `Things Happen`.

report post as inappropriate

Jim George Snowdon replied on Sep. 1, 2014 @ 18:53 GMT
We are permanently in the `now`. Everything that has ever happened, happened in the `now`. Remnants of all those happenings are still here with us, in the `now`. While it seems difficult to disprove time exists, it`s possible to prove it`s unnecessary, and not foundational.

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan Kerr wrote on Mar. 10, 2014 @ 16:35 GMT
I have a question for Paul Davies, on illusion time/emergent time. Either approach takes the apparent flow of time as a comparatively superficial effect, which presumably arrives 'after' the deeper physics, in the ordering of the layers that make up the world. It is block time, which comes directly and inevitably from Minkowski spacetime (via the Rietdijk-Putnam argument), that leads to this idea...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Mar. 11, 2014 @ 17:34 GMT
Time is duration of change which run in a timeless quantum vacuum

see our book at NOVA and article attached

https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.
php?products_id=48104

attachments: 2_Special_theory_of_relativity_postulated_on_homogeneity_of_space_and_time_and_on_relativity_principle.pdf

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Mar. 31, 2014 @ 18:40 GMT
Time is diration of change which run in a timeless space.

Duration does not run in time, duration is time.

attachments: 3_Special_theory_of_relativity_postulated_on_homogeneity_of_space_and_time_and_on_relativity_principle.pdf

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Apr. 10, 2014 @ 13:24 GMT
Time for sure is not 4th dimension of space. SR can be described in a 3D Euclidean space.

attachments: About_a_new_suggested_interpretation_of_special_theory_of.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Apr. 20, 2014 @ 21:06 GMT
Jonathan,

We cannot both physically describe and logically understand the same subject matter at the same time. They are two different and mutually exclusive approaches. How something appears and is conceived by us is way different from what things need to exist and operate logically and spontaneously as a universe.

Each time science has asked "why" the procedure has returned a "how". It is an asymptotic curve reaching for something outside its grasp. The conceptual, understanding and metaphysical lies beyond that line.

The question remains. What do YOU want?

Do you want to know the universe enough to be able to DO something with it?

(science, engineering, physics...)

Or, do you want to know what the universe is made of and understand logically why it DOES what it does?

(logic, material methaphysics,...)

An answer is always determined by the question. The proof must be tested within the system and domain holding both the question and the answer.



Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Apr. 21, 2014 @ 18:51 GMT
What will really boil the physics community's noodle is that the laws of general relativity, the physics constants G, h and c appear to have been imprinted upon something that closely resembles "spirit". Energy is stored in a tiny rolled up space-time; but when the laws of general relativity are created, they can only begin from nothingness: which is what happened with the big bang. I would say that the odds of a Creator are very good.

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel replied on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 02:10 GMT
Jason,

The universe may have started from nothingness. Of course, there cannot be nothingness and something at the same time. This would violate the non contradiction rule. There cannot be something and nothing at the same time. "Same Time" are the keywords here. The only thing that can exist without being at the same as nothingness is .... time itself. A universe abiding by the rule of non-contradiction and born from nothingness can only contain fleeting time and its variations. Early moments packed as much as possible into time variations leading to the highest orders of time curl. Then these variations replaced fleeting time itself that resumed expansion unrolling our space-time.

Time is continually created and does not follow conservation laws. On the other hand, the original time variations created in the first moments as particles and waves have been conserved. That's how I see it.

This logic gives no answer as to what/who caused the first spark of time....

Your call..

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 05:05 GMT
Hi Marcel,

In order to explain things like the origin of the big bang, how the physics constants are sustained, and why the standard model is it's present configuration, I decided to borrow from the paranormal. There are countless reports of activity of ghosts, spirits, grey aliens, psychic phenomena, remote viewing, astral projection, near death experiences, angels, demons and the list goes on. All of these things, including God, require the existence of an invisible substance called "spirit". Wave-functions, quantum fields and Higgs fields are all as ghostly as the ghosts that haunt their victims. Since Michelson-Morley can be discredited by realizing that they were looking for a particulate medium, not a quantum field medium, then really physics can quite easily steal "spirit" from the spiritualists and call it an n-dimensional field of unlimited n. Lots of strange and eerie things can happen in invisible n-dimensional fields, including the creation of the laws of physics and physics constants. By some strange mechanisms, the physics constants, Maxwell's equations, Einstein Equations and other necessary physics laws are imprinted upon spirit. Whether as a planned event by a Creator or just the laws of the universe in action, a clump of spirit became so imprinted by the natural laws of nature that it exploded and and gave birth to our universe.

The multiverse that gave birth to our reality can be as mysterious and inexplicable as it wishes.

Jason Wolfe

report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 23:03 GMT
Marcel,

If you think that an underlying spirit or aether is unfathomable, then take a look at the wave-function solution to the hydrogen atom.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hydrogen_Density_Plot
s.png

Truthfully, doesn't it look fuzzy, aetheric? Now imagine that the quantum vacuum also look the same way.

report post as inappropriate


James Dunn wrote on May. 14, 2014 @ 14:02 GMT
Referencing Quantum Entangled Singularities

QESdunn

Time is the numbers of evolving quantum causality step events relative to Space as systems of non-evolving systems of quantum causality step events; all moderated by a space/time singularity. As a crude model, similar to a crystal growing in a causal media where impurities moderate crystal growth.

Non-evolving steps of...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jun. 7, 2014 @ 21:02 GMT
Nobel Laureate David Gross in an interview "What is in the space-time" talking about the need to build "general framework structure". In my essay "The Absolute Generating Structure" I gave an extended version of the ontological conception "general framework structure", substantiation of structure and the nature of space. In my essay «Return of Logos: Ontological Memory-Information-Time» I defined the nature of "informtion" and "time" as a multivalent phenomena of the Ontological (structural, cosmic) memory substantiating the essential unity of the world on the "horizontal" and "vertical". To "grasp" the nature of time is necessary to return to dialectics and ontology "coincidence of opposites" -the absolute (unconditioned) states of matter and the generation of new structures.

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 8, 2014 @ 12:08 GMT
For English speakers, the David Gross interview is also here

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jun. 10, 2014 @ 10:12 GMT
Hello Akinbo! Thanks for the link! Conceptual crisis, understanding crisis is available. Deepening in the ontologic beginnings of the Universum is necessary. Key concept in both interviews - "structure". It is necessary on the basis of a method of ontologic construction to "grab" primordial structure of the Universum. Here it is necessary to go on the way of ontologic unification of a matter on all levels of the Universum as whole. It is necessary to "grab" the nature of all forces of the Universum, the nature of fundamental physical constants. Therefore it is necessary to "dig" more deeply in philosophical ontology, in dialectics of Nature. Today actual as never before becomes the philosophic legacy of A. Einstein: "At the present time, physicist has to deal with philosophic problems to a much greater extent than physicists of the previous generations" and the philosophic legacy of J. Wheeler "Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers".

Philosophical ontologic revolution in the physics base is necessary. When physicists will construct "the general framework structure" Universum, then the nature of time, forces, fundamental constants, information will be clear. Here the first assistant - "language of geometrical representations", instead of formulas.

report post as inappropriate


N Campling wrote on Jun. 17, 2014 @ 18:32 GMT
Can you tell me why DB Larson's Reciprocal Sytem theory of time (having 3 dimensions) is wrong?

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jun. 19, 2014 @ 09:45 GMT
DB Larson's Reciprocal System theory - phenomenological theory. It does not have deep ontology and dialectic "coincidence of opposites" - absolute rest and absolute motion of matter. In order to "grab" (understand) the nature and essence of time must first be "grab" the structure of space. "Understanding - grasping structure" (( G.Gutner Ontology mathematical discourse). Ontological basic structure of the Universum - it is the triunity of absolute states of matter: absolute rest (linear state) + absolute motion (vortex state) + absolute becoming (wave state). Each absolute state of matter has its way ("vector" absolute state). Basic structure («general framework structure» or Absolute generating structure) substantiates the triune (absolute) structure of space and time ("arrow of time" - "vertical" of the Universum, its hierarchy) three linear measurements + three vortex measurements + three wave measurements + three time measurement. Triune structure of the Universum has its ontological (structural, cosmic) memory-measure being the Universe as a whole, "quality quantity " absolute forms of existence of matter (absolute state). "Information" and "time" are multivalent phenomena of the Ontological (structural, cosmic) memory substantiating the essential unity of the Universum on the "horizontal" and "vertical". Idea of generating structures - central. It is based on the idea of N.Bourbaki about the maternal structures.(N.Bourbaki "Architecture of Mathematics")

report post as inappropriate


Darius M wrote on Jun. 22, 2014 @ 18:36 GMT
Time is what Kant called the act of spontaneity which generates the representation 'I think'. This act performs synthesis. I.e. time is mind processing information. Space is the medium where information is processed.

https://www.academia.edu/7347240/Our_Cognitive_Fra
mework_as_Quantum_Computer_Leibnizs_Theory_of_Monads_under_K
ants_Epistemology_and_Hegelian_Dialectic

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jun. 23, 2014 @ 17:33 GMT
Darius,

Kant's ideas require deeper ontologization otherwise immediately possible to "fall" in psychologism. Justification of knowledge requires extreme transcendence limit unification of matter on all floors being to "grab" the primordial structure of the universe, the nature and essence of time. It works well Kant's idea of conceptual and figure synthesis. Overcoming the "crisis of...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jerrold Kodish wrote on Jun. 27, 2014 @ 00:44 GMT
I have a short Amazon book "The Mental Creation of Time." It's a physics-based development of Leibniz's relationist concept that all physical activity is more fundamental than time. I argue that moments are the observer's mental unification of events (infinitesimal motion elements). In the end I argue that time is an emergent dimension of mind. The summary is free for you to read.

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 27, 2014 @ 17:52 GMT
Hi Jerrold,

Read the summary and congratulations on your book. The idea that "Thus all events (infinitesimal motion elements) are regarded as not being in time but instead as a basis for our sense of time" sits well with me.

But note that observation itself is an event and therefore must comprise of 'motion elements', how does this fit with you?

'Motion elements' meaning what? Motion from where to where?

'infinitesimal', is there ultimately a smallest possible size?

And by the way, what is the procedure to get published by Amazon books?

Thanks and regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate


Jerrold wrote on Jun. 27, 2014 @ 20:33 GMT
Akinbo: Observation is a complex physical and mental process rather than a simple event (as I define the latter in "The Mental Creation of Time").

Until the very speculative idea that space is quantized is confirmed, I will stick with the reasonable view that it is a continuum.

With "infinitesimal motion elements" I am referring to all things in relative motion.

Re publishing on Amazon, go to their kindle publishing site.

report post as inappropriate


Petio Hristov wrote on Jul. 6, 2014 @ 18:58 GMT
3.1. Time

A definition:

The time is initial and primordial. In generates all and can be looked upon as the mother of all that is to come. Everything has its own time. Time is a perceptible quantity and has a circular configuration with two separate, developing halves. The first half we see as real time and not only do we come from it but we also are a part of it. The other half is most recently considered by scientists as imaginary time even thought it is no more real than the real time. The two parts of time (real and imaginary) are different in their nature from the primordial time. The primordial time generates eight other times as each is a product of the previous. The time from which we spawn is of the sixth level of the All-harmony.



Hristov P., FATE OF THE WORLD 21.12.2012 the ancient knowledge of the cycles of time, 24, 29-31, Five Plus, 2012.

http://www.amazon.com/WORLD-21-12-2012-ancient-knowledg
e-cycles-ebook/dp/B008833DKA

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 4, 2014 @ 22:46 GMT
The semantics of time flowing seems specious to me. The way we experience the dimension of time is by the metaphore of flow. We stand in a stream. There is water coming at us - the future - and water that passed us by - the past.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 5, 2014 @ 00:50 GMT
I'snt it experienced more like standing blindfolded in the water seeing neither the future approaching or the past behind but just feeling the water around the ankles in the present? Then I question whether there is a future and a past or just the -Now of the water stimulating the sensory receptors on my skin. Then after the signal reaching my brain and being processed into sensation, experiencing that as my present within the -Now, in which the water is still stimulating my skin as yet un-felt.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Aug. 5, 2014 @ 04:38 GMT
The key to understanding time is in understanding objects. Objects are both the fossil record of past matter action as well as the matter action of the present moment. There is no way to understand objects without both dimensions of time...

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Aug. 21, 2014 @ 15:16 GMT
Time has only a mathematical existence.

report post as inappropriate

Vincent Vesterby replied on Oct. 29, 2016 @ 23:16 GMT
Hello Amrit,



You wrote: “Time has only a mathematical existence.”

My work involves developing methodology for multidiscipline-spanning transdisciplinary understanding that enhances communication between the disciplines. To develop the methodology it is necessary to examine and compare the real-world subject matters of the various disciplines.

Part of the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Aug. 21, 2014 @ 15:27 GMT
Time travel are out of question.

One can travel in space only.

report post as inappropriate


Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Aug. 30, 2014 @ 12:44 GMT
time has only a mathematical existence, change run in a timeless quantum vacuum there is always NOW.

report post as inappropriate

Amrit Srecko Sorli replied on Aug. 30, 2014 @ 12:46 GMT
see file attached

report post as inappropriate


Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Sep. 2, 2014 @ 07:49 GMT
The Physics of NOW - where time has only a mathematical existence.

attachments: 1_The_Physics_of_NOW.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Sep. 2, 2014 @ 10:02 GMT
Jim, Amrit et al., Peter J you may have something to say as well,

Concerning this enduring but interesting mental agitation about Time and the physics of 'NOW', it appears mathematics cannot save us. In my opinion what will save us is dialectic, discussing all the possibilities and reductio ad absurdum type arguments.

Jim says, "We are permanently in the `now`", "We have motion in our timeless Universe.."

And I ask, if you are permanently in your NOW and tomorrow moves and comes to meet you where you are, how is this to be described? Has time flowed?

How is this to be differentiated mathematically and philosophically from you leaving your Now and meeting tomorrow?

These appear to be the bones of contention. I may be wrong.

Akinbo

*Jim, will take a look at your essay soon and comment if I can make sense of it.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Sep. 2, 2014 @ 10:48 GMT
Tomorrow doesn't move Akinbo it doesn't exist. When it comes into being it is -Now. Time has not flowed but the configuration or arrangement of the Object universe has changed. From what it is to what it is, ahead of the observed present formed from received sensory data. There is no time dimension in that reality but we can imagine a time line along which events are spread.

That does not contradict the concept of space-time which is useful for describing what is observed or will be observed and depends on the transmission of sensory data from source objects to observer. The sensory data pool is a part of the Object universe. The Object universe being that which exists rather than that which is observed, the Image (or visible )universe.

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Sep. 2, 2014 @ 12:23 GMT
Georgina, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Call it an illusion or whatever name, it is a very persistent one as Einstein says. From your response, firstly you have a name for what you claim doesn't exist. Second, I am sure you have told someone today, (the Now), "goodnight and see you tomorrow". Why do you say this of what you know does not exist? Third, when you say, "Time has not flowed but the configuration or arrangement of the Object universe has changed", what does it mean for arrangement to change? If arrangement does not change is there no sense in wondering 'how long' an arrangement has remained unchanged? If the Earth stops spinning does that make Time come to a stop just because nights (or days) become permanently so?

I agree "There is no time dimension in that reality but we can imagine a time line along which events are spread". It would appear that without 'events' there would be no timeline. And it also appears that without 'motion' there can be no 'events'. And 'motion' implies 'change of place', bringing space (place) into the picture.

Finally, when you say (rephrasing), "When tomorrow comes into being it is - Now", what does 'comes' mean? In ordinary language motion is implied, can something that doesn't exist move?

While understanding your position, I still view this as a difficult topic.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 2, 2014 @ 13:51 GMT
Akinbo,

I have no 'mental agitation' about time, until I have to understand how others can ascribe qualities to it only applicable to entities.

To me it's clear than such qualities may only be applied only to 'signals', some of which are emitted by metronomic mechanisms we've decided to call "clocks". All 'signals' may be changed after emission, but how we can imagine that changes the mechanisms emission rate is quite beyond me. Fluctuations are either focussed or propagate spherically.

It seems more misleading still to imagine some 'entity' called time and ascribing terms like 'flow', 'dilation', 'motion', 'direction', 'curvature' or 'arrow'. Only once we separate emitted 'signal' fluctuations from the metaphysical 'concept' do I find our rational understanding of nature, motion and 'change' can significantly advance.

I believe Amrit takes the same simple logical position.

I wonder if other creatures (whose planet may rotate and orbit faster or slower than ours, and have divided those durations into equal periods of 'Glurg') may also cling on to the ancient and misleading concepts and beliefs which so many of us seem to. I somehow doubt even if any other creatures ON this planet have any 'mental agitation' about it!

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Sep. 3, 2014 @ 18:32 GMT
Time is duration of motion in timeless space.

report post as inappropriate

Jim George Snowdon replied on Sep. 9, 2014 @ 02:28 GMT
Hi Amrit,

I agree with your definition.

I said in my post on this thread, dated February 25th, 2,014, "We use the constant period of duration of our planet`s rotational motion, as the measurement baseline for our time keeping system. Duration elapsing is what our clocks measure. Duration elapsing is what we consciously experience."

report post as inappropriate

Matthew Marsden replied on Sep. 9, 2014 @ 16:37 GMT
ps: sorry for all the "actually"s

mm

report post as inappropriate


Matthew Marsden wrote on Sep. 5, 2014 @ 11:07 GMT
(couldn't see where original response went, so added it to main stream, links to follow , m.m.)



Dear Akinbo, (Steve, Georgina, Jim, Amrit, et al Hi :)


I don’t always join discussions like this but yours seem to be sensible and open minded. I came across your discussion because I have entered 3 videos in the FQXI “Show Me the Physics” on this site, and they...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Matthew Marsden replied on Sep. 5, 2014 @ 11:17 GMT
Dear Akinbo, Steve, Georgina, Jim, Amrit, et al

The FQXI link system here seems rather odd – you can link to the discussion on a video, but it doesn’t show the video at the top of the page !

You can see all the videos in the FQXi FORUM: FQXi Video Contest

here.

(mine, relating to my work on the possibility of timelessness as per the discussion, are...

Does Time exist? How 'Time travel Paradoxes' can't happen without "the past".

Time Travel,Timeless Answers to Prof Brian Cox's Science of Dr WHO

Time travel, Worm hole, billiard ball' paradox, Timelessly. (re Paul Davies- New scientist article)

Note: FQXI requests of course that any comments are made on the FQXI pages relating to the videos).

M.Marsden

report post as inappropriate

Matthew Marsden replied on Sep. 5, 2014 @ 11:22 GMT
Don't know why those links don't work, last try,

FQXi FORUM: FQXi Video Contest

relating to my work on the possibility of timelessness

Does Time exist? How 'Time travel Paradoxes' can't happen without "the past".

Time Travel,Timeless Answers to Prof Brian Cox's Science of Dr WHO

Time travel, Worm hole, billiard ball' paradox, Timelessly. (re Paul Davies- New scientist article)

Note: FQXI requests of course that any comments are made on the FQXI pages relating to the videos).

M.Marsden

report post as inappropriate

Matthew Marsden replied on Sep. 5, 2014 @ 11:31 GMT
(I followed the instructions, but no joy, anyone interested please look under contests, or cut paste http://fqxi.org/community/forum/category/31423)

mm

FQXi web site

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Sep. 5, 2014 @ 17:23 GMT
Science needs relevant and feasible clarifications rather airy-fairy opinions:

Is time an objective and ubiquitous measure? Obviously yes, if we ignore SR:

Correction for delay and Doppler shift provided, the time seen by A equals to the time seen by B and vice versa. This corresponds to the assumed equality of A and B as well as to any experience so far.

While there is no known natural point of reference in space, and any (usual) event-related time scale does also need an arbitrarily chosen point zero, current elapsed time and time to come have a natural zero, the point now. See my last but one essay

While future durations cannot be actually measured in advance, not just any clock is designed to measure duration of something that happened in the past.

Time is a measure that permanently grows and doesn't loop.

Even if there was a Big Bang, further speculations are unfounded and useless.

Objections? Additions?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 5, 2014 @ 17:34 GMT
I forgot mentioning that Heaviside managed to seemingly provide future data by analytic continuation in order to use complex Fourier transformation with nonsensical integration from minus to plus infinity.

Use of real-valued Cosine transformation is sufficient if one prefers to analyze only the already available past data.

This avoids redundancy and imperfections in signal processing, in particular of the spectrogram, and it has been successfully used in coding, e.g. MPEG.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 6, 2014 @ 06:23 GMT
Maybe, quantum physical tenets are effected? Let me first explain something correct but not very obvious: Redundancy in the sense of too much of data, does not contradict to incompleteness, i.e. not enough data.

I criticize that the use of time as a line that is infinitely extended to both sides instead of the two half-lines (rays) of past time and time to come implies using a (redundant) complex-valued rather than real-valued description.

That's why I early suspected that Schroedinger's heuristic trick (cf. his 4th communication in Ann Phys. 1924?) might be to blame for being a redundant i.e. incomplete description. Meanwhile, I got aware that Einstein correctly asked what does determine the lifetime of an atom if its description is complete, and he had the idea of a guiding (Fuehrungs-) wave even before de Broglie. Einstein's rejection of any spooky action at distance is certainly also correct, even if I question his SR.

Pleas check these arguments carefully. They may have unwelcome to many consequences.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 6, 2014 @ 14:22 GMT
I enjoyed Al Schneider's video "Is the Big Bang a Hoax" because of the possibility to easily understand the argumentation even without sound. I would appreciate the possibility to discuss with him anything of relevance concerning time.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Matthew Marsden wrote on Sep. 10, 2014 @ 09:46 GMT
Just some comments on the actual lead article to this forum.

Professor Davies says,

"time of course exists. We measure it with clocks. Clocks don’t measure the flow of time, they measure intervals of time. Of course there are intervals of time between different events, that’s what clocks measure".

But this seems to be jumping to conclusions, if we consider...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Sep. 11, 2014 @ 07:00 GMT
Let me defend Paul Davies. I guess your will not get much support. If I recall correctly some years ago I also used the expression "zeitlose Physik" but in a rather mocking attitude, in a critical meaning. In English I preferred "tense-less".

Kant, Poincaré, and Minkowski, the fathers of spacetime adopted the very old abstract concept of time scale along which the now is moving allegedly without any relevance for physics. They considered time as an a priori pre-existing dimension like space. Please find my explanation of the confusion in Fig. 1 of my 2012 essay "Questioning Pre-Mathematical Intuitions".

Did you enjoy seeing a movie running backward? This may illustrate how physics differs from reality. Physics always just provides models of reality.

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 11, 2014 @ 10:35 GMT
Eckard, Matt,

I think there is a lot of the dynamics of psychology involved. As I've been arguing, structure is necessarily static, while energy is inherently dynamic and since physics prides itself in being intellectually structured, it has a built in preference for very ordered forms and structured arguments. The result being a form of academic obsession with increasingly arcane points, such as teasing out how the math could prove non-locality and whether it means it is physically real, when physical intuition is obviously opposed, yet leave increasing numbers of conceptual issues, especially surrounding the issue of time, which was the topic of the very first contest, unanswered, because this static conclusion has been reached and presumably settled, to the members in standing of the community.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 11, 2014 @ 14:37 GMT
John M,

"Obsession with increasingly arcane points" surrounding the issue of time? Yes, when I checked the winning essays of the first contest, I was disappointed. Most of them dealt with efforts to reconcile time with what I indeed consider rather arcane: quantum gravity. Carlo Rovelli even dealt with Loop Quantum Gravity. Considering spacetime a gospel is common to the whole establishment. George Ellis tried what I consider impossible: unification of what is obvious with theory. While at least Sean Carroll preferred a "Heraclitean Universe", Klaus Kiefer spoke of "fundamental timelessness, and Julian Barbour meant that "duration and the behavior of clocks emerge from a timeless law that governs change".

While I don't see any reason to doubt that there are timeless laws, they all missed a perhaps decisive point: reality is different from even the most sophisticated models in that according to Popper, the border between past and future is open to a limitless multitude of memories from past processes.

That's why I don't expect any relevance of the winning essays in science and technology. They missed the chance to reveal possibly decisive basic mistakes.

Incidentally, did you meanwhile check the video "Is the Big Bang a Hoax"? Even if the presentation may be a bit simplifying, I regard it worth looking at, not just for kids. Can you recommend other videos, too? To me it looks as if a discussion is not welcome.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 12, 2014 @ 00:46 GMT
Eckard,

I will get to it, though it might be a little bit. I think I'm going to get myself a new computer for xmas. Right now various programs are out of date and some of the recent videos won't download and tell me to download the latest version, but that never seems to fully work on my satellite connection. It is one of my ways not to get too drawn into the online world.

Most of my finds, raising issues with current cosmology, I've posted here in various discussions. I suppose you saw where Zeeya put up a blog post, where I subsequently gathered them and added ones since.

For now I think it still has a few years before either the cosmological community comes to accept there is a real issue, or, more likely, has it thrust on them by overwhelming evidence, or a larger movement in the broader physics community, so I find myself more drawn to current events and how these various disparate historical narratives and their resulting political frames are bumping into one another and raising the social temperatures around the world, in a form of political global warming. The credit bubble sustaining the economic status quo looks far more unstable than the cosmological speculative bubble.

Regards and Best Wishes,

John M

report post as inappropriate


Matthew Marsden wrote on Sep. 13, 2014 @ 11:28 GMT
Hi Eckard,

in reply to

Maybe, I didn't understand what "very significant error" you are referring to. I maintain that SR denies an ubiquitous objective now.

The post attached below, that I made on the "what is space-time" video, may explain what i mean.

(I realllly cant type it all out again in a different format :)

Essentially I am suggesting there...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 14, 2014 @ 05:04 GMT
Temporal distance differs from spatial distance mainly in that it is forward directed while space has no naturally preferred direction. Both distances are independent of chosen objects and always positive measures in contrast to measures like e.g. velocity of motion that refer to a particular chosen object.

I see the very significant error in the application of the biased because observer-related and therefore paradoxically asymmetric so called Poincaré synchronization on two objects that are moving relatively to each other. Compare Fig. 2 with Fig. 1 in my last essay. This so called conventional synchronization corresponds to length contraction which was hypothesized by Lorentz in order to explain Michelson's Potsdam/Cleveland 1881/87 null result.

Therefore I don't see SR a discovery.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Matthew Marsden replied on Sep. 15, 2014 @ 10:18 GMT
Hi Eckard,

e.g. Re your use of the term “Temporal distance”.

you seem to be missing my point. For any scientific discussion about some “thing”, or “phenomena”, to be valid, ( e.g. a thing called “time”), one needs to establish that the phenomena can reasonable be said to exist.

I like posting on FQXI, because it calls itself the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 16, 2014 @ 16:02 GMT
I agree on that FQXi invited and hopefully will go on inviting new questions that may shutter tacit basic assumptions of science. Questioning the existence of time is certainly not new. Most winners of the first contest demonstrated their academic proficiency by efforts to defend space-time and denying some time notions of common sense.

If you ask whether or not something exists you mean is it something real, something actual. Mathematics shows that this is often a tricky and rather futile question. Does the square root of a negative number exist? Obviously not, unless one allows for imaginary numbers.

I feel ignored because I consider the usual, so called scientific notion of event-related time insufficient as soon as one considers how something exists in reality. Common sense has it: There is a complemenrary notion: elapsed time.

Einstein is often quoted having said: "Time is what the clock reads". Nobody can read future time. Any clock shows always only past time.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Sep. 22, 2014 @ 06:33 GMT
Steve Agnew,

On Sep. 13, 2014 @ 00:18 GMT you stated in Why Quantum:

1) There is a past because we have a memory of it, and so the matter of our memory represents an object of past time.

2) All objects represent past time and that is called proper time.

3) The present moment is just as you [John M] suggest, the second dimension of time, action time.

4) The...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Lee Bloomquist wrote on Oct. 3, 2014 @ 23:55 GMT
For some reason years ago I bought a book from a library sale for an old corporate research lab in physics-- Geoffrey M. Dixon's Division Algebras: Octonions, Quaternions, Complex Numbers and the Algebraic Design of Physics.

The idea seemed so simple. The Universe is made of distributed information systems, which follow the basic law of the Universe: Whatever's been created, can be destroyed.

I keep scanning the book for high school student level reading, but can find none. Turning the pages is like looking at a kaleidoscope. I'm blinded by spinning fibers of light and color. They draw me closer and closer the faster I turn the pages of the book. The pages spin like a wireframe water wheel, in an architecture of glittering mathematical intricacies.

Clearly, there was structure enough here, and a clear description of how one creates systems from parts, without damaging any of the parts.

And, how one can destroy a system simply by disassembling it, part by part, without damaging a single part.

For example, multiplying would be a model for assembling a system. Dividing would then be disassembling the system, very cleanly, by factoring a part away.

Each part was never harmed during assembly.

And each part was never harmed during disassembly.

That was all of the story I needed. Dixon had handled all the details.

And now it seems the same has happened in string theory.

So it seems

The Universe isn't made of particles and neither is it made of strings.

The Universe is made of systems that can be nondestructively assembled and disassembled into parts.

The Division Algebras model this kind of Universe in terms of multiplication and division.

post approved

John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 5, 2014 @ 10:46 GMT
Lee,

We exist at a very complex, intermediate level. Would those recycling information systems exist in an even broader spectrum of creation and dissolution? What is conserved is energy, but our only knowledge of it is as information. It seems the breakdown in our information models, uncertainty principle, quantum theory, etc, are because the dynamic energy cannot be fully encompassed/modeled within the context of an inherently static information paradigm.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 5, 2014 @ 11:22 GMT
cannot be fully encompassed/modeled within the context of an inherently static information paradigm, no matter how small the scale, or complex the pattern.

report post as inappropriate


Lee Bloomquist wrote on Oct. 6, 2014 @ 14:04 GMT
All of this is the context for Time.

As illustrated by the Twins' paradox from Relativity, the data show each thing has its own time. And in such a context it would be easy to install more structure into Time (for further mathematical analysis)--

Now = ( theUniqueMonadOfTime, Now )

where

theUniqueMonadOfTime = ( nonstandardPast, standardPresent, nonstandardFuture)

("nonstandard" per Abraham Robinson's book.

"non-wellFoundedSets" in Vicious Circles by Barwise and Moss)

And,

Each thing that exists has its own Now.

(Later the Nows will be linked together by various gearing interactions between relative possibilities.)

The process is "unfolding."

Unfolding a Now, we find aUniqueMonadOfTime, and the Now is like a flower--

The flower unfolds, but all the while, it is still one and itself, never stopping being the flower it is during the entire unfoldment.

Unfolding a "Now," you, the being, are at each instant always within the same Now, as long as you exist. So when you unfold a Now, Now stays with you throughout the entire process. That is to say, as something that exists in the Universe, you have to yourself a unique experience of unfolding your Now.

Each cycle of unfoldment may reveal a UniqueMonadOfTime, if you are so lucky as to maintain existence in the Universe.

After all, anything created, can be destroyed in a very clean fashion, as above.

But in this Universe, my awareness of Now unfolds into UniqueMonadsOfTime, one after another in a stream of unfoldment...

"UniqueMonadOfTime"

"UniqueMonadOfTime"

"UniqueMo
nadOfTime"

And so on.

While for each Unique Monad, I am aware of experiencing Now as always being itself within me, being for me the same and unchanging throughout the process of unfolding UniqueMonadsOfTime, for each thing that exists in the Universe.

post approved

John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 6, 2014 @ 23:08 GMT
Lee,

Time is how we experience this process of assembly and disassembly. Since we are only one point of perspective, we frame this process into a continuum of events and so we think of it as this now moving from past to future, yet it is these configurations being created and dissolved which come and go, so it is actually the future becoming past. To wit, it isn't the earth traveling some vector or dimension from the event that was yesterday to the event that will be tomorrow, but this planet turning relative to its light source which creates and dissolves these events called days.

As you say, each event is an unfolding, a blooming. Like the previous event was the seed casing from which the current event springs. That is because the energy is leaving that prior event, like the energy leaves a day, as the sun moves around to other's sunrises, so it fades from ours, as the new one gathers force. We think of one event leading to the next, but this sequence isn't causal. Yesterday doesn't cause today, but simply precedes it. Energy is causal. Light shining on a spinning planet causes these events of our perception called days. and it pours into us from all directions and we radiate it back out in all directions. It is just that we are mobile organisms and not plants, so we think of direction and momentum as being more elemental than they are, so we like sequence and narrative as explanations. Nature is much more thermodynamic.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate


Lee Bloomquist wrote on Oct. 13, 2014 @ 19:25 GMT
I get the idea from Dixon's work on the normed division algebras that more basic than particles, waves, or strings are *systems* made of parts, which can be assembled (by multiplication) and disassembled (by division). But this still leaves us with the parts to think about. I will make the attempt!

I get the idea from Barwise's work on non-well founded sets that a formula for time which is...

view entire post


post approved


Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Jan. 19, 2015 @ 11:32 GMT
time has only a math exitence, see www.fopi.info

attachments: 1_On_the_origin_of_the_observer.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 28, 2015 @ 11:19 GMT
Feynman Wrong about the Twin Paradox

Tim Maudlin: "...so many physicists strongly discourage questions about the nature of reality. The reigning attitude in physics has been "shut up and calculate": solve the equations, and do not ask questions about what they mean. But putting computation ahead of conceptual clarity can lead to confusion. Take, for example, relativity's iconic "twin...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on May. 5, 2015 @ 10:03 GMT
Abc2000ro: "Why is Einstein solution to the twin paradox different from the one on the internet? The solution to the twin paradox found on the internet is that the twin on Earth is on 1 frame the entire journey, while the twin in space is in 2 frames for the duration of the journey. However, in his own paper:...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on May. 9, 2015 @ 06:56 GMT
The twin paradox has a simpler (one way) version in Einstein's 1905 paper:

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on May. 10, 2015 @ 18:56 GMT
Brian Cox (03:56): "Time travel into the future is possible".

Comment:

Pentcho Valev 3 months ago:

Jim Al-Khalili is no time traveller in this experiment - the postulates of special relativity do NOT entail time travel into the future. The confusion goes back to 1905 when Einstein informed the gullible world that, although time dilation is symmetrical (either observer sees...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


LLOYD TAMARAPREYE OKOKO wrote on May. 9, 2015 @ 07:08 GMT
Every era of the scientific realm is endowed with masters or progenitors ;each with his own truth that cannot be ignored.The Upanisads constitute an often overlooked set of that truth that must needs be explored.

Best Wishes,

Lloyd Tamarapreye Okoko.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 13, 2015 @ 09:10 GMT
Einsteiniana: The youthfulness of the travelling twin is due to the turn-around acceleration, but at the same time it is not due to the turn-around acceleration:

Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity, 1918, Albert Einstein: "During the partial processes 2 and 4 the clock U1, going at a velocity v, runs indeed at a slower pace than the resting clock U2. However, this is...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on May. 15, 2015 @ 10:20 GMT
Einstein's 1905 postulates entail that, as shown in this picture, a single MOVING CLOCK SHOWS LESS TIME ELAPSED than multiple stationary clocks as it passes them consecutively. However, if the single clock is stationary and the multiple clocks moving, Einstein's postulates entail that this time the STATIONARY CLOCK SHOWS LESS TIME ELAPSED than the multiple moving clocks. Clearly Einstein's 1905 postulates do not entail that moving clocks run more slowly than stationary clocks, or that the travelling twin will return younger than his stationary brother.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 16, 2015 @ 04:38 GMT
Important to realize is that the clock device itself is never seen but an image is produced, from the sensory data emitted or reflected from the device. Sensory data is received and processed by the observer and the output of that is what is seen, within a space-time Image reality output.

So to clearly illustrate what is happening and avoid the confusion of time the regular...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 16, 2015 @ 22:56 GMT
Having replaced the clock time in the output space-time Image reality, replacing it with a not temporally associated tag, it is easy to see that the reality that emerges from processing of that data is an amalgamation of data pertaining to different configurations of the Object universe, an emergent space-time map.

The sense of vision that allows production and utilization of such maps is an important survival attribute for living organisms. That the map is emergent space time is just a consequence of its production from received sensory data but that distant objects also appear smaller due to visual angle enables decisions about proximity of predators, competitors and resources to be 'calculated' which is greatly advantageous for a living organism. Not only does light take minutely longer to reach an organisms sensory system, so does it take time for a predator or competitor to traverse that space interval and it also takes time for the organism to move itself towards resources. By time I am referring to sequential change in the arrangements of the constituents of the Object universe.

Non simultaneity of events for different observers can be regarded as a difference in their emergent space-time maps that have been produced from sensory data within the uni-temporal external reality.It is not an indication that the events witnessed in each observers present still exist as interactions of substantial bodies in external reality, IE persisting for all time within an external space-time continuum.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on May. 19, 2015 @ 10:21 GMT
What is time to the brain ? Perception of time delation,FQXi Talk by David Eaglemen This is great. David Eagleman mentions the very different processing of different types of sensory data. Eg.Sound sensory data being processed more quickly than visual sensory data. He presents a number of different kinds of data input types that cause perceptual time "delation", including anything novel or...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 19, 2015 @ 10:42 GMT
It is necessary to add the neurological effects to the output that would be obtained from sensory data receipt times alone or the output that would be obtained by a device treating all sensory data input in the same way *. This leads to yet another higher level of emergent reality * IE with out adding and diminishing delays, according to the particular stimulus, or causing synchronizations of outputs pertaining to stimuli received at different times.

David Eagleman asks what is t in our equations? I think from his very enlightening talk it is very important to segregate the Object reality of passage of time and the Image reality of time produced by brain processing of sensory data input.

From David Eagleman's work it can be seen that the Image reality produced depends upon the type of reality interface and possibly even the individual. Sensory data receipt alone does not always alone determine the temporal (Object universe Configuration origin ) amalgamation that is output. The sequence of sensory data input is modified by the complex processing prior to output leading to the experienced present in the case of the human Prime reality interface and quite likely all sentient's reality interfaces, aiding survival.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 19, 2015 @ 11:01 GMT
The higher level, biological affects, giving a sentient being's reality interface output, a further level of emergent reality, can be added to any simulation of conversion of source Object reality to Image reality via sensory data receipt alone, or including only a simple processing time equally applicably to all sensory data, as might apply to an inanimate device.

report post as inappropriate


James A Putnam wrote on May. 23, 2015 @ 15:13 GMT
Hi John,

Thank you for referencing A New Gamma. That essay plus the lengthy discussions that followed under Alternative Models of Reality:James A Putnam wrote on Feb. 21, 2015 @ 16:44 GMT A Pythagorean Geometry Proof of the Falsity of Relativity presented most of my view about the Lorentz Transforms. Most but not all. I am glad the essay sparked your imagination although our views seem to digress sharply. :) Your thoughts were very interesting to read. The essay shows that I find time to be unaffected.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 23, 2015 @ 23:45 GMT
Hi James,

I will try to make time to read your essay. I'm sorry for not already doing so. I read more than I commented upon but not yours. When you say "I find time to be unaffected" I wonder if we are so much in disagreement, as at the foundational level of reality, in the explanatory framework I have been using, passage of time happens regardless of what the constituents of the Object universe are doing. But I must read what you have written first before jumping to conclusions.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on May. 24, 2015 @ 21:09 GMT
Yes, you are getting very close. Your object reality time is absolute and your image reality time is relative. Excellent.

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 24, 2015 @ 06:34 GMT, "I just need to add to my previous post that: OR.configuration time is not affected by gravitation or motion , unlike Einstein's proper time. OR.data time and subsequent Basic IR. time is affected due to...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 24, 2015 @ 23:27 GMT
Hi Steve, All,

I'm glad you like it steve. I think there is an important difference between what time is and how we measure time. You have mentioned some regular periods but in practice adjustments need to be made regarding astronomical periods because of relativity and variation of the period. Individual atomic clocks also vary in period. A number of atomic clocks at different locations...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 24, 2015 @ 23:30 GMT
Steve, All,

Steve wrote" Sensation of time delays and other kinds of changes in objects are from where space and motion emerge." I agree with this with the proviso that this is emergent Image reality space and motion and not the external, foundational Object reality.

Steve also wrote " The two dimensions of absolute and relative times ......" The object universe doesn't have a time dimension being only the youngest iteration of a sequence of configurations that can be imagined but do not have substantial existence. This structure is important for overcoming Grandfather like paradoxes. The time line along which the sequence of configurations can be imagined is imaginary though it can still be useful to illustrate during which iteration an event occurred. Potential sensory data spread within the Object reality environment provides the semblance of a time dimension as it encodes events that have occurred 'over time' within it. But it is just sensory data spread within Object reality space. The output IR. basic or subjective is a space time output because it contains manifestations formed from data taking different lengths of time (iterations of the Object universe ) to arrive together or very close together, the further away the object the further back in time the origin of the data forming the image, and in that sense it has a time dimension.

Steve wrote "Not unlike the aether of ancient lore, OR or decay time is the thread that ties gravity and charge forces together. Unlike ancient lore, aether does not fill space...rather space emerges from the aether principle of matter decay. I don't understand this. I presume this pertains to your own model of reality. Please explain further if you wish.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on May. 25, 2015 @ 01:01 GMT
Yes, your various outlooks have a rather complex web of explanations. I jumped on the one explanation of a dual time because it made a lot of sense to me.

You do not seem to like the word dimensions for time, but prefer the phrase "OR time has a sequence of configurations that can be imagined but don't have substantial existence."

It is the philosopher in you that prefers elaborate explanations instead of simple word definitions. You mention that the OR timeline is imaginary...meaning that it doesn't exist outside of our mind. Which of course is the definition of objective reality. Of course it is imaginary. However, you did seem to say that OR configuration time is not affected by velocity or gravity...which means to me that it is absolute...but now you say it does not really exist.

Now you are taking that back...too bad...I liked the notion of an absolute time. It flies in the face of relativity but squeaks by as long as your IR time lets by-gones-be-bygones.

The grandfather paradox is very simple to dismiss with a decaying time. There is no sense to a past time as a dimension, only as a memory. Time's dimensions are a clock period and a period decay. The period decay keeps the clocks going in one direction because the are not quite reversible.

report post as inappropriate


FractalWoman wrote on Oct. 1, 2015 @ 01:47 GMT
Time is an emergent property of change, and change is built into the equation.

The Universe is an iterated function system (IFS), and it is the iteration process that generates change. One cannot undo change any more than one can undo an iteration. This is the reason for the "arrow of time". This is the reason for evolution. Time is an emergent property of change and endless undoable change is built into the equation. That is it. Mystery solved.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 1, 2015 @ 10:26 GMT
Hello dear Ms Fractalwoman,

Could you develop please a little,Id like to know more if you want well.

Do you consider this time like irreversible linked with the entropical Arrow of time respecting our second law of thermodynamics or reversibleconsidering the mathematical extrapolations of geometrical algebras breaking our symmetries?

Regards

report post as inappropriate


John wrote on May. 21, 2016 @ 07:35 GMT
The only way to look at it is philosophically. It will not make any sense to say it's emergent. That's just a fancy way of not knowing.

So philosophically, If God decides to create beings to share in his existence he might want them to *Grow instead of just *Know.

There might not be a reason for Time if we just Know everything. But to have Thoughts move and build in a physical world that moves- with things to discover that can be stored in memory as to draw on them and formulate ideas....well thats a reason for Time. Especially a blank slate--- a mind designed to bring forth Questions, Premises, so conclusions can be made, stored, and brought forth again to be combined with other conclusions in order to form even more complex ideas and if the person is not crippled by Bias.....Truth.

None of this is possible without free will. We collect, accept or reject, collect, store, grow and repeat until we are the person we chose to be. Time allows us ultimately reveal ourselves but it also allows us to change

report post as inappropriate


DURGA DAS DATTA. wrote on Jun. 29, 2016 @ 04:11 GMT
Let us just assume that time is a property in our universe. We can look at time as entropical , perception in our brain, measurements in atomic clocks, relativistic as per Einstein, absolute as per Newton etc. But what is real time ? Measurements of time by atomic clocks does not qualify time. Satellite time is not earth based lab time and we require GPS correction. But do you believe time dilates or rather tuned atomic clocks just vary their ticks/frequency due to change of gravity/reference frame. Here time is dilating or our measurement is dilating? We say time is a measurement between two events. Here comes the question of rate of flow from one event to another event. Event is changing due to a entropy gradient as cause and effect is a new event. Here the rate of flow may vary if the gradient pressure varies as we see in flow of water. If nothing changes in this universe, then does it mean that time stops or flows . Is there any universal absolute time or even multi- universal absolute time? We sometime perceive time differently. A week on vacation at a sea resort goes quickly than a week in a sea voyage. All matter and material in our universe is in motion and there is no absolute rest. As such we may not know absolute time , but that does not mean absolute time never exists. Therefore we have to be happy with only reflections of absolute time in various perspectives of entropy or relativistic or in our perception or in measurement by atomic clocks etc etc. When reality is impossible in a universe of reflections which is a variable from point to point ,then I do not know what can be done except imagining an absolute time.

report post as inappropriate


Vincent Vesterby wrote on Oct. 5, 2016 @ 18:34 GMT
There is a paper posted to ResearchGate.net and to Academia.edu that reports the identification of the basis of time in the universe. The paper provides the answers to the questions, What is time?, Why does time occur?, and Why does time have the specific qualities that it has?

People have been wondering about the nature of time for thousands of years. Nevertheless, no one has ever been...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Vincent Vesterby replied on Oct. 5, 2016 @ 19:01 GMT
Cannot get the links to work. will try again.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299437469_The
_Identification_of_the_Intrinsic_Nature_of_Time

https://www.a
cademia.edu/21710898/The_Identification_of_the_Intrinsic_Nat
ure_of_Time

report post as inappropriate

Vincent Vesterby replied on Oct. 19, 2016 @ 16:00 GMT
Regarding the flow of time, Davies is correct, time does not flow.

The analogy between a flowing river and time probably originated because it was recognized that both the river and time are cases of continuous ongoing change.

This analogy, however, introduces a significant confusion because the ongoing change of flowing involves movement of matter, but the ongoing change of time...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Jim George Snowdon replied on Oct. 19, 2016 @ 20:19 GMT
Hi Vincent,

I would refer you to my postings, that begin on February 25th, 2,014, in the column above.

I did write a one page essay in the first essay contest, but my postings above will give you the drift of my perspective.

I think you might find my perspective interesting.

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'E' and 'G':


Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.