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

Ingslot Vonnesline: on 8/22/16 at 9:40am UTC, wrote Barbour is one of the specials...what marks him out for me the most is the...

Pentcho Valev: on 2/2/16 at 16:50pm UTC, wrote "Vacuum has friction after all. In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty...

Eckard Blumschein: on 1/29/16 at 15:31pm UTC, wrote Pentcho, "a similar slowing could well be created in sound waves"?? Even...

Pentcho Valev: on 1/29/16 at 12:00pm UTC, wrote Olbers' Paradox Is Due to Slow Light ...

Pentcho Valev: on 1/4/16 at 17:44pm UTC, wrote Static Universe With Hubble Redshift ...

Thomas Ray: on 11/22/15 at 21:26pm UTC, wrote I can't help thinking that a purely Machian universe in which time is an...

Ron Wolf: on 11/22/15 at 17:56pm UTC, wrote Interesting, I'd like to know more. Pls point to a one (or several)...

Anonymous: on 4/4/15 at 13:41pm UTC, wrote I like being able to go back in time to previous articles and even comment...



FQXi FORUM
November 24, 2017

ARTICLE: Editor's Choice: The Non-Expanding Universe [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

amrit wrote on Aug. 25, 2009 @ 14:45 GMT
Yes Dr. Barbour is perfectly right: there is no time in the universe. The only time exists is inner time.

The universe is in a continuous change. A change n gets transformed into a change n+1, the change n+1 into a change n+2 and so on. Clocks measure a frequency, velocity and numerical order of change. Changes do not occur in time, changes occur in space only. Time is not a part of space. Space is timeless. In the space there is no past and no future. Past and future belong to the inner time that is a result of neuronal activity of the brain.

attachments: 1_With_Clocks_we_Measure.........pdf

report post as inappropriate

Marshall Barnes replied on Mar. 14, 2010 @ 16:38 GMT
Amrit:

Actually, Dr. Barbour is perfectly wrong. He's wrong on so many points that it takes up most of a chapter of a book that I have now in proposal form on the nature of time. However, I will leave the discussion of his ideas for a later time and probably a new paper that I will post at scientificblogging.com. In the meantime, however, allow me to deconstruct your statements which followed.

"The universe is in a continuous change."

If this is true, then time is real. Time is the dimension where events take place. In Barbour speak, time is that arrangement of Now slices that he talks about but is, by his own admission, incapable of slicing down to any minimal measurement. If you have change, then you have time, but it is wrong to believe that change equals time, because it doesn't.

"A change n gets transformed into a change n+1, the change n+1 into a change n+2 and so on."

If there is no time, then there is no transformations because those transformations, i.e. "changes" take time to take place. No time, no change.

"Clocks measure a frequency, velocity and numerical order of change. Changes do not occur in time, changes occur in space only."

Wrong. It's called a "space-time" continuum for a reason. Time and space are connected but serve different purposes. Space is where things go - tables, pizza, the moon, whatever. At 1 PM I can have an empty table by a window. At 9 PM I can have a pizza on that table and a view of the moon through that same window. The table and the window never moved yet things changed around them. Why did those things change? Because events took place over time to change them. If you take away time, you have nothing for change to take place in. No time, no change.

"Time is not a part of space. Space is timeless".

Again, "space-time continuum". Minkowski - "from this point on, time and space are inextricably connected". There is zero credible evidence to the contrary.

"In the space there is no past and no future. Past and future belong to the inner time that is a result of neuronal activity of the brain."

Really? If that were true we would not be able to view anything in space. The light reaching us from the sun takes time to get here from the moment of its radiance. Black holes in distant galaxies that we see might not even exist anymore because the light that we observe is millions of years old. Our entire view of the universe consists of looking into the past, a past that your statement says doesn't exist. Well, as Einstein pointed out, time is not absolute and our now, with that light from the black hole, is in the black hole's past from its view point, if it still exists.



Time is real. It is misunderstood, maligned, misrepresented, and denied. None of that changes the fact that time is real and none of that passes vigorous scrutiny, once it is applied.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 10, 2010 @ 07:16 GMT
Marshall,

Saying time is real does not make it a foundational element of universal structure. Unfortunately it is as you say misunderstood. It is a muddle of a number of different concepts. It is therefore difficult to get other people to understand what exactly is meant by saying time is not real, when our subjective experience is clearly that of time passing.

The pituitary gland in the brain regulates biological circadian rhythms so we are aware of a sense of time passing even without clocks to observe. Most arguments for the reality of time revolve around that undeniable perception. Memory, mental sense of a passage of time and prediction are useful for survival of an organism. That does not mean that the past or future exist outside of the mental model of reality.Existential time realms are nonsense and are a product of the brain and its processing, rather than foundational to the universal structure, imo.

Time is only useful within physics as a measurement tool for spatial or energetic change, which is occurring within space not space-time. You say that "if you have change then you have time" However that is an imposition of an entirely mental concept onto matter, particle or medium changing position within quaternion space or such a change identified as an energy change, it is not necessary to claim that it is a foundational dimension or component of the universal structure.

Space-time is a mathematical representation of reality built upon a misunderstanding. It is my opinion that there is only quaternion space within which continuous change in position of matter particle and medium occur. Every change in spatial position being an energy change, and every energy change being a spatial change in position of something. This can be represented by the use of 4 orthogonal spatio-energetic dimensions rather than 3 space and 1 time dimension.

You said "Again, "space-time continuum". Minkowski - "from this point on, time and space are inextricably connected". There is zero credible evidence to the contrary." I would say there is zero credible evidence that the imaginary realms of past and future have any existential reality. We do not look into the past when we view light from stars . We see an electromagnetic image of a spatial configuration which no longer has any material existence. It is an illusion not the material reality of the universe.The em radiation has changed position within quaternion space enabling it to be viewed and the matter of the universe has changed configuration within quaternion space, so the material existential universe is not the observed universe.

report post as inappropriate

Marshall Barnes replied on Apr. 19, 2010 @ 12:57 GMT
Georgina:

Like most time deniers your own comments are self contradictory. When you say that time is only useful as a tool to measure change you're ignoring the obvious - the change would have no place to happen if it weren't for time. You're cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's pretty sad, actually. For example:

"Every change in spatial position being an energy change,...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 25, 2009 @ 16:59 GMT
There is a little bit in me which says, "I don't get it." The Hamiltonian constraint in ADM relativity tells us that NH = 0, which in the canonical quantized setting says HΨ = 0, which is a Schrodinger equation with ∂Ψ[g]/∂t = 0 as well. So there are no dynamics here. The Wheeler DeWitt equation is a type of constraint equation on the wave functional, rather than an evolution equation. It tells us that on the configuration variables of Ψ[g], which are spatial surfaces g, there exist constraints. The WD equation then constrains the wave functional over a set of configuration variables.

In one sense this should not be surprising, for the time variable here is a coordinate time that is established by a gauge-like coordinate condition. Quantum field theory establishes equal time commutators of harmonic oscillators for fields. These are fixed on spatial surfaces, which start with a set established as Cauchy data on an initial spatial slice. The invariant time of general relativity is the proper time. So there are two important definitions of time in quantum physics and relativity. It is also worth noting that there is no time operator that is well defined. So there is no [T, H] = iħ, and time is not often regarded as quantized as such.

It is not clear to me that physics is meant to determine whether something like time or space exist. These are the fields of general relativity, and just as we indirectly infer the existence of electric and magnetic fields by the currents they induce on an antenna or some conducting media, we infer the “fields” of space and time by the motion of particles. We don’t really have any means to determine whether these fields actually exist, or to determine their ontological status --- to use philosophical language. Of course for linear plane parallel gravity waves in the weak field limit there are photon-like particles we call the graviton. The graviton departs from the photon in having two directions of polarization, or helicity = 2. So in principle a graviton detector is possible, though tough to build due to the weak nature of gravity.

Ultimately physics is an empirical science, so we can only go with what we can measure and record. We record time with clocks and measure the expansion of the universe from astronomical data of redshifted galaxies. So if time does not exist on some deeper level, there would have to be some experiment or observation which could be conducted to ascertain whether that is the case. We are ultimately faced with some open questions about the nature of time. Examples of these questions involve the unidirectionality of macro-time, the low entropy of the early universe, the quantum nature of time and so forth.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 25, 2009 @ 17:10 GMT
I am happy what our physic world beghins to encircle the whole of our cosmological structure .

It exists a secific dynamic of building .The physical Universal Sphere .

All datas shall show us that ,without any doubt .

The relativity and the perceoption always must be inserted in all models ,without that it's wind ,I think .

I am very pragamatic in my model ,the thermodynamics ,coherences and invariances are essentials ,without that it's impossible te encircle the physical realiy and its dynamic.

The time is a simple constant ,it exists ,it's like that .

The expansion needs limits and a better understanding ...and that to be pragmatic .

Sometimes I see some ideas and extrapolations ,and I say me ,OH my God ,it's not real sciences that ....it's time to admit some realities and physicalities in my opinion .

Only the proved datas permit to evolve in sciences .Thus a tri is important in a model .

sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 25, 2009 @ 17:20 GMT
Hi Amrit and Lawrence ,

In the past ,I always asked me why the Big Bang was interpreted like that ,with a design beginning with a center but not in spherical design ,it's bizare in fact all that .

In fact the Big bang explosion must be interpreted in 3D sphere with a maximum volume(balance expansion/contraction) and a maximum mass (ultim finished sphere).

It's more logic it seems to me to have a spherical system in evolution.We see our past but how see our present all is there thus the simulation must have fondations to well extrapolate and see the future with pragamatism ,the past too and of course the present thus.

The expansion is probaly a reality but needs some news developments in spherical logic .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Aug. 25, 2009 @ 17:59 GMT
Dear Lawrence B. Crowell

I would like to comment your statements: Ultimately physics is an empirical science, so we can only go with what we can measure and record. We record time with clocks and measure the expansion of the universe from astronomical data of redshifted galaxies. So if time does not exist on some deeper level, there would have to be some experiment or observation which could be conducted to ascertain whether that is the case. We are ultimately faced with some open questions about the nature of time. Examples of these questions involve the unidirectionality of macro-time, the low entropy of the early universe, the quantum nature of time and so forth.

Yes physics as empirical science has to admit that with clocks we measure frequency, velocity and numerical order of physical phenomena that run in the universe.

We do not need to prove that time does not exists in the universe because there is no experimental evidence on time at all.

Those who think that time exists should prove that with an experiment.

Universe is timeless, when we say it has 1300 billion years this makes sense only as a numerical order of events running in space that itself is timeless.



Sincerely yours Amrit

report post as inappropriate


Question wrote on Aug. 25, 2009 @ 18:03 GMT
Isn't 7 minutes 420 seconds? I mean I'm not Einstein, but...

report post as inappropriate

finally replied on Jun. 10, 2010 @ 17:15 GMT
thank you!

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Aug. 25, 2009 @ 18:08 GMT
clock does not run in space-time

clock run in space only

420 seconds is 420 "bing, bing" that we expeience in "inner time"

time is in the brain

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 25, 2009 @ 18:16 GMT
Amrit ,

I don't understand what you mean,the time is a constant of evolution ,invariable .It has no sense .Sorry but it's my opinion .

In the brain ,on Earth or in the quantum or in the limits of cosmologuical dimensions ....times is the same a CONSTANT OF EVOLUTION .

The Space time is bad understood it seems to me .....

We are in a physicality and its laws and our relativistic perception is different than the reality .

Times is everywhere in the physical Universe ,3D and a constant for times .

Without Time space don't evolove ,without space time hasn't sense .All is there .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 25, 2009 @ 18:18 GMT
Amrit ,

All our life shows us the existence of time ,all experiments prove its existence because it's an invarible constant ,coherent with all .

Only the space changes .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 25, 2009 @ 18:24 GMT
We don't need an experiment about time ,it's evident in fact .The only fact to think is a proof of this constant of evolution .

If the Time didn't exist ....all could be invisible without any physicality .

It's like the consciousness ,it exists somethings which don't need experiments .They exist and it's well like that ,thus all experiments about time shall be a lost of time ,all is there ,paradoxal and real .

Cheers

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 25, 2009 @ 18:36 GMT
To return about the expansion and our cosmological structure .

It's times to adapt the datas in spherical logic .

Let's take our great wall on the CfA or the Dark matter simulations .It's relevant about the spherization .

The great structures are relevants .

Let's take too the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) ,what shall be the datas without new parameters ?

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Sterling wrote on Aug. 25, 2009 @ 19:58 GMT
Excellent story on a very interesting person! I am glad I found this on Reddit.

I especially like his view on the expansion of the universe. Our current explanation for this phenomenon lacks a strict mathematical model. I look forward to this book.

Thank you for the article,

Sterling S.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 25, 2009 @ 20:23 GMT
Amrit, As I said physics does not tell us whether time exists or not. We might well argue that time as well as space are model structures we use. With classical gravity there was no test of whether lines of force radiated from a mass, but models with that structure reproduced what was observed. We use these because they manage to tell us something useful, which includes time.

How a clock works is a bit strange. The proper time of a particle is the invariant of relativity. Proper time is

ds^2 = g_{ab}dx^a dx^b = -c^2dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2,

where the last part is for flat spacetime. The particle will tick of time as the integral of ds, but to do so there has to be some inner workings --- a spring and ratchet-prawl device or oscillating atoms etc. So the time marked off by ds is then

ds = Hdt,

which for a stationary clock just gives H = c. But this intertwines proper time with standard or coordinate time.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 25, 2009 @ 20:30 GMT
Dear Sterling ,

All must be adapted ,not only the expansion but many extrapolations of perception.

The expansion have a specific sequence of evolution ,thus the accelereation and deceleration are variables in Time .

It exists not one expansion but a specific expansion ,it's the same with the contraction towards balance between mass .

I think really it's time to encircle the whole ,without that it's not important .

The ideas or models even in intersting minds ,must have pragamatism and rationality ,

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Louis Savain wrote on Aug. 25, 2009 @ 20:43 GMT
The truth is that neither time nor space exists. They both lead to an infinite regress. As counterintuitive as it may sound, a time dimension would make change/motion impossible. This is the reason that Karl Popper compared Einstein to Parmenides who, along with his famous pupil, Zeno of Elea, maintained that change was impossible. Popper wrote that spacetime is a block universe in which nothing happens. Source: Conjectures and Refutations. See also, Nasty Little Truth About Space.

report post as inappropriate


jason wrote on Aug. 25, 2009 @ 20:54 GMT
Interesting article, I look forward to reading his book as well. Makes me think that if humans evolved somewhere other than in an enviornment with out regular intervals of a sun/moon like underground, would we have developed a concept of time? Would our mathmatics be different? Everything does seem to be static and the same as it ever was. Only matter itself does change. I do not agree in the inflationary model and think that ideas such as this will end up leading to a better understanding of the universe.

report post as inappropriate


ChessGary wrote on Aug. 25, 2009 @ 21:03 GMT
"After picking up the phone precisely on time for this interview, he asked for seven minutes exactly to finish the remaining third of his cup of coffee, and was ready and waiting for my call, coffee cup drained, 560 seconds later."

7M*60S/1M=420S

report post as inappropriate


kP wrote on Aug. 25, 2009 @ 21:48 GMT
There are 420 seconds in 7 minutes

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 25, 2009 @ 22:21 GMT
there are 65 instances in a moment

report post as inappropriate


Koen wrote on Aug. 25, 2009 @ 22:22 GMT
Steve, I don't think the alleged non existence of time means once it is proven we can throw away all of our clocks....

As for how consciousness works and our perception of time, subjective experience cannot be said to be invalid, and this is not what this is on about.

report post as inappropriate


segfault wrote on Aug. 25, 2009 @ 22:53 GMT
My 7 minutes are equivalent to 560 of your seconds...

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 02:07 GMT
My 2 cents;

Is time the basis of motion, or an effect of it? Block time is that fourth dimension along which events exist. The alternative is that motion creates a series of configurations. The difference is that we appear to proceed along this fourth dimension from past events to future ones. If motion creates events, they go the other way, from being in the future, to being in the past. Does the earth travel the fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, or does tomorrow become yesterday because the earth rotates.

Because we are mobile organisms, the prejudice is that we move from one event to the next. The alternative is that we are integral components of these events and all we really perceive is past events receding into memory.

If time is simply a consequence of motion, it is similar to temperature. In fact a dimensionless point in time would be impossible, since that would require the cessation of the motion which created it.

So then the question is; what is space? The assumption seems to be that it is only what is measured, thus in its most reductionist form, it is the three dimensional grid. Do dimensions create space, or simply define it? Dimensions are lines/projections. The three which describe our position on the planet, longitude, latitude and altitude, are not the basis of the planetary space and our position on it, but are, literally, a map of it. Much of cosmology is based on the assumption that motion of matter and energy creates space. That space is created and expands from the singularity. Thus inflation theory can say the initial expansion was much greater than the speed of light, without worrying about how it might affect the vacuum energies of pre-existing space.

But all that leaves open the enormous question of where the singularity came from in the first place.

Consider it on purely geometric terms. If you were to postulate a zero in geometry, would it be the center point of the three dimensional grid, or would it be the empty space of the blank sheet of paper? It seems logical that it is the empty space. It is nothing and nothing is what we say space is. The center point may be the zero point for purposes of reference to other points on the grid, but of itself, it is one, not zero. Zero may be nothing, but it possesses the potential to be anything. Any specific center point, or any number of points might exist in it. Even a universal singularity.

It cannot have limits, as they would be something and space is nothing. We can draw lines and say they are space, but that presupposes the blank sheet of paper on which to draw lines. Dimensions are a description and consequence of space, just as time is a description and consequence of motion.

Dimensions and time are the vectors of the vacuum and the fluctuation.

Time and dimensions have a semi-mystical reputation which the scalars of temperature and volume do not, because we are mobile organisms, living a serial reality.

report post as inappropriate


username.com wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 02:28 GMT
our experiences are timed, beyond our experiences , outside of ourselves this relative experience does not exist. What exists or does not exist is unknown to us. Do we go on from here, do we live after life? When I ask this question i long to find timelessness, so that we can all go on...

report post as inappropriate


Julia Lewis wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 05:02 GMT
Definitely good food for thought. I read his book, which kind of boiled down to the idea that quantum mechanics says space is a grid and time is discrete, so time is just the sequence of states of the universe. Taken a step further are the people who see this as evidence that we live in a computer simulation. See Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument. Or Jim Elvidge's The Universe - Solved.

report post as inappropriate


Hear Hums wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 05:42 GMT
I'd like to read the book, if not all true at least really good food for thought and good contribution

"he estimates the probability he’ll turn out to be wrong is greater than 90%. "But should I be right, I would be assured a place in history," he laughs."

report post as inappropriate


Mike O. wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 05:47 GMT
Watching peeps take the path down the Einstinean pathway is sad. Black holes? Dark Matter? Fer crying out loud...even Einstein was uncomfortable with that. The Big Bang? Can't anyone conceive of infinity anymore?

If anyone has read the "Stucture of Scientific Revolution" (Kuhn), they might well question whether Einstein was just another bump along the way. To have turned generations of scientists to investigating corollaries of his theories might have been the biggest mistake of our time.

CERN will prove nothing to those amongst us who believe the smallest result will never serve as defining the fullest observations. Smash two bullets into each other, the result you will find serves as an answer to what happens when you smash tow bullets together, nothing more....

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 06:09 GMT
Lawrence, my proposal here is that in physics we have to stop thinking in terms of time, because there is no experimental evidence of space-time as a physical reality. Space-time is merely a mathematical model.

Space is timeless and with clocks we measure frequency, velocity and numerical order of physical events in space.

Symbol “t” in equations means exactly “clocks tick” not more and not less.

t = clock tick

Concept of timeless quantum space and time t as a “clock tick” is a basis for theory that will connect GR and QM.

Yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 06:26 GMT
Hi Steve, Hi John

JOHN - Is time the basis of motion, or an effect of it?

STEVE - I don't understand what you mean,the time is a constant of evolution ,invariable .It has no sense .Sorry but it's my opinion .

Amrit - Symbol t in equations meaning is "clock tick". Time is not the basis of motion nor is effect of it. Time is a “clock tick”. Motion is essential property of the universe that is in a permanent dynamic equilibrium, no beginning and no end.

Evolution runs in space only and not in time. Evolution of life is a consistent part of cosmic dynamics.

see more on file attached

attachments: 2_With_Clocks_we_Measure.........pdf

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 07:53 GMT
Hi Amrit ,

I think really what the time space are both considered in evolution ,one without the other is impossible for our specific dynamic.

The physicality is different than the eternity behind walls .

The beginning of our Universe is a reality and the end too but this end is not a real end but a begining of improvement between mass and creativity .

Thus the ultim balance is not an end but an eternity .

It's important to make some differences between the unknew and the physical Universe .

In our physical world ,these equations with time are essentials to calculate and extrapolate in this constant of evolution.

The motion is static without time thus any evolution ....

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 08:22 GMT
Steve motion happens in space only, all experimental data confirm that.

symbol “t” represents “tick” of clocks t=tick of clock

forget time as a physical reality the only time that exists is inner time that is based on neuronal dynamics of the brain, recent research conform that, see my article above.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 08:33 GMT
Amrit ,

Ok but I can't forget time ,it's impossible for the evolution .

Eve if researchs try to do that ,I won't change my definition of time.I can't do that ,really .If I forget the time ,all is different and hasn't sense in my physical model .

The inner Time is interesting but I can't do that .If I apply that ,I don't see any evolution between mass ,vegetals ,animals ,minerals .....

I am going to reread your article .

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 08:44 GMT
Amrit ,

In your article you say

"The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) experiment similarly reminds us that physical space is a

timeless environment. There is no discernible signal in the form of a photon travelling between

A and B. The time of information transfer between A and B is essentially zero. We might infer

that A and B are extended entities. The timeless space represents an immediate

communication medium between the quanta A and B ."

I think what in a local system where the linear velocity of light is the informations ,it's logic to have this 0 time .

Because it's impossible at this moment to find the real dynamic of informations.It's too speedly for our perception and thus objective datas .

I see in your model a linear particle speeder than the light ,I beleive what the restricted relativity and general relativity must have gauges .

I really doubt about the immediate tranfer of informations .Near 0 is different than 0 ,the decimals in fact ...

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 09:02 GMT
Steve evolution run in timeless space, all run in timeless space.

Strange but is so. Experimental data confirm that. We give much importance to time, we are not aware that we project “Inner time” in physical reality. Insight about that will be “Third Revolution of Physics” as Barbour say in his book The End of Time.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 09:59 GMT
Steve,

"The motion is static without time thus any evolution ...."

Keep in mind that it is always "now."

We understand motion in space is relative. Are you walking along the earth, or is the earth moving past your feet. The same applies to time. Our point of observation, the now, goes from past events to future ones, but these events go from being in the future to being in the past. Our classic, rational cause and effect, historical narrative concept of time is that we go from past events to future ones. The problem is when we try to construct a physical understanding of time based on that assumption and have to keep building increasingly complex models to explain it, going from Newton's absolute flow of time on to Einstein's relative fourth dimension, but ask yourself, does the earth really travel the fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, or does tomorrow become yesterday because the earth rotates?

We are mobile organisms and naturally think of ourselves as moving from one event to the next, but we really are integral aspects of these events. When we are born, the units of time that are our lives are in the future, then in the past, when we die.

It solves the quantum mechanical dilemma of how reality can seem to be both deterministic and probabilistic at the same time, without requiring it to break into multiple realities every time a variable situation occurs, since it is the wave of future probabilities collapsing into the series of past events, not the path of past events pushing into future options.

report post as inappropriate


madhuri latha K. wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 10:26 GMT
Really, i wondered by this but a little bit doubt that if there is no time is not predictable ofcourse, we assume so then there will be one more reference frame which is to be comparable i.e; the theory of relativity. obviously when relativity takes place simply we can guess whether it is expanding or contracting or stationary.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 10:32 GMT
John,

It's interesting indeed .

I beleive what without time ,the Earth don't rotate .

It s the same about the relativity ,the perception is important.

It's like if we are in a train and about the motion between two persons in a train and an other static on ground ....more the rotations of Earth ,more the rotations around the sum ,more the rotation aroud our BH and ......around our universal center .Thus of course the motion is relaticvistic but all that in Time evolution ...it's foundamental I think .

The rotations of our Earth ,yesterday or tomorrow are in an evolution logic ,thus the past is the past ,the present the present and the future an improvement .All interpretations shan't change this reality of evolution .The fourth dimension must have limits .The determinism and the probability are balanced where the harmony between them is foundamenatl .But It's just a suggestion .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Stee Dufourny wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 11:16 GMT
Hi dear madhuri latha K.,

Nice to meet you .

It's interesting ..."it is expanding or contracting or stationary."

I really beleive what the system is specific

thus Big Bang or multiplication.....acceleration towards maximum volume ,contraction towards stationary Sphere (end of physicality thus beginning of eternity ).

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Henri Salles wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 13:36 GMT
Julian Barbour is mentioning two basic questions: What is time? What is motion?

I have been thinking about these questions for over 10 years myself.

And I have a partial answer:

Time is fictitious motion is real!

As such, as the fabric of the universe, motion is far more credible than time and space are!

The only problem with the above is that motion is as fictitious as time in the science of physics.

If you read paragraph 6 starting with:

“ To get a handles on Mach’s viewpoint.... “ You should end up convinced (along with physicists) that motion is as elusive as time!

Yet if your body takes the place of the spinning electron, even in an empty universe you will feel the centrifugal force.... Not only that but you will also feel a linear accelerated motion, even in an empty universe.

The reality of motion needs neither the backdrop of the stars nor a human reference system to occur!

There is an easy solution to the non-expansion of the universe click:

Hubble red shift differing interpretation

Yet now, as for the interpretation of motion above, physics comes and forbids a non-expanding universe!

Even though big bang was originally inferred from expansion, things have now turned around. In physics big bang became reality! And big bang now mandates the expansion of the universe in physics!

As such, if we make our way against conventional thinking, without expansion, the universe must also be implemented (in our human minds) without big bang or without beginning.

Fortunately again motion (if you consider motion as being physical as I do) provides an answer:

What is motion?

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 17:11 GMT
Hi dear Mr Salles ,

I have sen your website ,it's interesting .

I think what all is linked ,the motion don't exist without space or Time .In fact these peices ,the 3 pieces are essentials to encircle the whole of this dynamic.

One without the other is impossible .

The expansion is a step ,thus needs a good simulation where datas and pragmatisms are essentials .The expansion is not infinite .The contraction which is different than a Big Crunch ,as the Big Bang which is a multiplication,coded .

All is a question of evolution ,the evolution is essential too ,and that in all centers of interest .Maths ,physics,biology,chemistry,astronomy,cosmology,philosophy...
.A theory must be present in all cenetrs of interest .

Let's take the fruits ,sphericals ,the flowers ,the seeds ,the cells ,the elementary particles ,the big human revoluton ,rotations(wheels,pullies...),our prefered sports(with a sphere),our eggs ,our gravitational waves ,our quantum and cosmological spheres ,ans so many too .

The spherization and spheresz ,spheroids ,circles ,toris ....are everywhere ,it exists a real spherization everywhere .Furthermore this ultim aim shows us this building and ultim harmony.

It exists sometimes some incredible simple answers where the complexity returns to the simplicity .

My conclusion is a long research in all topics .Eureka hihihihi

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 00:57 GMT
Amrit: a clock records time, Everything a ratchet-pawl locks in a toothed wheel someting irreversible has happened. A clock demarks time according to intervals, which are regular enough and require some irreversible loss of energy. Thermodynamics on a large scale appears of great importance.

LC

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 06:09 GMT
Lawrence, A clock does not record time. Clock »tick« itself is time. We have no experimental evidence of time existing. Thermodynamics change run in timeless space, with clocks we measure their numerical order.

Regarding universe expanding we know that 80% of red shift belongs to gravitational shift. If universe would expand has to be explained from where energy of quantum space is continuously creating? Big bang is against firs law of thermodynamics and inflation phase too. Energy of matter and energy of space i.e. gravitational energy cannot multiplicate out of nothing as Hawking suggest in his book “Brief History of time”. He says as -1 + 1 = 0, -2+2 =0 in the same way sum of gravitational (space ) energy that is negative and energy of matter that is positive are multiplicating in inflation phase. Energy is not positive or negative, energy just is. Basic unit of energy is quanta of space QS that cannot be created and not destroyed. It is eternal, non-created. In black holes density of matter is high, density of quantum space is low. Because of that in black holes matter transforms in QS. In AGN density of quantum space is high, density of matter is low and so QS transform in elementary particles that creates matter. This process is ongoing, eternal, universe is eternal, no creation. And this eternity is in this present moment, ETERNITY IS NOW.

QS has a volume of Planck and changes his electrical charge from positive to negative in a Planck time. QS is bipolar and is basic quanta of energy out of which all is made. This basic frequency of QS is consciousness itself. Quantum space is consciousness itself. Because of hat matter has tendency to evolve to living organisms that search for consciousness. All universe is alive.

Our civilization is still imprisoned in the mind and because of that he ultimate goal of physics is to awake the observer. My essay here on FQXI is about that. If you wish you can give a vote for me.

Yours amrit

report post as inappropriate

Larryjphotograhy replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 10:05 GMT
Right on Armrit. We don't see that which we have no knowledge of. We preceive our universe as we become conscious of it.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 06:44 GMT
PS

Regarding how big is universe: universe is too big to be discussed how big it is. We will never know that. If we describe universe with Euclid infinite space, universe is infinite, if we describe with Riemann space, universe is finite. So our experiencing of the universe depends on which geometry we use.

Would be better to observe how universe works in our observable area and out of these taking solutions for how universe functions in generally.

In black holes matter transforms into quantum in AGN quantum space transforms into matter. This according my speculations is basic dynamics that works out for the whole universe.

All discussions about beginning of the universe are out of question. They require creator, god. We know that universe itself is god. As there is no time behind “tick” of clock there is no god behind the universe. For this comprehension one need to wake up the observer in him/her self.

report post as inappropriate


Brian Beverly wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 08:20 GMT
The article and threads just gave me a contact high.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 08:49 GMT
These threads personally permit to evolve because we learn all days in complemenatrity .

Let's forget the individualism please all.

Amrit your works is too high spiritually for some people about the eternity .

I understand your message about ETERNITY IS NOW .But we are in a physical sphere in building and thus you must explain that with the balance between them ,the unknew and the physicality .

If you don't make that ,many people shan't understand your works I think .

In all case it's very relevant about the walls .....you are already far and unfortunally all people don't see like that thus a balance is primordial for your development in all centers of studies.

Steve

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 08:59 GMT
Steve clocks »tick« in timeless space that is eternity itself. There is nothing spiritual here. This is the scientific fact. In space "before" and "after" exists only as a numerical order of change. Numerical order of change is the only physical time i.e. "arrov of time" that exists.

Absolutely change do not run in space-time. Space-time meant to be physical reality is the biggest misunderstanding of physics of last century.

Barbour and company we are improving that mistake here.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 09:08 GMT
Amrit ,

How can you speak about eternity without spirituality ,there I don't understand .

It's your choice ,I respect that ,good road .I have said all about that .

Congratulations to all ,to your team .Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 09:18 GMT
Steve if quantum space is timeless this means that quantum space is eternal too. Eternal is all what is not in time. Here we see nothing is in time, time is part of the mind. So even mind is not in time, also mind is in eternity.

Conscious observer is aware of that.

Conscious observer in physics is the end of nations, religion and all that unnecessary human identifications hat creates manipulation violence and war.

Conscious observer means inner peace, means knowing yourself and universe as well.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 09:37 GMT
Amrit ,

Don't confuse the spirituality which is universal and the religions and the power of check.

All ,that is different ,in our U8niverse it exists any differences between all .Because all is a fractal of this entity in building .

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Roy Johnstone wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 11:29 GMT
I can agree with Mr Barbour's banishment of time, for different reasons which I will get to, but not with his banishment of motion.

Firstly to time. I totally agree that time can only be understood in terms of change(constrained by entropy) which gives us the perception of temporal "direction", and unique configurations(as stored in the memory of conscious observers) which give us the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 17:39 GMT
Amrit,

Any process which counts is a sort of clock, so long as there are even intervals between the iterations. This in a way is defining time as measured by a clock with a reference to time itself. Physics is a bit that way, such as matter defined as anything which occupies space and has mass. The clock does not prove the existence of time. In fact physics does not prove the existence of anything. All physics does is to predict the value of some observable based on how some detector records a value. These observables are codified according to various entities in relationships with other entities. Some of these entities are not directly measurable, but inferred from the detection of other observables.

Johnstone: When it comes to the polarization states of a gravity wave one can see this with weak gravity waves. The metric for flat spacetime is g^0_{ab} with diagonal elements [1,-1,-1,-1]. A gravity wave is a perturbation on this flat metric so g_{ab} = g^0_{ab} + h_{ab}. . If we crank the Einstein field equation on this we find

∂^c∂_ch_{ab} – (1/2)g^0{ab}∂_a∂_b h = (16πG/c^4)T_{ab}

which can be reduced to a wave equation for h’_{ab} = h_{ab} – (1/2)g^0{ab} h of the form

(∆ - ∂^2/∂t^2)h’_{ab} = (16πG/c^4)T_{ab}.

The reduced metric term has two independent solutions h_+, h_- for the two directions of polarizations. A gravity wave in free spacetime is where T_{ab} = 0, and if the region of solution includes the source some form of T_{ab} must be included

Physically this can be seen in the effect of a gravity wave on a cloud of particles. If the cloud is initially a sphere the gravity wave will induce a motion where the sphere distends into an ellipsoid with antipodal poles pointing one way and then it oscillates to an ellipsoid with the antipodal pole pointing in a perpendicular direction. The gravity wave is incident along a direction perpendicular to both of these directions, which are the polarization directions.

Cheers, LC

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 19:51 GMT
Hi all ,

There that becomes very interesting .I learn like all times .

What is this cloud of spheres ?What is this entanglement ,what is their volumes too .

Many questions in fact but we shall find soon .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 20:35 GMT
Lawrence, material change clocks tick including run in space. There is no time behind this change, there is no time behind motion.

Ragarding Barbour statement that motion is an illusion I deeply disagree too. I wrote him letter about that few years ago and he did not comment.

Understanding in physics today is that motion requires time. Motion is fundamental property of the universe.

We still experience universe in mind model of 4 dimensional space where time is 4th dimension. We have to drop that model.

Universe is existing in gravitational field i.e. quantum space where there is no time at all.

Time enters into existence with measuring, with inventing clocks. Until we drop time physics will stagnate.

It is an immence beauty and elegance in model of timeless gravity field i.e. quantum space where material change run.

How that only few we see that ?

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 22:39 GMT
One of the things I have pondered, though not worked on seriously, is how relativistic interpretations of time are related to quantum interpretations. Johnstone mentioned the evolving block time. We migth well imagine that there is a quantum aspect to this evolution, such as a quantum superposition of "blocks." Then what we mark at time is how our superposition of blocks is reduced to separate paths, similar to Many Worlds Interpretation. A comparison between the ontology of time a Bell inequalities in space and time might be interesting as well. The Wheeler Delayed Choice might suggest a that time fundamentally does not exist for wave functions, and are only imposed by use on spacetime. So if there is some equivalency here between time and quantum interpretations we might have here that time does not exist. Then we can switch to Bohm's idea, which would correspond to a block time universe with some pilot wave associated with the block.

I am not a partisan to any quantum interpretation, but I find them interesting. Similarly I have no committed idea about the existence of time. What might be of interest is whether interpretations of quanta and time have certain parallels.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 03:01 GMT
Julian is in my opinion correct in that all measurement, grids, co-ordinates etc. are imposed upon reality rather than them being anything absolute and in themselves foundational. It is always just the observers reference frame that is imposed.I look forward to reading his book.

Julian's viewpoint does cause some problems for comprehending and operating in the universe, which still requires some kind of orientation and measurement. The bridge between objective reality without any measurement or absolute orientation may be a model of that reality onto which an artificial reference framework is imposed, despite it not having any real existence outside of the model. Einstein's space-time is such a model.

If the universe is considered as a hypersphere, as many people have suggested, then two absolute references can be made. That is the 3D surface of the hypersphere that is the material universe and the most interior point of the hypersphere relative to the 3D surface.If there is no time and the universe is still considered a quaternion structure, keeping all of Einstein's work that has been confirmed by observation, then it is not unreasonable to assume that all 4 dimensions are the same.

So that point can be considered be a singularity in space not time.Though not a part of the 3D universe which only exists on the surface of the universal hypersphere. Change of position along the 4th dimension of the material universe, towards the centre of the hypersphere will in my opinion provide a model that will answer the fundamental questions.

This however is just a model. A subjective reality that is created to allow comprehension of an underlying objective reality and explanation of observations made.

Julian has explored the territory and found no sign posts, clocks, grid lines or rulers.(I think he may have missed the great flow of the universe from higher to lower potential energy that causes the creative processes, gravity, the perceived arrow of time. However he is an older and probably much wiser explorer than myself. It may have just been my imagination.) Someone still needs to provide the map.

report post as inappropriate


Roy Johnstone wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 03:05 GMT
Lawrence, It is interesting that you raise the idea of Bohmian Mechanics in the context of an evolving block Universe. I am currently in the middle of an early paper by Durr, Goldstein & Zanghi introducing their program for interpreting quantum mechanices with BM at it's foundation. Here is the abstract from that paper:-

"In order to arrive at Bohmian mechanics from standard nonrelativistic quantum mechanics one need do almost nothing! One need only complete the usual quantum description in what is really the most obvious way: by simply including the positions of the particles of a quantum system as part of the state description of that system, allowing these positions to evolve in the most natural way. The entire quantum formalism, including the uncertainty principle and quantum randomness, emerges from an analysis of this evolution. This can be expressed succinctly—though in fact not succinctly enough—by declaring that the essential innovation of Bohmian mechanics is the insight that particles

move!".

This clearly puts emphasis on motion, position & relative configuration by treating only position operators as 'real" & using a guiding wave. I believe this program is far more preferable to "Copenhagen" type interpretations & declaring "conscious observation" & "choice of experiment" as being what determines reality. This explains nothing!

With respect to motion it would be interesting to ask Mr Barbour:-

a) Is there any evidence yet that solutions to the time-independant(no kinetic term?) Schrodinger or Wheeler-DeWitt equations are constrained to coincide with his "preferred" static configurations?

b) Can Darwinian evolution & natural selection operate in a static Universe? That is, (in response to a descriptive tool used in his book) ...why does the kingfisher have wings?

Cheers

Roy J

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 06:51 GMT
Lawrence 1 + 1 can not be 1.

1+1 is 2

Space is one physical entity time si another physical entity.

To try to make one of them is wrong.

Actually we can not talk about space as in universe we observe only distances.

Space is a mind model, in the universe fundamental physical reality in which physical change run is gravity field.

I suggest here that physics develops models of physical world on two basic physical facts

1. fundamental arena of the universe is gravity field i.e quantum space. Gravity field itself is timeless. Time is not part of gravity field.

2. time is tick of clocks that exist in gravity field

We measure speed of clocks is slower in stranger gravity field. This is isight of the Relativity Theory.

We have to forget space/time being fundamental arena of the universe. This is wrong idea prevents connection between GR and GM.

I'm not against time, I do not say that there is no time. For me time is tick of clocks. With clocks we measure frequency, velocity and numerical order of physical change that run in timeless gravity field i.e quantum space.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 08:09 GMT
Hi all ,

Dear Roy ,

I am happy to see that

"Can Darwinian evolution & natural selection operate in a static Universe? "

The answer is no ,of course ,it's evident for me.The complexity returns to the simplicity .

What about too ,Lamarck and the desire to adapt ,Cuvier and the local destroyement and adaptations ,Saint Hilaire and the environnemental mutations ,Wagner and the isolation ,De vries and the genetic evolution,Huxley and his Darwinism evolved.....and others continue too ....

How imagine this Universe without this evolution ,it has indeed no sense because all is linked .

The infra and trans specific factors ,parameters are so numerous ,If the evolution is not considered thus a model is not complete or fundamental in my opinion .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 10:57 GMT
In fact ,the motion ,the time ,the evolution ,the space .....are essentials pieces for the building of our Universe .If we don't insert these foundamenatls ,the evolution don't exist .....thus nothing is objective thus .

The time is a constant of evolution which permits to design our Universe and its complexification towards ultim harmony .Even our quantum universe is in 3D more this constant .

Even in our extrapolations we must apply limits and accept our 3D design and this constant .It's better to focus on reality of our Universe and for that all topics must be studied and must put into practices with pragamatism and rationality .

How can we understand our laws without these realities ,objectivities and proofs.

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 15:55 GMT
We all agree on two facts

1. universe and nature including human being change

2. we measure frequency, velocity and numerical order of physical and biological change with clocks

out of that follows

-time is tick of clock

-arrow of time is numerical order of change

-universe is timeless

-past and future are of the mind

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 18:19 GMT
Amrit ,

Do you think it exists a particle which goes speeder than the light thus if I understand well ?

An other point you say "past and future are of the mind "

thus only the present exists ??? I have difficulties to encircle that .

Could you explain me a little all that please ?

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


ifatree wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 18:41 GMT
i've been in the "no time, all space is a single point" camp for almost 10 years. expansion of the universe is the stupidest idea ever - how would you start to tell the difference between "the distance" of space expanding universally and "the speed" of time decreasing universally at a proportionate rate?

and in my mind gravity isn't a force, it's more like a direction... it warps a 3-space volume like we bend a piece of paper. that's the 4th dimension, not time.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 18:49 GMT
Hi Steve

regarding past, present, future please read mz article

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/489

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 20:23 GMT
Roy Johnstone: It is interesting that Bohmist would say the particle moves, when for the H-atom the electron (electron-beable) is perfectly still. I am not particularly a partisan of any quantum interpretation, but I do find it interesting there can be so many of them. It is not hard to show that a Schild's ladder construction in general relativity corresponds to a Galois field GF(4), which holds as well for a spin-1/2 system as well. I think that GR and QM have some partial functorial equivalency, which might have some bearing on how quantum interpretations and "time interpretations" in QM and GR are related to each other.

This is not a work in progress, but more an idea I have been kicking around.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 21:03 GMT
Lawrence

solution to connect GR and QM is in fact that massive bodies and elementary particles move in timeless quantum space and with clocks we measure their motion.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 22:53 GMT
Quantum space, or HIlbert space, has a different geometric content from the standard sense, such as space or spacetime. A state space for a quantum system has no reference to either space or time. This comes about when the state vector |Ψ> is contracted with a

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 22:55 GMT
(I used carat signs which ended the post:

state vector |Ψ) is contracted with a (r|, for a representation of a spatial vector R, so that Ψ(r) = (r|Ψ), which is the wave function. So the wave function has a representation in space, which includes time for relativistic QM, according to the analysis imposed. This in part reflects why relativistic wave equations use a coordinate time imposed by initial Cauchy data, whereas general relativity has proper time as its invariant and coordinate time is a matter of coordinate choice similar to a gauge choice.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Aug. 29, 2009 @ 07:06 GMT
Lawrence my mind can not follow you fully. What I know is that in GR there is a misunderstanding of time being forth coordinate. Forth coordinate is a product of

X4 = t x c.

So forth coordinate is timeless too.

Solution foully conection between GR and QM is a switch in physicist mind from space/time to timeless space i.e. timeless quantum space. I would really appreciate that theoretical physicists would start building models of reality on the base of two two prepositions i suggests above.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 29, 2009 @ 07:41 GMT
Spatial and energetic change alone can account for observed reality. No material change can occur without energy change no energy change without change in spatial position. There is no necessity to retain time as a parameter of the universe, in my opinion.

Past and future are mental constructs to deal with material and energetic changes. Memory, anticipation and prediction are important survival tools in that the organism can learn by growth of synaptic connections and use prediction of change to modify behaviour in advantageous ways.

Present is also a problematic concept because the present that is observed by each observer is made up of a patchwork of data that has travelled over different 4th dimensional distances to reach the observer. The mind "stitches" the information together to give a single image that can be comprehended as a present moment. That moment is different for every observer. Past, present and future all form part of historical time, Ht. Ht is a mental construct. It is not a necessary physical parameter of objective, material reality of the universe.

Using the unmodified space-time model; If a giraffe walks around for 60 minutes and the past has material existence, then at a rate of replication of just 1 giraffe per minute, there will be 60 giraffes rather than 1 in the space-time continuum for every hour of its life. If one were to do the same calculation for every animate and inanimate object in the universe over the hypothesised lifetime of the universe, it would become a complete nonsense. There is no material past that can be returned to only memory and records and observed material changes. Those changes can be explained by alteration in position along a 4th spatial dimension with corresponding energy change just as well, if not better, than by by use of the assumption of passage of time.( Time t being a confused muddle of concepts.)

Anything percieved outside of the self can only be known by the mind using data that it has received from the objective reality. There will be energetic and spatial changes occurring between EM or sound or smell leaving the object and conscious mind perceiving it. The mind recreates the distant object from the data so that it can be experienced. The experience is a biologically simulated reality not objective reality itself. The organism is separated from objective reality by the Prime Reality Interface where data is input via the sense organs, which has to occur so that a subjective reality can be formed for perception and experience.

So I must agree that there is no passage of time only perception of the passage of time. That perception is subjective time, which may refer to an external or internal clock. The internal clock based on biological estimation alone and using circadian rhythms set by the pituitary gland gives internal time ti, The external clock using a mechanical time piece or environmental clues gives external time, te.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Aug. 29, 2009 @ 08:33 GMT
Hi Georgina, With introduction of Minkovsky space-time math model into physics has happened that ma thematic has overruled physics. Physics is not any more natural science, physics has become mathematical science.

Theoretical physics is developing models of the world we do not know how much they correspond to the physical world itself.

Some physicists discuss of introduction of *chrons* as a basic quanta of space-time. There is absolutely no evidence of such a particle.

We are on crucial point of physics development where we have to exam-in again fundamental physical terms we deal with them.

Space-time definitely should not be a part of physics vocabulary any more.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Aug. 29, 2009 @ 10:54 GMT
Fundamental physical terms are:

matter, space, energy, change (motion) and time.

Uder examin based on elementary perception time and space will not pass.

Time and space we do not perceive with senses, so moght be they are only mind inventions.

Matter, energy and chnge we perveive with senses.

Where motions runs ?

Here we have to introduce a term "gravity field" as a basic arena of the universe. It is not percivable with senses, but we can perceive that matterr is in some meduim, some energy field.

So fundamental physical terms that exits for sure as a physical reality are:

matter, energy, gravity field, change.

and with clock we measure freuency, velocity and numerical order of change.

Term time and space can be abandoned, we can build physics without them

symbol t in physical equations means tick of clock

t = tick of clock that run in timeless gravity ield

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 29, 2009 @ 11:18 GMT
Hi Amrit ,

Thanks,I understand now.

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 29, 2009 @ 23:25 GMT
Amrit,I agree that time is not one of the necessary parameters.

As every change in spatial position is an energy change and vice versa, it is, to my mind, possible to describe physics either in terms of energy changes within an energetic field or in terms of changes in positions of matter within space. The two versions of the same model not being incompatible so energy changes can be...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Aug. 30, 2009 @ 07:19 GMT
Dear Georgina

I deeply agree with your letter.

According to my research time can remain in physics as a run of clocks.

Symbol t in physical equations is representing tick of clock in timeless gravity field i.e. quantum space.

In this way all will be elegant and easy but not to easy.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 30, 2009 @ 08:49 GMT
hi all ,

Indeed the main equations don't need time ,only to calculate some equations ....I take time only for the evolution in fact .Like a beautiful constant to harmonize towards this ultim balance between mass .

These mass shan't exist without this constant .More we go to the walls ,limits ,more we go towards this unknew and eternity .

Friendly

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 30, 2009 @ 09:41 GMT
Dear all ,

What do you think about the fact what we use only a weak part of our Brain ,perhaps we can calculate thus the ultim connectibility of brains in this ultim sphere thus the time can be insert with pragamatism like an evolution still .If we take the first cells.....the dedifferencitation .....thus with a extrapolation.....we can calculate some intersting news things ,cosmologicaly and quantum(ally) what a bizare word sorry hihih

I d like have your point of vue .

Best regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 30, 2009 @ 19:54 GMT
X4 = t x c.

What this means is that everything is moving at the speed of light! In our so called rest frame we are moving along a "4th dimension" at the speed of light.

As for our brains and the rest, it must be realized that it is finite and we may mentally perceive things in ways which limit our knowledge. For instance the human mind projects, we project ourselves when reading fiction, or we project our being on the the outer world in the form of gods and the like. We also have a "theory of the mind," where we can project our minds onto other people's minds. Other animals don't do that, so far as we know. We also communicate information and record it, which other animals do not. So as a result we can mentally process or observe the world in ways even apes can't fathom. There are other large brained creatures as well, such as cetacians, elephants and even octopi. Yet it does not appear they have our faculties for abstraction and projection.

It is of course entirely possible there exist other intelligent life forms in the universe with some qualitatively deeper mental capacity than we have. We will probably never know about this. So our science and mathematics might be to them a grammar school understanding of things. So our limits to knowledge might not constitute a fundamental limit to all possible minds which might exist in the universe. It is worth recaling the spatial extend of the universe on the Hubble frame is vast or infinite as it appears to be flat. There might exist dynamic assemblies of nucleons on the surface of neutron stars which on very rapid time scale function as highly intelligent life forms. We will never know if that sort of thing exists anywhere out there. There might be other highly complex structures in the universe which are processors of information and that have some self-directed or aware sense. We may never know anything about these, or communicate with more classical ideas of organic ETI from some other bioplanet.

cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 31, 2009 @ 03:10 GMT
If there is no time, then how can there be any speed?

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 31, 2009 @ 04:03 GMT
Lawrence,

Lawrence said "What this means is that everything is moving at the speed of light! In our so called rest frame we are moving along a "4th dimension" at the speed of light."

However if there is no time in the quaternion (modified space-time model) then there is no speed either. Only ratio of change of position in 3D vector space to change in position along the 4th dimension.

You have also said "It is not clear to me that physics is meant to determine whether something like time or space exist."

It is possible to construct any kind of model. An important question is, does the model that has been constructed bear any correspondence to objective reality? If it is accepted that a map may be useful for understanding the territory then a model can be useful for interpreting reality while not itself being realistic. On a map grid lines for co-ordinates and contour lines are useful for comprehension of the terrain and communication of position. Though they can be seen on an ordinance survey map, they do not exist on the ground. Likewise dimensions and field lines may be useful in a model even though they do not exist as an objective reality outside of the model.

It may be asked, what is more useful in a model of reality space-time or space alone or field alone? I would say field or space alone or combined. Either because a change in position in space is an energy change and vice versa. Time does not help the model to function better and prevents some foundational questions from being answered.

Lawrence you have said words to the effect that, there should be some observation possible if time does not exist. The grandfather paradox is a nonsense that occurs because of assumed time. Overcome by a spatial scalar 4th. Also gravity can be explained with spatial scalar 4th (needed to solve grandfather paradox, but it is not entirely satisfactorily explained with time. The continuous motion along the scalar spatial 4th, necessary for gravity, will also give unidirectional experience of time. This model can also be used to propose a geometric entity existing without time that gives rise to the universe in its particular entropic state. As the geometric entity proposed exists without time it is not eternal and has no beginning or end, time just does not apply.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 31, 2009 @ 08:56 GMT
HI

Lawrence ,

the cetaceans and elephants are indeed relevants.All has a specific rule ,let's take the elephant ,it's an incredible composter in fact .

The communication of cetaceans are too incredible .Before I thought what these cetaceans were the most intelligent on Earth .I doubt still about that .It's like the Lamentin ,a sirenian ,all that is fascinating about the life and the intelligence and the complemenatrity .

I think it's evident about universal lifes ,and hope they don't make the same silly things like us ,Earthians .

The astrobiology is very intersting ,the CH4 NH3 H2O HCN.....AMINO ACIDS .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Roy Johnstone wrote on Aug. 31, 2009 @ 11:17 GMT
Lawrence,

In what sense do you mean the H-atom electron is "perfectly still"?

Cheers

Roy J

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 31, 2009 @ 12:30 GMT
The hydrogen atom in the Bohmian model predicts the electron, or the beable particle for the electron, in the S orbital to exist at a fixed distant ~ Bohr radius, away from the proton just sitting still, It is a bit odd, but that is what is predicted in the Bohmian model.

LC

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 31, 2009 @ 16:23 GMT
I was looking at Misner Thorne and Wheeler "Gravitation" last night, in particular CH 21. There is a quote by Einstein where he says inertia in the universe is best understood in a closed world or universe. I thought for a second on how the universe might in fact be infinite. The spatial surface we are on right now may extend infinitely far out. The observation of near flatness at least suggests this is possible. This throws a big wrench in the MAch principle works. Of course Mach's principle still might be possible, but not in a straight forward way.

I have not discounted Mach's principle as such. It has always struck me as some type of nonlocality principle in way. This returns to my suggestion that quantum mechanics and gravitation/cosmology are partially functorial. Now inertia is related to mass. It is the resistance of a body to a force, which gives a finite acceleration a = F/m. So inertia is related to or conjugate to force or acceleration, or in action hbar = 1 units m ---> c/a, which curiously is the distance to a particle horizon for an accelerated mass. If there is no inertia the Rindler horizon distance is zero. This might then in some ways be compared to the action conjugation between energy and time. If there is no time between events then the energy diverges.

I have not presented much here serious, but maybe some grist for the intellectual mill to grind for a while.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Aug. 31, 2009 @ 16:42 GMT
anonymous

If there is no time, then how can there be any speed?

amrit

velocity is distance in space divided with clock tick t

v = d/t

report post as inappropriate


Georrgina Parry wrote on Aug. 31, 2009 @ 21:23 GMT
A body can not exist in empty space.It will always have inertia. Which can be explained as resistance to change in trajectory through the unknown medium filling quaternion space. Or as the energetic input required to alter existing changes.I.e. change in orientation of energy flow in quaternion space or change in trajectory of matter through medium. Same thing described differently. An object is never stationary as it is always moving afore along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension.

Gravity is not due to curvature of empty space or geometry alone, in my opinion. Empty space can not be curved but there can be distortion and dynamics within a medium leading to observations of effects on masses, ie forces.

The gravitational field can also be described, if using an energetic description only, as a scalar potential energy field. Giving a steeper energetic gradient along the 4th energetic dimension, caused by the presence of the mass energy. The increase in gradient of the potential difference causing observed change in spatial position of matter referred to as gravitational attraction.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 31, 2009 @ 21:50 GMT
Speculation on matter and antimatter.

It can be proposed that all matter has continuous loss of potential energy (promotional energy.) So will sub atomic particles keeping pace with the afore-ward motion of the matter of the universe and so remaining detectable. Although according to this model they do oscillate along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension into and out of observable space. (This particular oscillation may be responsible for giving wave like characteristics and half integer spin "spin" of fermions.)

A particle of antimatter could then be speculated to be a particle with opposite direction of change in position along the 4th dimension. Gaining rather than loosing potential energy. Very short lived in observable space, as rather than keeping pace with the observable matter, it passes through the observable space into aft space. That is space that has already been passed through by the material universe further back along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension. Thus vanishing but not destroyed. This will explain the why more matter than antimatter is detected. The + and - in the Hamiltonian notation denoting "direction" of change in position along the 4th dimension of a mass.

Perhaps on reflection inwards and outwards would be more comprehensible than afore and aft but those who have been reading my posts for a while know what the terminology means. It is not motion through 3D vector space but at 90 degrees to it. Afore-ward is down into a mass towards centre of hypersphere, aft-ward is up and outward towards the most outer region of the hypersphere.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 1, 2009 @ 01:29 GMT
A couple of points. Empty space can be curved, it is an Einstein space where the Ricci curvature is proportional to the metric. The gravity field is a tensor field, where tensors transform in certain homogeneous ways.

The Mach principle is an idea that the inertia of a mass here is due to the inertial of masses out there. It is an intersting idea, and it motivated Einstein in working up relativity. General relativity also fails to confirm Mach's ansatz. Also if the universe is spatially infinite it means certain ideas about Mach's principle are wrong. Potentially the whole thing might be erroneous.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 1, 2009 @ 02:10 GMT
Empty space can be curved in a mathematical model but you can not actually curve nothing. This is what Tesla argued. I have no problem with the model showing curved space and demonstrating all of the observable effects of relativity. It is not realistic but it is at the same time an excellent model. The space contains the energetic fields, which can also be interpreted as matter within unknown medium. It is the fields or matter and medium within space that cause all of the observable effects. They could not occur in curved nothingness.

Science is about observation. Show me a curved nothingness and I will tell you it can only exist because of the something with curvature. A hole may have curved walls but it is the walls around the hole that are curved. If the walls are removed that same hole does not exist. I think one of Mach's own ideas was, If you take away all matter, there is no more space.

He also considered that, Inertial mass is affected by the global distribution of matter. This would make sense because matter is affected by the gravitational field of other matter. This will have a bearing on the energy requirement for a change in trajectory through quaternion space for an individual mass which must overcome the forces acting upon it in order to move.

Why should the universe be considered spatially infinite? Such a proposal seems to cause more problems than solutions to my mind.

report post as inappropriate


Roy Johnstone wrote on Sep. 1, 2009 @ 05:32 GMT
I tend to agree with Georgina that to say the Universe is spatially infinite, seems meaningless, other than as part of a convenient way to model it's future potential as a geometric hypersurface . Even if the Universe is exactly flat (omega=0) or has small constant negative curvature, then as well as an optical "horizon" should there not also be the equivalent of a spatial "region" with a boundary if the primordial "scalar field" of inflationary cosmology is right? This region beyond the "light" boundary should also contain matter distributions. The only problem for a Machian view might be if this region contained only a scalar potential & no matter. If our Universe or domain had a beginning, as in any of the "Big Bang" scenarios, how can it then be *physically* infinite in extent? Wouldn't this be the ultimate symmetry violation?

Georgina, regarding your "potential energy field" description of gravity, how would you recover *gravitational* mass? Whatever the origins of gravity, it does manifest as acceleration (vector) and your idea only seems to explain *inertial* mass. I don't think this "energy field" could be scalar as it induces a centre of mass directed effect in it's coupling to the matter? But I may be completely missing your real intent.

Cheers

Roy J

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 1, 2009 @ 11:25 GMT
Roy, I will attempt to answer your questions. Miss out the "how I got there" after answer number 1. to get to answer number 2.

you said, “Georgina, regarding your "potential energy field" description of gravity, how would you recover *gravitational* mass? Whatever the origins of gravity, it does manifest as acceleration (vector) and your idea only seems to explain *inertial*...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 1, 2009 @ 11:45 GMT
Georgina you say:

A body can not exist in empty space.It will always have inertia. Which can be explained as resistance to change in trajectory through the unknown medium filling quaternion space. Or as the energetic input required to alter existing changes.I.e. change in orientation of energy flow in quaternion space or change in trajectory of matter through medium. Same thing described differently. An object is never stationary as it is always moving afore along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension.

Amrit

There is no unknon medium filling quantum space ie. gravity field

quantum space itself is energy building physical cosmic space into which stellat objects move

Idea that some uknown medium called ether is filling cosmic space is wrong

cosmic space is ether,there is no medium behibd cosmic space

I would suggest that we drop terms space and time and use terms

gravity field - fundamental arena of the universe

tich of clock t - measures frequency, velovity nd numerical order of events in gravity field

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 1, 2009 @ 12:15 GMT
Dear Gergina,

Even if the space moves due to a specifi dynamic of building,the stationary particle is on the movement and thus all is in this dynamic thus in conclusion it's stationary .It's logic in fact in my opinion .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 1, 2009 @ 12:21 GMT
A spatially infinite universe appears to be what we exist within. The most distant observations appears to show the universe has no spatial curvature. The curvature of spacetime appears to be with how flat spatial surfaces (3 dimensional spaces in 4 dimensional spacetime) are continually expanded. Points on spatial surfaces are continually accelerated apart from each other.

A vacuum model of spacetime with curvature is the de Sitter spacetime and other similar solutions of the Einstein field equations which have the Ricci curvature tensor proportional to the metric. It might sound odd that what is commonly thought of as "nothing" can have curvature, but what we man by nothing turns out to be strange.

I would advise reading a text on differential geometry and a basic text on general relativity.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 1, 2009 @ 15:26 GMT
Lawrence

math is one thing

universe is another.

In universe there is no space-time tht is merely a math model

In universe there is only physical casmic space i.e gravity field into which stellar objects move.

Their motion we measure with cloks.

Clocks run and objects move in a timeless medium of physical cosmic space i.e. gravity field.

yours, Amrit

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 1, 2009 @ 16:50 GMT
I am not going to quibble much on the ontology of space and time. Yet spacetime is the field of gravitation. Spacetime are every bit as much the field as the electric and magnetic fields are the fields for electromagnetism.

LC

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 1, 2009 @ 19:09 GMT
Lawrence

space-time is mathe model only

there is no space-time in physical reality

fundamental arena of the universe is gravity field that is timeless, time is not a part of gravity field

physical time exist only as a tick of clock, physical time is man invention

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 1, 2009 @ 21:42 GMT
Amrit,

Amrit you said "There is no unknon medium filling quantum space ie. gravity field"

It is not possible to say what exists in objective reality.

No evidence is not proof of non existence. If we have no information that can be used to create a subjective reality of a thing it has no apparent existence. Standing still in an empty room in the absence of any light it may...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 1, 2009 @ 21:48 GMT
Lawrence,

observations are conducted on EM radiation across 3D space only. It is an image not the material universe.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 1, 2009 @ 23:58 GMT
Amrit,

That should have read standing still in a -presumed- empty room....

A dog is able to tell by smell alone what other animals have been at a location, how recently, species, gender, state of reproductive receptiveness, even possibly health all by smell alone, that is by analysis of the chemical composition of the odour. All very useful for survival and reproduction of a canine in the wild.I can not smell any of that information. It is not part of my reality but that does no mean that the information does not exist.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 2, 2009 @ 03:17 GMT
The 4 dimensions making a quaternion space model can all be considered as spatio-energetic, rather than 3 of space and 1 of time. Then every change of position in quaternion space is an energy change and every energy change can be described as a change of position in space. So a field can be related to spatial distribution or dynamics of a medium.

When any work is done the motion of a body will cause motion of the medium surrounding it. Which may transmit a force or there may be no observable effect. Lack of an observable effect does not mean that no energy was transferred but only that it was not at a threshold that was detectable.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 2, 2009 @ 05:08 GMT
Georgina,

Are you sure these two statements are compatible? You said:-

"Science is about observation. Show me a curved nothingness and I will tell you it can only exist because of the something with curvature. A hole may have curved walls but it is the walls around the hole that are curved. If the walls are removed that same hole does not exist. I think one of Mach's own ideas was, If you take away all matter, there is no more space."

&

"It is not possible to say what exists in objective reality. No evidence is not proof of non existence. If we have no information that can be used to create a subjective reality of a thing it has no apparent existence.Standing still in an empty room in the absence of any light it may seem that the room is completely empty. It is only when the light is turned on that reflections from objects can be observed. A subjective reality that gives positions, orientations, colours etc. of the furniture is then formed from the data received, by the function of the brain."

Substitute space for the "room" & curvature for the "furniture" ?

Roy J

report post as inappropriate


Roy Johnstone wrote on Sep. 2, 2009 @ 05:09 GMT
Sorry, forgot to put my name to that last post!

Roy J

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 2, 2009 @ 07:47 GMT
Georgina

Idea of ether is from esoteric, fifth elenet of the universe.

There is no evidence of ether.

Physical space i.e. gravity field itself is ether

saying that some unknown energy is filling the space is equal as saying that time is part of space

all what has no experimental evidence should be removed from fundamental elements of physics

-graviton that matter emits

-cronos as fundamental particle of space-time

-time as part of space

fundamental medium in which stellar objects and elementay particles move is gravity field

so fundamental physical realities are:

-matter

-energy

-gravity field

-motion

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 2, 2009 @ 08:27 GMT
Roy,

yes it is compatible. Science is about observation. Absolute objective reality can not be observed. The limit of science has been reached. It is not possible to directly access or comprehend absolute objective reality to obtain explanation. As soon as data is transferred to the senses and processed it ceases to be objective reality and has become subjective interpretation of the data. Therefore models are required to explain our subjective reality experience.

A hole can not exist without a something to be a hole in. Nothing requires something to be defined itself. However something can exist without being detectable.

Space and room ,yes. Curvature of what? I have no problem with the existing accepted space-time model and curved geometry of space-time. It fits with much of observed reality and answers many questions but that does not mean that it is actual objective reality.It is just a model. It can not be used to show that something, that has not been observed, can not be proposed in an alternative model. Especially if that alternative model can potentially answer more of the the foundational questions.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 2, 2009 @ 08:49 GMT
i forgot last esentil element of physical reality

-observr

-matter

-energy

-gravity field

-motion

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 2, 2009 @ 11:38 GMT
I forgot last essential element of physical reality: observer

So essential elements of physical reality are:

-observer

-matter (massive bodies, stellar objects, elementary articles

-energy (electromagnetic energy, life energy)

-medium in which matter and energy exists: physical cosmic space i.e. gravity field gravity field

-motion

PS writing without glasses does not work for me anymore.....I discovered some mistakes, sorry, amrit

report post as inappropriate


Leshan wrote on Sep. 2, 2009 @ 19:47 GMT
"Dr. Barbour is perfectly right: there is no time in the universe"

The experimental detection of spacetime foam will be the proof that spacetime really exist. Therefore, the Barbour-Amrit's timeless theories will fall very soon.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 3, 2009 @ 00:02 GMT
In the construct that I am proposing these fundamental things are linked.

Change of position in quaternion space is "motion" energy. Kinetic,observed potential(vertical 3D vector), promotional (loss of potential along 4th dimension).

Change in position of matter causes the disturbance of the medium of space which can be considered either as a material disturbance or an energy change,it is both.

Change in position of matter along the 4th scalar spatio-energetic dimension causes the gravitational field, which may be described as the result of dynamics of a medium or potential energy gradient.

The change in position of matter along the 4th scalar spatio-energetic dimension is the cause of gravitational mass and mass energy.

Spatial changes and dynamics of the medium of quaternion space, which may be described in terms of energy changes, gives electromagnetic energy, and the forces.

Bodies of matter, gravitational mass, mass energy, "motion" energy, electromagnetic energy, forces including gravity all exist because of the continuous changes in position of particles,(or elusive dynamic entities, EDEs),that form matter, in quaternion space. Which can also be described as continuous energy changes.

I now consider EDEs and continuous change within the medium of quaternion space or the energetic quaternion framework to be the foundational elements of this model. The dimensions are spatio-energetic so any change can be described as change of position in space of material particle or of the medium, or energetic change of EDE or of an energetic field.

The observer interprets data from those spatial or energetic changes that are detected by the sense organs. That interpretation forms subjective reality.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 3, 2009 @ 05:56 GMT
Leshan:

"Dr. Barbour is perfectly right: there is no time in the universe"

The experimental detection of spacetime foam will be the proof that spacetime really exist. Therefore, the Barbour-Amrit's timeless theories will fall very soon.

Amrit:

Space-time foam is mind contruct, there is no space-time foam as a physical reality.

Medium in which stellar object and elementary particles move is timeless.

Best name for this medium is gravity field.

Time t is tick of clock

How they will prove existence of space-time foam ?

How time that is tick of clock can be part of space ?

What is the m/k/s meter/kilo/second of space-time ?

Where in physical space (medium in which stellar objects are) is space and where is time and what is time ?

How space and tim are coupled into space-time ?

How 1 + 1 can be 1

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 3, 2009 @ 06:09 GMT
Hi Georgina

We have similar view regarding gravity: gravity is result of dynamics between medium in which stellar objects move and objects themselves

mass change quantum structure of gravity field and that generate gravitation

mass do not emits gravity waves

yours amri

report post as inappropriate


Roy Johnstone wrote on Sep. 3, 2009 @ 07:12 GMT
RE: Spatially infinite Universe.

There are many solutions to GR and many more being found or proposed on-going, but I don't think we can put complete faith in all solutions & models based on it's equations. Closed time-like curves are also GR solutions, does this mean time travel, causal violation & time loops are physically real?

Cheers

Roy J

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 3, 2009 @ 08:38 GMT
Hi Roy

new vision on time based on elementary perception is that physical time into which motion run does not exists

motion run in timeless medium-gravity field

speed of motion diminishes with gravity inreasing

we measure that with clocks - time t is a clock tick

in stronger gravity clocks "tick" slower

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 3, 2009 @ 11:42 GMT
Yes indeed only the space is infinite and the Universe is finite ,in evolution but finite and without time it has no sense .

I think really what the whole and the walls are bad understood .And the evolution point of Vue thus???

We are not on Earth for nothing ,it's evident what it exist an ultim aim in the physicality .It's not a real end but we are on this univers and nothing can change that it seems to me .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 3, 2009 @ 12:32 GMT
The two mathematical solutions to GR which capture features of the universe we see at large are the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker solution (FLRW) and the de Sitter spacetime. These solutions obey the Hawking-Penrose energy conditions for w > -1, so there are no closed timelike conditions. The w factor is the equation of state, so for the pressure and energy density related to each other by p = wρ. for w < -1 you get the phantom energy or big rip solution. This does not likely reflect physical cosmology, and it violates the Hawking-Penrose energy conditions. The data suggests that w = -1, which conforms will to a de Sitter spacetime.

Tha de Sitter spacetime of this form is an infinite spatial surface, a Euclidean R^3, which exists in a folation of curved spacetime. What might be called the time vector field is t^a = Nn^a + N^a, where the terms on the right hand side are

n^a = normal vector at each point an spatial R^3

N = lapse function, a Lagrange multiplier in ADM relativity

N^a = shift function, which tells how points on each R^3 are slid apart in the integration forwards in time.

This then gives a spacetime with flat spaces R^3 (except for local little curvatures due to stars, galaxies and dark matter clumps), where the foliation of sheets R^3 are connected by the time vector field at each point. The curvature content is then in how these spatial sheets are expanded with respect to time.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 3, 2009 @ 18:04 GMT
Lavernce

for me you post above is mathematical philosophy

you use terms for which you do not know exact meaning

how much this math is responding to real physical world ?

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 3, 2009 @ 20:36 GMT
A basic theory is a system which generates solutions. This is true of a basic F = ma problem. These spacetimes are solutions to the Einstein field equation and they have some relevance to the distant universe.

LC

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 4, 2009 @ 02:02 GMT
The Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems are a set of results in general relativity which attempt to answer the question of when gravitation produces singularities.

A singularity in solutions of general relativity is one of two things:

1. a situation where matter is forced to be compressed to a point (a space-like singularity)

2. a situation where certain light rays come from a region with infinite curvature (time-like singularity) Wikipedia

An interesting "philosophical" feature of general relativity is revealed by the singularity theorems. Because general relativity predicts the inevitable occurrence of singularities, the theory is not complete without a specification for what happens to matter that hits the singularity. Wikipedia

In my opinion singularities and black holes result from the incompleteness of the space-time model. When the model is completed there will no longer be any need to speculate on the peculiar physics of these objects and the brilliant mathematics pertaining to them. If a singularity is just a point from 3D vector space perspective but is actually moving along the 4th spatial dimension, then rather than a black hole, and all the associated mathematics, there is just a deep gravity well. The object will be beyond visible 3D vector space within afore space. As light does not travel aft-wards along the 4th dimension it will appear as a black hole. Within the black hole will be an "unexceptional" object (or dense collection of masses) of large gravitational mass but not a singularity as such (except in the centre of that object as in the centre of gravity of all masses. Even the centre of the object is not the end of space because the 4th dimension extends on into afore space from here).The object or objects causing the appearance of a black hole is(are) just not within visible 3D space, but do still exist within quaternion space and can exert a gravitational force on other matter that is within visible 3D vector space. Matter within afore space could possibly account for the additional gravity required to hold galaxies together. That supplied by the luminous portion alone has, to my knowledge, been calculated to be insufficient.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 4, 2009 @ 06:35 GMT
Lawrence space-time is a math model only.

4 coordinate is not time, fourth coordinate is a X4 = c x t where t is tick of clock

Mistake is done to think that spae-time is physical reality.

Space-time is a math model that describes motion into timeless gravity field.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Sep. 4, 2009 @ 13:57 GMT
Amrit: I am not going to make arguments about the ontology of space or time. Spacetime is the field of general relativity. Fields are not really measured directly. The electric and magnetic fields in electromagnetism are inferred by how they induce the motion of currents or pondermotive effects on matter. Vic Stenger makes a big issue out of particles as the only thing which exists, while fields, wave functions, space, time and so forth are only models. Saying that x^4 = ct is just a conversion factor, which takes one measure of a coordinate (time with a clock) and converts it to a length as measured by the proper interval. Everything is moving the speed of light --- even at rest in a reference frame. This could also be argued to be “just a model.” Yet, frankly I choose not to engage issues of ontology in physics as having primary importance. Physics is not in my opinion in the business of determining whether fields or wave functions and so forth are actually real or not. Quantum field theory in curved spacetime suggests that particles are frame dependent and that fields are more fundamental, which messes up ideas of particle ontology.

Georgina: Singularities are examples of geodesic incompleteness (b*-incompleteness etc), where geodesics or path come to an end at some region or point on a Riemannian manifold where curvature diverges. There are indeed differences between timelike and spacelike singularities. The Schwarzschild metric is

ds^2 = A(cdt)^2 – (1/A)dr^2 + angular parts

with A = 1 – 2GM/rc^2. Now we can look at a region very close to the event horizon r = 2GM/c^2 = 2m. So we have that

A = (r – 2m)/r ~= (r – 2m)/2m, 1/A = r/(r – 2m) ~= 2m/(r – 2m)

We can write this with a further simplification with R = r – 2m and R/2m = ρ. This means the metric near the event horizon looks like

ds^2 = ρdt^2 - (1/ρ)dr^2 + …

which is the Rindler metric. As an exercise, convert dr to coordinates in ρ, set dt = 0 for a spatial surface and compute the proper distance, which will be of the form

du = dρ/sqrt{ρ}.

Now integrate this and then insert into the total metric. The equation is a hyperbola. So the proper time (interval) of an observer with a constant proper distance from the horizon defines a hyperbola. For the metric change with r < 2m the sign of the line element changes and there are spatial hyperbola with constant proper interval from r = 0, where at r = 0 there is a spacelike singularity. The region with spatial hyperbola define the trapping region of the black hole

Timelike singularities are a little stranger, but these have geodesic incompleteness within a timelike region where the above hyperbola which converge to the singularity are timelike. Generally these are problematic, for it means that causal information can end or emerge from them into the timelike region of the universe.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 4, 2009 @ 16:54 GMT
Lawrence space-time cannot be a physical field.

Gravity field is a physical field into which stellar objects move.

Describing gravity field with space-time model is not consistent as time is not part of gravity field. Gravity field is timeless and with clocks we measure frequency, velocity and numerical order of physical events that run in gravity field.

Math model of space-time should be understood as a mth model merelly and not as physical reality.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 4, 2009 @ 18:19 GMT
I didn't believe in strings, but this one is starting to prove the existence of superstrings! Though I still don't believe in infinities and singularities. Lawrence knows my Torus model, implying a maximum mass density of the same character as 'c'. It's what all the actual evidence shows us, and what Lagrange predicted, till some Ruski artilleryman suggested a bizzare new solution for the graph. But self consistent. That's maths for you. And I DO beleive in Goethe.

Can't say I've read the whole string, but I just couldn't get AE's definition out of my mind; That time simply exists to 'stop everything happening at once!'

If time really doesn't exist in space I shall pop out there at once and live forever. Or will my existence there with a wrist watch change that?

Hmm. Sorry to interrupt..

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Sep. 4, 2009 @ 23:31 GMT
The unification of Einstein's theory of gravity (general relativity) with Maxwell's theory of light (electromagnetism) is achieved by the addition of a fourth dimension of space to Einstein's theory. This unification must be significantly and plainly evident in our experience.

This FOURTH dimension must be understood as being ADDITIVE in relation to space. Moreover, electromagnetic space (e.g., photons and the Sun) is larger AND smaller than typical or ordinary space (including the Earth).

The known union of gravity and electromagnetism/light must be understood as balancing scale by making gravity both repulsive and attractive as electromagnetic energy/light.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Sep. 4, 2009 @ 23:41 GMT
String, superstring and p-branes have lots of interesting structure. The m-theory holographic theory is really a generalization of the S-matrix theory of G. Chew, which has lots of rich structure to it. This is not really about believing things per se, but I think string/M-theory has some element in the structure of quantum cosomology.

I am not sure what the a torus model is.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Sep. 4, 2009 @ 23:52 GMT
Time has almost everything to do with gravity. The geodesic equation is

D^2x^a/ds^2 = d^2x^a/ds^2 + Γ^a_{bc}U^bU^c = 0

For s the proper time, and U^b = dx^b/ds. For a weak gravity field the Christoffel term Γ^a_{bc} has one large term which is

Γ^r _{tt} = GM/r^2,

Since the g_{tt} metric term multiplies by a (cdt)^2 term and U^t =~ 1 >> U^i, for i spatial index. So this results in the equation

d^2r/ds^2 =~ d^2r/dt^2 = -GM/r^2,

which is Newton’s second law applied with weak gravity: Newton’s law!

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 5, 2009 @ 02:35 GMT
Lawrence,

geodesic incompleteness: The singularity represents the end of the manifold. However if there is continuous motion of matter along the 4th dimension, constant loss of potential energy, then the object upon entering the hyperbolic region will have left visible 3D space and will be within afore space.It may eventually be drawn to the large gravitational mass that is causing the hyperbolic region and will collide with it. It might be possible to represent this as a series of manifolds. Although space is not physically divided up into separate sheets in this way.

Usually all visible matter progresses continuously along the 4th dimension so to an observer this appears to be the same 3D space and so can be, in this example, represented on the same manifold. After entering the hyperbolic region an object ceases to be one the manifold that has been under consideration (visible 3D space) but can now be considered as existing on another manifold that relates to space that can not be observed because it is outside of visible 3D vector space, further afore along the 4th dimension. It is just more ordinary space but we are unable to see it because light also travels afore along the 4th dimension not aft-wards.

Lawrence said "Time has almost everything to do with gravity." It is great to see mathematics that corresponds. That is as expected because according to the model I have proposed gravity acts along the 4th dimension, that is the scalar dimension currently called time.

Peter,

Peter said "If time really doesn't exist in space I shall pop out there at once and live forever. Or will my existence there with a wrist watch change that?" I realise that that was a flippant joking statement. However it shows the way in which time is still regarded by most people. A sequence of spatial changes or energetic variations does not have to be described using time which is a muddle of a number of different concepts and leads to confusion and nonsense.

What does exist are material change and energy change. These can be subjectively interpreted as time passing. According to latest research your body will deteriorate because of glycolysis of your body proteins, leading to stiffening and loss of function of various tissues and organs. Your energy levels for growth, repair, defence and activities of living will decrease due to free radical damage to your mitochondria, the energy releasing structures within cells. These are sequences of material and energetic changes, occurring due to the chemical alteration of the material substances of your body. It is not passing of something called time that makes you age.It is an unnecessary muddled concept. Time is not a physical parameter but a mental construct. A wrist watch makes no difference, by the way.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 5, 2009 @ 08:21 GMT
LAWRENCE

Time has almost everything to do with gravity. The geodesic equation is

D^2x^a/ds^2 = d^2x^a/ds^2 + Γ^a_{bc}U^bU^c = 0

For s the proper time, and U^b = dx^b/ds. For a weak gravity field the Christoffel term Γ^a_{bc} has one large term which is

Γ^r _{tt} = GM/r^2,

Since the g_{tt} metric term multiplies by a (cdt)^2 term and U^t =~ 1 >> U^i, for i spatial index. So this results in the equation

d^2r/ds^2 =~ d^2r/dt^2 = -GM/r^2,

which is Newton’s second law applied with weak gravity: Newton’s law!

Cheers LC

AMRIT

Yes, time as a "tick" of clock has to o with gravity.

In all physicl formulas meaning of time t is tick of clock in timeless gravity field.

I do not say there is no time, time exists, time is tick of clock. But nothing happens in time. Time is man invention to measure physical phenomena.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 5, 2009 @ 08:44 GMT
My vision of time is time is a man invention.

Time is scientific tool, tick of clocks.

Time is not part of physical reality.

This approach resolves most of problems of quantum physics, immediate physical information and energy transfer, quantum teleportation.

yours amrit

attachments: 4_With_Clocks_we_Measure.........pdf

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 5, 2009 @ 10:49 GMT
Hi Amrit,

Are you sure it's immediate ,the quantum teleportation is really immediate or it's due to our distance and the velocity of light ?

The gravitational wave thus but is it really immediate ?

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 5, 2009 @ 11:47 GMT
Steve matter does not emits any gravity waves.

The only gravity waves are by huge explosion in AGN where matter is created.

This explosion changes quantum structure of space. And this change might have a speed of light.

Gravity force is not carried by some waves og particles called gravitons.

Gravity force is result of dynamics between mass and quantum space.

Quantum space has 4 dymensions, mass 3 dimensions.

Mass causes thatquantum space has tendency to shrink. This shrinking force is gravity.

Gravity force and centripetal force are in equilibrium.

Fg = Fc

Because of that motion of the planets around sun does not require any energy.

Universe is natural pepetum mobile.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 5, 2009 @ 12:26 GMT
Amrit,

I can understand but why 4 dimensions for quantum space ,for me it's everywhere 3 dimensions and a constant of evolution which is time .

About the gravitational waves ,I think really what all is linked Amrit ,it's an incredible superimposing of so many spheres in rotations ,quantum and cosmological implying a specific superimposing of gravitational quantum waves and cosmological wave .If the Dark matter are sphere without rotation thus the evolution point of vue implies an increase by polarizations and activation .Our Universe thus I think increase in mass and its volume of mass and the space decreases by contraction ,increase of pression ,activation of Dark matter ,thus the Universal space decreases and the mass complexificates itself towards centers .If the Universal sphere don't turn at this end ,like inmy model ,the time is important ,the rotation of cosmological and quantum spheres are direcly linked .But I have a big ask in my model about the linear velocity of the light and its spin rotation and the main central quantum sphere one is stationary or in a weak movement and the other is the maximun in the linear ,I search perhaps it's just a question of sense of polarity ,if it's that ,it's relevant .

Have you an idea all ??

All helps are welcome .Viva el complementarity in fact .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 5, 2009 @ 13:27 GMT
And if our Universe will be finished when all light will be given in fact ?

There our universe unifies all and the eternity between mass more the increase of eternal creativity and synergies of interactions is a reality in this harmony .The walls are finished there too ,the entropy is linked in fact and all is different and the physicality begins an other unknew step ,the eternality of light and mass in eternal creativity .

It exists sure a perfect system betwenn spheres ,the central and the others ,a perfect equilibre of entanglement with volumes ,density ,....if we extrapolate with our past and the future if we had correct relativistic datas ,thus we could extrapolate this perfect balance of the ultim fractal of spheres and their specificities ,I think and it's very important what each spheres are specifics ,thus our model must be adapted with these limits in fact ,we must class it seems to me the spheres correctly .Have you seen even in our Solar system ,this sequence of spheres with their specificities ,it's relevant about the evolution correlation ,an important ask for me too is the plan of our solar system ,can we see an approach with our datas ,and if we analyze the past perception to extrapolate our present in fact and thus too the future balance between spheres .

The plan is relevant and facilitates the approachs in an universal rotations of spheres ,BH,Stars,Planets ,moons ,it's a specific sequences ,oscillations in time evolution .

In fact we know our past ,we can know our actual system with our future balance of spheres ,it's a big work to do in fact ,a big taxonomy of spheres and their specificities in evolution .

I need helps my friends in fact ,let's build an universal concrete model ,I think if the scientists focus on one elaboration ,it could be interesting with the exponentials of synergies between fundamenatl ideas ,sometimes I imagine the humanity focus on priorities or in one project ,it's inccredible our human potential in this vision in fact .We are voyagers of the Universe ,bipeds the eyes in the sky and more ,the motion ,the intelligence ....even our others planets in our solar system have a rule of complemenatrity for the intelligence .We must in fact centralize the scientists in a new revolutionary project in fact ,the Earth must be harmonized and used with sense and pragamatism and respect with our fundamenatl laws and we are voyagers ,the Earth is a big garden in evolution and our intelligence and social and civilization responsability is essential and primordial .The hummanity can make so many things still and quickly furthermore by the fundamenatl complemenatrity focus on priorities and rationality.

Now the Time is for us ,simple ,2009 ....and how will be the next years simply ?

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 5, 2009 @ 15:08 GMT
Steve thinking inj terms of time is wrong.

We can think only in terms of motion, i.e. change.

Befere and after exists in a sense of numerical order.

Gravity waves are perturbations in quantum space - gravity field caused by matter being created in AGN or matter being transfomed into space in black holes.

This changes causes change of "gravitational density" of space.

It is not matter that creates gravity wave as matter create electromagnetic waves.

This is big misunderstanding of physics.

Gravity is result of permanent dynamics between matter and quantum space that are one energy in different forms.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 6, 2009 @ 07:28 GMT
According my research quanta of space have a certain frequency: "Planck frequency". They change electrical charge from positive to negative in a Planck time: 5,39 x 10-44 s.

Planck time is a sequence into which photon pass Planck distance.

But photon pass Planck distance in space only, not in time.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 6, 2009 @ 08:28 GMT
My personal experience is that Planck frequency is a fundamental frequency of the universe. Cosmic space vibrates with this frequency. Planck frequency is consciousness itself. Conscious observer knows that, he lives in eternal now and here - in timeless quantum space, in consciousness.

Unconscious observer is imprisoned in inner time, he lives in linear concept of inner time. He is not aware of timeless nature of the universe. Because of that it is of immence importance that physics includes self-observation of the observer as an inividual research method whit which one discovers himself/herself - consciousness itself.

report post as inappropriate


il Palazzo wrote on Sep. 6, 2009 @ 12:21 GMT
"he asked for seven minutes exactly to finish the remaining third of his cup of coffee, and was ready and waiting for my call, coffee cup drained, 560 seconds later."

So, in default of an universal reference, at Mr Barbour's home, one minute lasts 80 seconds, am I right? ;-)

report post as inappropriate


Intaglio wrote on Sep. 6, 2009 @ 12:45 GMT
Having observed scientific endeavour for many years. During this period there have been 2 foundation observations that have yet to be made; the first is Higgs eponymous boson and the second is a gravity wave.

The Higgs has been predicted as being observable for 20 years or more in machines with far lower energies than will be available in the LHC yet it still remains unseen. This has required theoreticians to - ahem - amend the predictions to make the Higgs more "massive" than they previously thought. I believe that on the bell curve of possible Higgs energies (as originally predicted) we are now far out along the rim.

Gravity waves have been sought for an even longer period. I seem to recall that back in the 70's and 80's experiments were being performed with large cylinders of aluminium which were as unsuccessful as the current run of LIGO observations.

These 2 observation are, as I said earlier, foundational to modern physics and I have yet to mention observations which been made that are hugely problematic to both relativity and quantum theory.

Relativity faces the difficulty of "flyby" velocity changes (recently detailed in New Scientist) and the "Pioneer anomalies" and, as detailed above, quantum theory faces the problem of gravity.

report post as inappropriate


Caleb wrote on Sep. 6, 2009 @ 21:09 GMT
This article relates the classic definitional problem known as Godel's theorem. Newton described an absolute universe, Einstein a relative. If both are considered true and valid and non-exclusive; Descartes Rule's give perhaps the best way to understanding. Whitehead's Process and Reality describes a logical framework for presentational duration utilizing non-relative references termed as absolute in the sense of causality. Fair seas and following winds, along the chartered course to find quantum gravity.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 7, 2009 @ 09:05 GMT
Hi all ,

The quantum gravity ,its stability ,its code is fascinating ,before I ask this question"but how these particles know what they must become.

We know what all is linked and is the same ,all has the same maximum energy quantity .

Our evolution places and activates the particles with their rotations I Think ,the rotation of spheres is like a music in fact ,where the frequences of velocity are in harmony of evolution,of complexification,of optimization by the very weak polarisation.The polarity is probably in harmony too with these velocities of quantum spheres and cosmological spheres.

It's the same with the spherical waves.The rotations of spheres is correlated with the mass ,the quantum gravity is linked with these quantum rotations I think .The number of combinations with all these spheres in a specific entanglement implies a specific rule ,the number of spheres and their specificities are important .

What I find relevant is the spheron and its polarities ,and the adaptation where the interactions become more complex in the weak interactions and their rotations ,there it exists a difference between the spheron system and the weak interactions of evolution.In fact ,when a particle is in a stabler system ,an information is propbably writed in the central main sphere ,the code is diffused .

The rotations are linked probably .

In a collision,protn /proton for exemple ,we destabilize an architecture which is specific,we change its frequences and its stability ,we change the rotations of spheres ....but these spheres are coded due to the polarization by very weak interactions ....thus they shall want probably ruturn to this stability due to this information ,It's perhaps an idea of fusion ,but a weak fusion ,about the H we go more far in the interactions and energy ,but in logic it's the same principle .The codes inside the main central sphere are more far .

I have many questions about this universal architecture ,

I admit 1 for the main central sphere like our universal central sphere ,after I choose the prime number for a kind of mitose ,a division,a multiplication.

Thus we have 1 3 5 7 ...or 1 3 15 105 .....this serie can be insert in a spherical volume and the 1 in the center .This serie is specific .

Perhaps this one 1 3 5 15 105 ....BH .Stars Planets Moons ..If we apply the entanglement with a division of volume thus we can play between the maximum contact and a variable volume .The plan is relevant too like our solar system .

With this serie we can calculate the number of spheres if the prime number are corrects ,in all case we can class our real perceptions and find the good oscillation and the number.

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 7, 2009 @ 18:46 GMT
This kind of physics is so generic and unspecific; I skimmed through the second half of the article because reading one of these kinds of physics articles usually leaves me annoyed at not really having learned anything of value.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Sep. 8, 2009 @ 00:17 GMT
Time is real, but as an effect of motion, like temperature, not cause of it. Time is not a fourth dimension along which we travel from past events to future ones. It is the changing configurations of energy which go from future potential to past circumstance. The earth doesn't travel the fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. The observer is not an independent point of reference moving through time, as we move through space. We are integral to the events, but just have different spatial views of them. It's the same energy forming each moment. There is no block time of events. The dimensional modeling of time is just a formalization of historical narrative. This eliminates all the observer issues that result in multiple reality emerging as we try to travel along that fourth dimension from a deterministic past to a probabilistic future.

Yes, I'm being repetitive, but there does seem to be a growing consideration of time as something other than a fundamental dimension, just not as much further consideration of the consequences.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 8, 2009 @ 02:44 GMT
Barbour’s conclusion: "...the universe is merely changing its shape—becoming more structured..."

Didn't he know about thermodynamics?? The universe becomes LESS structured with time, and this is a LAW, not a theory like relativity, string theory, and others. Time is what makes natural processes irreversible, and so it exists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreversibility

report post as inappropriate


Jeff Softley wrote on Sep. 8, 2009 @ 03:30 GMT
Time is merely a temporal system of measure which requires an observer

Time measures the distance between events much the way space measures the distance between objects

Both require and active observer to determine the starting coordinate, i.e.; to denote the event or object for study

There is no "space-time" - the fourth dimension is a fourth coordinate that is only theoretical since we live in a 3-dimensional universe

Motion is the fundamental quanta - it is the building blocks of all else and is not merely an attendant property of objects or forces

- Jeff Softley

author, The Fundamental Quanta, c 1987

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 8, 2009 @ 05:46 GMT
Dear Jeff

you say:Time measures the distance between events much the way space measures the distance between objects

There is no physical distance between events, the only "distacne" exists is in numerical order of events. This numerical order we measure with clocks.

"Before", "now" and "after" is measured as a strean of physical events that run in timeless quantum space i.e. gravity field.

yours amrit

eternity is now

report post as inappropriate


Roy Johnstone wrote on Sep. 8, 2009 @ 05:49 GMT
I still like the idea of an "Evolving Block Universe" similar to the George Ellis model. As John Merryman has said, time is an "effect" of motion, in the sense that changes we observe in systems/configurations are what we perceive as advancing instants & store in memory as particular "times". Traditional "time" simply cannot be quantified other than in terms of spacial displacement calibrated by cyclic processes (clocks).

The evolving block is a space of configurations in relative motion & with objects having trajectories (relative velocities). The motion of any object is only fully determined by the motion of all other objects The boundaries would be dynamic & determined by c relative to any arbitrary inertial frame. What we need though to fully define the configurations from any and all local frame is a way to recover all relativistic effects, "time dilation" etc, without referring to the traditional notion of time. Has anyone looked seriously at re-defining for example, a form of Lorentz transformation without a time coordinate? This model of course implies a spacially finite Universe, enabling a fully "Machian" treatment of the dynamics in a timeless way.

This is not a "block time of events", but an evolution of unique configurations that have no "permanence" and so cannot be "accessed" again as they no longer exist, thus precluding time travel & causality violation. "Events" could be considered as particular local configurations or

sub-systems according to an observer/object. Issues relating to gravity & the various GR singularity and time-loop solutions will of course need to be disproved. In this model, timelike singularities should be obviated, however, spacelike singularities might remain a problem, but perhaps one that can be solved with a fully spatial treatment of the relevant equations?

Lawrence raised the question of connections between quantum mechanical wave interpretations and relativistic time which made me think that something like the above model may potentially be well described by a Bohmian Mechanics type theory, if one could be formulated to be relativistic and Lorentz invariant??

Cheers

Roy J

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Sep. 8, 2009 @ 09:56 GMT
Anon,

Subjective situations are not time reverseable, but there is a constant recycling of energies, as gravity consolidates and radiation disperses it. Even Big Bang theory requires that initial energy of the singularity to happen, without going into how it originated.

Jeff,

Time doesn't require an observer. In fact, the subjective observer is the source of confusion. As mobile organisms we are moving about in space and so we equate that with moving from one situation to the next. Because we do not have an objective perspective, we don't perceive the equilibrium of all other points of reference moving about and balancing our actions. So we tend to think of time as that sequential series of events we observe and thus move forward from one to the next, not the objective energy changing its configuration, so that it is the particular events going from being in the future to the past.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 8, 2009 @ 10:55 GMT
Dear all ,

What do you think about the average coefficient of volume expansion

av vol exp = change of vol per unit of vol/change of times .Considering the pression constant .We can link with isothermal compressibility .

If we insert the increase of mass ...

The calculus can be optimized with x y and z in three coordonates ,with x like a function of y and z,y can be imagined ...f(x) and f(z).......the substitution thus can be made thus and we continue in correlation with the thermdynamics laws and its constants .

If we make a difference between the dark matter and the volume of mass ,the density in a limited sphere in evolution ,thus the physical quantities can be extrapolated with Lorentz laws ,always the thermal conductivity will rest invariant even with an increase of mass .

Thus all that can be correlated with the principle of the increase of entropy .Let's assume the irreversibility of the adiabatic system ,logic the unknew will rest unknew.The process is isotherm....INT ln(u+vx)dx=1/b(u+vx)ln(u+vx)-x...the S and the mass ,density ,...increase Q W T are linked too like all .

All has the maximum energy quantity ,and the rule of human is to use it with pragmatism ,we are going to these entropy more we are going far in the quantum and the cosmological dimensions in 3D .

The time is a constant ,primordial ,necessary to implies the evolution in a psecific space in evolution .Without time ,any movment thus any evolution ,thus any mass ,thus any entropy .Our physical sphere has its universal laws and the time is important ,it's the only thing which is ubiquity like the constants .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Henri Salles wrote on Sep. 8, 2009 @ 13:18 GMT
Hi all!

1/ Note how often you use the word “motion”.

Motion is at the center of your inner thoughts!

2/ Yet in the footsteps of physics, our human exchanges ignore the reality of motion:

Uniform motion is identified to rest (to nothing) in physics inertia law.

Then Einstein claimed that a roofer falling of the roof is not accelerated because he feels no...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 8, 2009 @ 13:32 GMT
Steve, time is not constant, time is run of clocks.

Change is constant.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 8, 2009 @ 14:18 GMT
Hi all ,

Dear Henry ,

Nice to meet you .

Happy to see you here ,your website is super .We are all honored to speak together hihihi

You know I liked a lot the discussions which are written on you website ,we read the real words of scientists ,scholars and it's fascinating ,thanks to have created this kind of web site .

We could extrapolate some links with the rotations of spheres and the spherical waves .There are many works to do still ,how to well superimpose all that .

Sometimes I ask me,why these beatings of Heart ,and if the changement of sense was the aswer ,or two main central spheres or an other explaination ....

Amrit ,

but how can I imagine a time different than a constant .It's impossible .

It's a run of clocks of course but the time is the time ,a constant of evolution .With all the human possible systems ,the time rest the time .Its frequence is constant like the velocity of the light and others universal constants .

I can understand the fact what the time is not palpable ,but it doesn't change .The physical Universe evolves and without time ,it exists any evolution and any motion ,linear ,local ,centrifugal ,...thus any mass thus any logic .When Einstein said the space time is linked ,he understood what all was linked in a specific dynamic of polarizatiions towards the complexification of creations.But this understanding needs limits in the interpretations .The fourth coordonates are falses ,the dilatation of time impossible ....and all that just because the misunderstandings of the whole are reals .

All is linked and have a specific rule of complemenatrity ,even the time ,the time was a necessity to build the Universe .We can't raise any constant or law it seems to me .

And this time continues to build and polarise the mass .

I have difficulties really Amrit ,could you convince me ,

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Sep. 8, 2009 @ 16:48 GMT
Steve, If I may; Motion causes change. Time is a measure of change.

The dimensional paradigm of time creates the presumption that other points in time co-exist, similar to how different points in space co-exist, i.e, block time and that if we can find ways to warp these dimensions, we can travel to these other points in time. It's as if time is a book and we can open it up to different pages.

The point amrit, myself and others have been making is that time is not a dimension, along which events exist, but is the consequence of the activity of existing energy moving about and thus causing change. Other points in time do not co-exist, because it is the same energy, different configurations. You can't have your cake and eat it too, because the material of which the cake consisted is now in your stomach. It is no longer in cake form. There is no other dimension in which that cake permanently exists because that would require a universe worth of energy to manifest every moment and Ockham's razor wouldn't agree.

To repeat the point I keep making; Time is these changing configuration states and the present is not traveling along them from past to future. They are flowing through the present, so that what is future becomes past. We are not moving from one tick of the clock to the next. The ticks happen, then fade into the past.

Time is an effect of motion. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, because as long as motion exists, it is creating change and thus time.

Nor is "now" a dimensionless point in time, since the motion would have to cease, to freeze time.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 8, 2009 @ 17:53 GMT
Hi John ,

I can understand your point of vue .

Thanks for this explaination.

Could you develop a little how the future becomes past through this flow in present ?

I have already seen what you use the rotation for the past and future ,and if we insert the others rotations thus ?

I try to encircle the whole of yours ideas .Thus for you the time is an effect of the motion energy implying the change .

This interpretation is a specific serie where the sequence is a part of the time .In fact it's the same explaination ,it's a specific oscillation ,constant it seems to me.

Thus the motion of energy undergoes too a specific constant oscillation which is the not palpable time .

If the motion of energy ,mass is the cause thus the effect is balanced too in the same irreversible laws No? where this constant is invariant .I think really what the motion and time like the space are main pieces for the evolution.

I fact that doesn't change our reality of evolution.It's only the local interpretation which can caused some problems of extrapolations .

Thus if I understand well without time the motion continues ?The cause without effect .Thus we can move in a pure atemporality .It's poetic but how?

About the rotations of my quantum spheres implying mass and rule,thus the motion around itelf(the sphere)in your model can turn without time and have a mass without the time because it's just an effect of the motion of energy .

I need some explainations really to admit this correlation between this cause and effect .

Sincerely

Steve

Sincerely.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Sep. 8, 2009 @ 21:47 GMT
Steve,

"Thus the motion of energy undergoes too a specific constant oscillation which is the not palpable time."

It is time, whether it's the oscillation of an atom, or the rotation of the planet. There is nothing atemporal about it. Time is the measure of the series of events. The problem is equating this series with space, as if we are walking down a hallway, past a series of doors, because future and past events do not physically exist, as those doors do. Only the energy exists and it changes shape. As new shapes form, old ones dissolve, so they are first future potential, then present reality and then past. If you stare down that hallway and someone walks through one of the doors, by the time the information reaches your brain, the event is already in the past, just as light from a distant star carries information of events from the past. So that series of doors is a very poor comparison to the reality of time.

Consider the idea of Schrodinger's cat as it would apply to those doors. Every door you walk past, there is some chance you might enter it, so according to the multi-worlds concept, you split off into multiple people and walk through all of them. But it doesn't work that way, because you are not an independent observer moving towards the multiple possibilities of the future. The future and all its possibilities are collapsing onto the present, of which you are an integral part and out of that is emerging the events which quickly recede into the past.

report post as inappropriate


Roy Johnstone wrote on Sep. 9, 2009 @ 04:11 GMT
John,

I feel there is a problem with your statement:-

"It is time, whether it's the oscillation of an atom, or the rotation of the planet. There is nothing atemporal about it. Time is the measure of the series of events."

I think statements like this are what perpetuate the "assumption" that our clocks are measuring something other than the "series of events", which are the changing configurations. Clocks are themselves just physical objects forming part of the system/configuration which they are "measuring" by relative *spatial* displacement. This first statement seems to be almost contradictory to your following words, which I basically agree with:-

"because future and past events do not physically exist, as those doors do. Only the energy exists and it changes shape. As new shapes form, old ones dissolve, so they are first future potential, then present reality and then past."

So only an instantaneous configuration exists, representing our "present" reality (subject to inertial frames), there are no "future" or "past" instants for a "time" interval to measure. The "intervals" are spatial only, with relative frames of reference differentiated by their relative motion. Paul Davies in his book "About Time" I think makes the same mistake in his discussions on relativistic effects, eg time dilation, where he says something to the effect, "skeptics might protest that it is only our clocks that are affected in these ways, but clocks measure time, they are our only way to do so."

On time dilation, Henri said,

"By the way this is in line with Einstein’s time dilation in which “motion” (speed) controls time!"

This is partly true, but it is the *spatial asymmetry* of motion between the inertial frames, ie acceleration & additional "spatial" motion, that causes the effect, acceleration causing spatial contraction.

The problem to be solved is replacing (x,y,z,t) with (x,y,z,?) in purely spatial terms, with "?" being the "interval" determined by relative displacement?

Cheers

Roy J

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 9, 2009 @ 05:50 GMT
John: Time is an effect of motion. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, because as long as motion exists, it is creating change and thus time.

Amrit: Clocks are man inventions to measure change.

Motion and change are existing as a physical reality

and time is existing as a physical reality merely as a tick of clock.

Time as a physical reality is man invention,

motion and change are not man invention.

This in important diffrence that physics should consider.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Sep. 9, 2009 @ 10:17 GMT
Roy,

It is difficult to analyze something which is so fundamental to our process of analysis. The fact is that series of events do occur and our perception of them is the effect we call time.

"So only an instantaneous configuration exists, representing our "present" reality (subject to inertial frames), there are no "future" or "past" instants for a "time" interval to measure."

Consider your use of the term "instantaneous." It is a time based concept, so in effect you are using time to describe an atemporal reality. That's why I make the point that there is no such thing as a dimensionless point of time, since it would require freezing the very motion being measured. If such instantaneous configurations of the universe did exist, than we there would presumably be an equally precise movement of energy from one to the next and that would be the basis of absolute time. In fact, that was the essence of Barbour's entry in the essay contest on time.

Our brains function like frames of film, since real motion is effectively at the speed of light, where the mind is a series of frames/thoughts, distilled from the spectrum of information our senses register. So the very concept of "instantaneous" is a mental construct. It's not that those ticks of a clock don't happen and there isn't an interval we can proximately measure, but that trying to correlate this to units of space causes severe confusion, since with space, we move from A to B, but with time, A becomes B. (A dimensionless point is space is an oxymoron as well, as anything factored by zero doesn't exist.)

amrit,

The effect we call time does pre-exist our perception of it. The earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun. Rain falls, rivers run, cycles happen. The point is that all these ticks of a clock don't co-exist along some meta-dimension. They are the physical stuff of reality going through changes.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 9, 2009 @ 10:39 GMT
John,

Thanks for this explaination .I understand better the idea of Mr Barbour too and yours .

sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 9, 2009 @ 10:51 GMT
John: The effect we call time does pre-exist our perception of it. The earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun. Rain falls, rivers run, cycles happen. The point is that all these ticks of a clock don't co-exist along some meta-dimension. They are the physical stuff of reality going through changes.

Amrit: Yes, clock tick also when you do no watch it. There is no physical time beyond clock tick. All experimental data confirm this statement.

There is no pre and after existence. Change run in timeless space and the only "pre" and "after" is numerical order of change that we measure with clocks.

eternity is now

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Sep. 9, 2009 @ 17:09 GMT
amrit,

"eternity is now"

Math likes to use dimensionless points as convenient place holders, because they presumably don't require any further description, but they amount to logical singularities. Consider the idea of Planck units as the smallest possible units of space and time. Yet they cannot be exact units, as that would require defining the limits down to that dimensionless point....

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Sep. 9, 2009 @ 17:10 GMT
As I recall, Peter Lynds originally made this point about space, in terms of Zeno's paradox.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 9, 2009 @ 19:14 GMT
Regradng Zeno paradox

turtle moves into a-temporal space and Archile moves also in a-temporal space

they start both from the point A towards the point B

with clocks we measure speed of motion into a-temporal space

turtle moves 1m in 10 seconds

in 100 seconds turtle will move 10 m from A into direction to B

Archile moves 1 m in one second

ın 100 seconds Archile will move 100 meters from a towards B

lets say that Archile start moving after turtle moves already 5 seconds

he will pass ıt soon

there is no paradox here

both move into space only and not in time

Zeno paradox is mathematical paradox that makes no sense in physics

report post as inappropriate


Roy Johnstone wrote on Sep. 10, 2009 @ 04:06 GMT
John,

You are quite correct that my use of the word "instantaneous" has temporal connotations and I have fallen into the very trap I am wanting us all to avoid! So please substitute "instantaneous configuration" with "unique configuration" or "frame", where even this is really an idealisation based on how our brain perceives change, which you described well when you said..."Our brains function like frames of film, since real motion is effectively at the speed of light, where the mind is a series of frames/thoughts, distilled from the spectrum of information our senses register".

I also agree that the real difficulty comes with trying to quantify "intervals" (config A - config B) in spatial terms. This is the essense of the problem we have to overcome! The processes (physical laws) which govern the changes are quantised (as are any "measures" we make of intervals at any scale) but we perceive those changes as a continuum, this is also the problem of GR being a continuum theory and therefore incompatible with QM. If I understand the rest of your post correctly, this is basically what you are saying? That "time" cannot be quantised (Lynds) and so is treated as a continuum yet our treatment of spatial intervals is inherently quantised/intervallic?

Perhaps too, your statement..."The effect we call time does pre-exist our perception of it", might be more correct by substituting "does pre-exist" with "is a priori to". This may please Amrit, who I think is correct in his issue with "pre".

Cheers

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Sep. 10, 2009 @ 10:21 GMT
amrit,

Zeno's paradox is a strange case of false assumptions. I forget how Lynds structured his argument. It was the first paper that made him famous, relatively speaking. The point being that a dimensionless point doesn't exist.

Roy,

I think that part of our problem is that the mind functions as a process of making distinctions, so we tend to give more credence to the quanta than the continuum. I think at it's most fundamental level, reality is a continuum. Otherwise it couldn't exist, as there would be no basis of connection between quanta. Yet we are like those animals which only see motion, so we only really register the information of detail. It's like the question of space. We can only measure what occupies it, so think it is created by these measurements, but even that's contradictory, as if it doesn't exist, it can't be created or even defined. It is both absolute, as the basis of everything, the vacuum that fluctuates and infinite as in lacking any boundaries of definition.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 10, 2009 @ 15:17 GMT
Natural clock is quanta of space QS itself

QS tick with frequency 1/Planck time

QS changes electrical charge from positive to negative into Planck time

In Planck time photon pass distance of Planck distance.

In Planck time photon pass one QS

Frequency of QS is basic vibration of the universal space into which we exist

In cosmic space build from QS there is no before and after, there is only change we measure with clocks.

Idea of quantization of time is wrong.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 10, 2009 @ 16:38 GMT
Quanta of space QS are basic quanta of energy. They can not be created and not destroyed. They are eternal. They vibrate with basic Frequency 1/Planck time.

QS build fundamental arena of the universe.

In this fundamental arena there is no time as a physical reailty.

This arena is timeless.

We humans we experience this arena as present moment, as NOW.

In the universe there is only this present moment.

In this present moment universe and nature change.

And this change we measure with clocks.

Conscious observer is aware of this timelss universe,

unconscious observer experiences change in linear concept of inner time.

He lives in time, he think time is part of the universe.

This illusion will be resolved in next few years.

Physich will confirm soon that time is tick of clocks in timeless quantum space.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Sep. 10, 2009 @ 21:15 GMT
amrit,

Quanta are the nodes, but what is the network? Physics is convinced the network is simply an effect of the existence of nodes, whether it's quanta, or multiple universes. I think that's just a little too top down, object oriented to really explain what's going on.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Sep. 10, 2009 @ 22:01 GMT
I find the concept of the fluctuating vacuum to be more bottom up elemental, with all the forms and shapes, vortices, intersections, solids, fluids, gases, etc. to be the effect. That's why I think space is something more than just the measure between such points of reference.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Sep. 11, 2009 @ 02:28 GMT
further note; When you get down to it, so many of the problems in our collapsing Tower of Babel world are due to the fact that we are so much more mentally adept at making distinctions, rather than connections. We can dissect everything down to its finest grain, but have no model for how it all comes together in the first place, because models are static and reality operates at the speed of light.

report post as inappropriate


Roy Johnstone wrote on Sep. 11, 2009 @ 03:40 GMT
I would have said that the "network" is the various interactions between quanta ("nodes") and that what you are really seeking is the continuum which "supports' the network? The vacuum fluctuations are themselves *quantum* in nature (albeit vitual). Quantum Field Theory treats the fields as a continuum (space) at least in a theoretical way. In the classical regime, GR treats space as a continuum. This is the essence of the debate about how to formulate quantum gravity, by quantising GR or by recovering GR from quantum theory...top down or bottom up? I'm for bottom up! I think the basis for this might be something very close to Bohmian Mechanics too.

Loop Quantum Gravity type theories are an attempt to show how "spacetime" can be quantised and still derive the classical appearance of space (continuum) and all other entities, ie "network" and "nodes".

Cheers

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 11, 2009 @ 07:15 GMT
John and Roy

QS Quanta of space constitute space. If we would have a microscope strong enough we could see them. Space is like made out of entities that have basic frequency. QS Vibrate with basic frequency we call here Planck frequency. So QS are basic nodes, eternal, un-destroyable. Quantum space has a certain density. More matter is in given volume less quantum space is dense. When space is dense it has tendency to shrink. This shrinking force is gravity. In centre of AGN quantum space is very dense and it has tendency to expand. So quantum space can indirectly attract stellar objects or push them apart. Where quantum space is very dense it pushes apart where it is no dense it shrinks as in black holes and neutron stars where matter transforms back to the space.

Where we have transformation matter into quantum space or quantum space into matter density of quantum space is changing strongly. This change of density propagates in quantum space as a gravity wave. So gravitational waves are waves in quantum space that travel with a light speed. Gravity force itself I non-propagating. It works between quanta of space themselves.

Fundamental comic dynamics is in transformation of QS into elementary particles in AGN and elementary particles back into QS in neutron and black stars. This dynamics is eternal, no beginning and no end.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 11, 2009 @ 07:42 GMT
Lawrence: Amrit: a clock records time, Everything a ratchet-pawl locks in a toothed wheel someting irreversible has happened. A clock demarks time according to intervals, which are regular enough and require some irreversible loss of energy. Thermodynamics on a large scale appears of great importance.

Amrit: As time (clock) is man made physical reality we can talk only about “arrow of change” (arrow if numerical order of change) that runs in timeless quantum space. Universe is 1300 billions years old only in a sense of numerical order of events. Numerical order is the only past that exits.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Sep. 11, 2009 @ 10:35 GMT
Roy,

That's why I keep going back to the point about time going both directions. When we look at it from the subjective perspective of the node, it is a series of events, but but if we look at it as these "configurations states" going future to past, it is the direction of the entire field.

amrit,

Is the continuum only a function of interaction on the Planck scale?

...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 11, 2009 @ 10:49 GMT
John, Real continuum exists only in mathematic; real numbers are continuum on the straight line.

Continuum of physical level as an ongoing process in the universe is function of quantum space, of quanta of space QS.

Electron is a micro-field around atom center generated by QS in given area.

I believe that future physics will develop a mode of the universe where change will run in a timeless medium of Quantum space. Matter is structured energy of quantum space. All elementary particles are combination of QS.

Universe and change have no duration. With clocks we measure only frequency, velocity and numerical order of change that runs in present moment. This present moment is the only one that exists. Eternity is now.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Sep. 11, 2009 @ 18:04 GMT
amrit,

Is this quantum space an absolute grid of immovable points, or do they flow around and interact with the physical material?

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 11, 2009 @ 19:06 GMT
John

QS are carrying gravity force; quantum space is a direct information and energy medium.

Quantum space interacts with matter via density, see my previous post.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Sep. 11, 2009 @ 22:33 GMT
amrit,

So it is relativistic. The problem I have with that model is that it still needs a constant frame to make sense. Consider the idea that gravity bends the path of light and this means it bends the space in which that light travels. How could the term "bend" even make sense, if there wasn't a concept of objective space against which to compare it? If the gravitational field wasn't...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 12, 2009 @ 05:55 GMT
John

Curvature of space in GR is a mathematical model for density of quantum space. Less dense is space more space is curved. More space is dense less is curved. In black holes matter is dense and space is low dense in centre of galaxy space is dense to max and there is no matter there. So in centre of galaxy space transforms in matter.

Light bending is result of density of quantum space.

Gravitational red shift is result of density of quantum space.

Clock ticks slower in less dense quantum space.

Planets move slower in less dense quantum space ( Mercury perihelion)

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Sep. 12, 2009 @ 16:42 GMT
amrit,

I'm a little befuddled. Presumably the density of space refers to the quantity of energy contained, so gravitational attraction would make it more curved, the greater the density of energy and mass.

The basic assumption of physics seems to be that space is nothing but an effect of activity. That the fluctuation creates the vacuum. Whether you agree with me, or not, I think the alternative deserves to be considered. If space is nothing, it can't be curved, or quantified and it needs no cause. Those are all properties of energy. Presumably all the positive and negative energy, matter and anti-matter, etc. cancel out to zero. All the curvature of space, both expansion and contraction, seem to balance out to an over-all flat space. It seems everything balances out to....nothing? Yes, the argument can be made that some residue is left. Some energies are always coming, as other is going, etc, but still there isn't some total supply, but rather fluctuations of the equilibrium. Maybe I'm not putting this in sufficiently mathematical terms, but nothing seems to be the equilibrium state at the center of everything. As you said; Now is eternity.

you haven't explained to me why this flexible space can presumably expand from a singularity, yet there seems to be an unrelated constant speed of light.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 12, 2009 @ 17:24 GMT
John, photon is a packet of energy that “jumps” from one QS to another. This jumps have constant speed: photon pass Planck distance in Planck time, independently of the observer speed.

So for the observer that moves in an inertial system with a high speed through the space all change in his inertial system are running slower, velocity of clocks including. He also is getting older slower than his fried in inertial system that move with lower speed.

We measure speed of inertial systems relatively from inertial system A to B and vice versa.

If you are in A and I’m in B and you inform me that in your space-ship clocks run slower than in my space-ship this means that you move with higher speed than me.

We are aware now that A and B move in timeless space only and clock tick in timeless space too.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Sep. 12, 2009 @ 21:21 GMT
amrit,

Do we know the energy of a photon is inherent, or is it an effect. Drops of water all tend to be the same size, due to surface tension and gravity. Could the energy of photons also be due to some transition effect? When you entangle two photons, you have one packet of energy, just as if you combine two drops of water. When you separate out two photons again, their properties are fundamentally entangled. This suggests they are not two irreducible packets of energy, but have been combined and thus the specific energy of a photon is due to factors we may not fully understand, not because it is irreducible. What if we were to combine enormous numbers of photons, such as with sunlight. Wouldn't all this energy be equally entangled and it's only when it comes in contact with something that it grounds out as a specific quanta of energy

Then the question applies to space. Is a Planck unit fundamental, or it is a function of the properties of mass and energy in motion and is due to transition and interaction. If you say space doesn't exist. That it's just a function of measurement, than all a Planck unit is, is the smallest possible measurement. It's as close as we can get to nothing.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 13, 2009 @ 06:34 GMT
John, medium into which stellar objects and elementary particles move is direct medium of communication between entangled particles. In a way this medium defines behavior of entangled particles. Medium exits for sure, medium is not consequence of matter. We can call it quantum space of gravity field. Myself I see “quantum space” most accurate term.

Building elements of quantum space QS we can not observe directly. Idea of an unit of energy entity that has a volume of Planck in vibrate with Planck frequency (changes electrical charge from positive to negative in a Planck time) is see acceptable, because it s related to the fundamental constant in Physics Plank distance.

Universe behaves with a great intelligence. Physics is coming closer and closer to the core. We have to be aware that math and physics are tolls for describing universe created by the human mind. So mind is a consistent part of math and physics and without deep understanding of the mind we will never reach into depth of the universe. Linear time belongs to the mind. According to my understanding physics will abandon idea of space-time being physical reality soon. This will be the first big step into profound understanding of the universe where there is deep entanglement between the observer and the universe.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Sep. 13, 2009 @ 14:53 GMT
amrit,

"In a way this medium defines behavior of entangled particles. Medium exits for sure, medium is not consequence of matter. We can call it quantum space of gravity field. Myself I see “quantum space” most accurate term."

We seem to be in agreement. I do think the concept which does embed the observer in the universe is understanding time as the events going from future to past. In fact, I think the reason I cannot seem to get many people to think it through is because it does embed one's sense of self and identity into one's context far more completely and irrevocably than most people wish to think. We naturally like to pick and chose what we are part of and what is part of us, but framing it this way, makes it a completely holistic relationship. That linear concept of time is what makes us the autonomous beings we imagine ourselves to be. The very concept of history is based on it and civilization is a product of that concept of history. So it's reasonable that most people don't want to go there, but if we really what to understand what we are, we have to.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 13, 2009 @ 17:50 GMT
Yes John, It is amazing that grandma, son and grandson are born and getting older in same timeless quantum space. We measure with clocks their age in a sense of numerical order. Grandma birth has number n, son birth number n + 25, grandson n + 59. We are getting older in timeless quantum space, History happens in timeless quantum space.

Eternity is now

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Sep. 13, 2009 @ 21:39 GMT
amrit,

That's linear history. What becomes truly incomprehensible is trying to fathom the vast sea of interacting relationships. We can only really process our own linear narrative and even those events in our own life that become disconnected from the narrative, get lost and forgotten, much like a dream when we wake up. We are endlessly editing our history in order to give it some logical balance and focus.

report post as inappropriate


Zephir wrote on Sep. 13, 2009 @ 23:35 GMT
AWT doesn't consider the beginning of Universe. It simply doesn't need concept of origin (which brings only questions for another origin and it explains nothing in fact).

The picture illustrates the light spreading in vacuum by splash ripples spreasing at the water surface. These ripples gradually decays and increase their frequency from outer perspective. From inside perspective (i.e. the perspective of observer sitting at the water surface and observing space-time formed by its waves) the perspective would became exactly as opposite. He would see expanding space in omnidirectional way and waves ending their life in background noise in remote distance. He can still interpret such observation as a Big Bang event - but the another, remote observer would see exactly the same thing at the place of first observer!

report post as inappropriate


Roy Johnstone wrote on Sep. 14, 2009 @ 05:23 GMT
John,

You said...

"So what if light expands as a field, like the electrons he is describing and only collapses into photons when we measure it. It would not only be a function of the light, but a process of interaction with the measuring device. It might explain lots of things, such as action at a distance, as the entangled particles are fronts of the same wave."

You have just described the essense of Bohmian Mechanics!! Although the photons are always there guided by a pilot wave.

Related to this, photons have energy determined by the emission spectrum of their source and the photoelectric effect proves their "irreducible" nature. It is not quite right to say "When you entangle two photons, you have one packet of energy". Entangled or "combined" photons are still two wave packets, it is just that they are in the same "quantum state", ie same phase, polarisation etc, in the same way as two combined drops of water still have their "irreducible" constituent atoms. In BM it is described as a sort of transformation of the probablility density with the combined wave functions guiding the *positions* of two photons now, which would both be measured with the *same* energy state, assuming no secondary entanglement has occurred after separation. You seem to effectively be saying that combining photons "creates" a new photon? So that light from the sun would be one continuous photon! This implies a continuum spectrum which would revive the "ultraviolet catastrophe" from the early 1900's!!

Amrit,

You said...

"So for the observer that moves in an inertial system with a high speed through the space all change in his inertial system are running slower, velocity of clocks including. He also is getting older slower than his fried in inertial system that move with lower speed.

We measure speed of inertial systems relatively from inertial system A to B and vice versa.

If you are in A and I’m in B and you inform me that in your space-ship clocks run slower than in my space-ship this means that you move with higher speed than me."

It should be remembered that the relativistic effects you are talking about here do *not* occur between relative frames in *constant* motion, regardless of their relative velocities. This only affects simaltaneity, as both frames are on an equal basis as a reference point. Those effects only come about when the relative motion of the frames is *assymetric*, ie one is accelerated and/or moving in a spatially assymetric way. So you cannot say that A is "moving with higher speed" just because A's clock appears to be running slower. From A's point of view, B's clock would also be running slower!

Cheers

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 14, 2009 @ 06:16 GMT
Roy: It should be remembered that the relativistic effects you are talking about here do *not* occur between relative frames in *constant* motion, regardless of their relative velocities. This only affects simaltaneity, as both frames are on an equal basis as a reference point. Those effects only come about when the relative motion of the frames is *assymetric*, ie one is accelerated and/or moving in a spatially assymetric way. So you cannot say that A is "moving with higher speed" just because A's clock appears to be running slower. From A's point of view, B's clock would also be running slower!

Amrit

Roy

I do not agree with you. From A's point of view, B's clock would run faster.

SR and GR are connected through the equality of inertial and gravitational mass. In faster inertial system gravity is stronger and clocks run slower. This is a universal rule. Speed of light is a constant in the universe. With this parameter we compare all other speed of inertial systems

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 14, 2009 @ 07:44 GMT
The question “What is Time?” is deeply related to the question “Who is the observer?” In physics today observer is searching exclusively outside physical world. He is not searching how his mind influences his experience of physical world. For deeper understanding of physical world observer needs understanding of how his mind influences scientific experience. Scientist perceive physical reality with senses, than perceived information get processed by the mind, finally experience happen. By searching inside observer discovers that his mind functions in a frame of space-time that is mind creation. He becomes aware that physical time is run of clocks merely and that quantum space into which change run is timeless.

This is insight of my research and there is no objection to it. All experimental data support it. Recent brain research is confirming that experience of change consequently in linear time is result of neuronal dynamics of the brain.

Physics should be sincere and drop idea of space-time being fundamental arena of the universe.

I do not say as Barbour says that time is an illusion. I say that the idea space-time being physical reality is an illusion. For me time as a clocks run is man created physical reality and is consistent part of physics and will remain in physics for ever.

It is a big intellectual jump in incomprehension that there is no time behind run of clocks. This simply means that now is eternity itself. All experimental data confirm that fact. So there is no hindrance to accept that as a standpoint of physics. We have to leave behind our idea that Einstein achievements are pillars of physics that will never be improved. He was aware that time do not exists as a physical reality into which change run. He has tried to “hide” to incorporate time in space. Because of that in SR imaginary 4-th coordinate is a product of clock tick t, light speed and imaginary number i

X – i x c x t

Mathematical Imaginary coordinate cannot be physical. But his hidden device did not succeed. Physics today see space-time as physical reality and does not take in consideration that there is no experimental evidence for that. This mistake will be now improved.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Sep. 14, 2009 @ 10:07 GMT
Roy,

I should stay away from trying to explain light, but it seems to me that the Hubble Effect would be far more logical as a consequence of distance. In which case we wouldn't need to explain/unquestioningly accept the Singularity, Inflation, or dark energy. It would simply be a matter of trying to explain why redshift is caused by distance. Effectively it would be a cosmological constant, an opposite curvature/expansion of space that would balance gravity. That's why I keep referring to Carver Mead's description of the electron as being its own wave; http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/People/CarverMead.h
tm

So I'm just proposing the expanding circumference of the light over distance affects the wavelength of individual photons. The mechanics of it are a question, obviously.

One of the issues I keep raising in this regard is how does space itself expand, yet we still have a stable speed of light? It would seem to me that our most fundamental measure of distance would have to be stretched, as space expands, otherwise it is not expanding space, but simply an increasing amount of stable space. In which case, it would appear that we are at the center of the universe, since distant galaxies are all redshifted directly away from us, proportional to distance!

amrit,

I would agree with you on that, as at the speed of light, time is at a stand still, though how I had it explained wasn't because gravity is infinite, but because there is no internal activity within a photon, as it would require faster than light motion by any activity toward the direction of travel. So anything approaching the speed of light necessarily has its atomic activity reduced and thus its clock slowed.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 14, 2009 @ 12:22 GMT
John, yes clocks velocity is reduced in timeless quantum space.

yours amrit

attachments: FROM_SPACETIME_TO_TIMELESS_QUANTUM_SPACE.doc

report post as inappropriate


Roy Johnstone wrote on Sep. 14, 2009 @ 12:39 GMT
Amrit,

If you are talking about *inertial* frames A and B, you are talking about frames with constant velocity, that is, constant speed in a constant direction. Therefore A and B can both be considered to be "at rest" and so must both observe each other's clocks to be running with the same difference of rate, due to the symmetry of the frames and the constant speed of light. It is only when assymetric motion such as acceleration changes one of the frames that you get the "time dilation" effect. You have actually shown this with your later statement..."In faster inertial system gravity is stronger and clocks run slower." What you are really saying is that in an *accelerated* frame gravity is stronger, as an inertial frame is in free fall, ie *no* gravity. It is the equivalence of gravity and acceleration that is the connection, not the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass. Equivalently, clocks in "stronger" gravity will run slower relative to co-moving clocks.

If we are to do away with the concept of time, as we all seem to agree we should, then I think the "time dilation" effect needs to be re-interpreted in terms of the space/distance contraction effect which is also a result, but one which tends to be hidden or forgotten in most explanations.

John,

The questions you raise regarding cosmic expansion and red shift are good ones. I'm not sure I completely understand your reasoning, but I would explain things like this. Red shift *on it's own* has nothing to do with distance. It is a consequence of recessional motion. So any red shift is an indication of motion away from us and cosmic observations show that (nearly) all galaxies are receding from us and from *all other* galaxies. Now, when you said "It would seem to me that our most fundamental measure of distance would have to be stretched, as space expands, otherwise it is not expanding space, but simply an increasing amount of stable space", you were right. Light *is* "stretched" and therefore red shifted by the expansion of space. This is evidenced by measuring the wavelength of light from known emission sources eg supernovae, against what the wavelength was when it was first emitted. This is the proof of expansion, the "Hubble Constant" proportional to red shift. Note, the speed of light is not affected, only it's wavelength.

The evidence for the *accelerated* expansion does have to do with distance, as you suggested. By comparing the actual distance to galaxies, again using supernovae from different "times", to what their distance would be after *constant* expansion, the expansion rate can be determined for those "times". The results show that the rate is increasing.

Cheers

Roy J

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 14, 2009 @ 13:55 GMT
Roy my understanding of time dilatation is that velocity of events is going down tick of clocks including. There is no some physical time existing that is shrinking.

Regarding inertial systems A and B you are right: inertial systems have a constant speed.

When you say that for example that A is at rest the question arises: at rest to what. For saying that system A is at rest we have to define system B to which A is at rest.

My understanding is that A and B both move or are at rest in timeless quantum space. We measure velocity of A relatively comparing it with velocity of B and vice versa. When clocks run slower in A this means that A moves faster than B. Or I’m wrong?

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Sep. 14, 2009 @ 17:53 GMT
Roy,

I understand redshift as a function of recessional velocity. It's the Doppler effect. The problem is that it is based on recession within a stable frame of reference. As in the train is moving away on the tracks, the tracks are not being stretched. Originally the proposed expansion of the universe was based on this concept, that other galaxies are simply flying away from us, the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Roy Johnstone wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 03:45 GMT
Amrit,

You are right when you say frame A (or B) can only be considered at rest relative to some other (arbitrary) reference frame. What I am saying is that, because A and B are both inertial frames they have *equal status* to being considered at rest, or in relative motion. You could though, for example, introduce another frame C which is co-moving with B and use that as the "rest" frame and measure the velocity of system A relative to the combined system. Now, due to general covariance, ie physical laws are identical an all inertial frames, the clocks in A and B *must* tick at the same rate. So, even though B sees A's clock running slower, so too does A see B's clock running slower, the situation is symmetric. As I previously said, it is when asymmetries enter the scene, eg acceleration which is absolute not relative, that the "time" dilation effect occurs. So it is Einstein's equivalence principle, ie acceleration and gravity are equivalent, that causes the real time dilation/space contraction in either an accelerated frame or a stronger gravity frame.

I do agree with you that it is not "time shrinking", there is no "time". That's why I have said before that the real effect that appears in the "Twins Paradox" should be explained in terms of the space/length *contraction* which is manifested and the asymmetry of the final configuration when twin A returns to twin B. This may shed more light on a lot of things.

Cheers

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 06:03 GMT
Hi Roy

We have experimental data that locks run slower in airplane that moves opposite to earth rotation than on the surface of the earth. Earth is moving in timeless quantum space, clocks are ticking in timeless quantum space. And speed of clocks in the airplane is slower than speed of clocks on the surface of the Earth.

What is your opinion on the Schrödinger cat. I have my own interpretation:

Schrödinger cat in box is an interesting question. In this thought experiment cat remains in a box one hour. Clocks are “ticking” 60x60 seconds and than we open the box.

When atom decay happens cat is dead, until atom decay do not happen cat is alive. Cat in box can not be both simultaneously alive and dead. Cat is alive or dead before we open the box. It is not that with opening box cat will be alive or dead. Opening of the box has no relation to cat life. Relation to the cat life has atom decay. And atom decay has no relation to the opening of the box.

If cat is alive when we open the box this means decay of atom did not happen in one hour.

If cat is dead when we open the box we can do autopsy of the cat and calculate when atom has decayed. Cat biochemical reactions are natural clock “tick”. With autopsy we can see when (if) cat as biochemical clock has stopped.

Cat cannot be both simultaneously: alive and dead.

Cat does not live or dies in space-time.

Cat is living and dies in timeless quantum space only.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 10:43 GMT
It seems to me that if time is not a fundamental dimension, than space does amount to an inertial reference frame. What determines the speed of light? Yes, as you approach the speed of light, internal motion and thus the clock slows down, so that light seems to go the same speed, but if the clock is simply a measure of motion, than it is simply internal motion slowed by the effect of traveling close to the speed of light. So a clock would move fastest at rest in inertial space and the speed of light is ultimately relative to this inertial frame. ?

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 16:12 GMT
amrit,

The puzzle of Schrodinger's Cat is a juxtaposition of quantum and classical reality, so why not look at both and see where they fit?

In QM, time is somewhat nebulous, since events don't have an entropic order, but as a consequence of motion, time is the atom decaying from one state to the next. If it does, the cat dies. The process of events goes from atom to cat, to observer. Now, from the perspective of the observer, it is the observation which confirms the state of the cat. Think of it as if the observer was an astronomer studying a star that's two thousand lightyears away. A thousand lightyears ago, the star exploded, but for the observer, the star will still be whole for another thousand years. We tend to think of events as happening when we observe them, but by the time we observe them, they are past. Time is the wave of possibility washing toward and collapsing past us, not a series of events from which we move through.

When you have a block time view, in which time is a series along which you travel, then it does branch out into multiple possibilities, because in the future, the atom could be either decayed or not, just as the star could have exploded, or not.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 22:12 GMT
John: It seems to me that if time is not a fundamental dimension, than space does amount to an inertial reference frame. What determines the speed of light? Yes, as you approach the speed of light, internal motion and thus the clock slows down, so that light seems to go the same speed, but if the clock is simply a measure of motion, than it is simply internal motion slowed by the effect of traveling close to the speed of light. So a clock would move fastest at rest in inertial space and the speed of light is ultimately relative to this inertial frame. ?

Amrit: John, Light has same speed in weak and strong gravity field. Clocks run slower in stronger gravity field. This is how universe functions. Do not ask me why because I do not know.

Light is not relative to any inertial system or frame. Light is constant for all. Velocity of change is relative, run (tick) of clocks is relative.

John

Now, from the perspective of the observer, it is the observation which confirms the state of the cat.

Amrit

Yes, but observer has no influence of cat life. The only influence has atom decay. So cat can be alive or dead. Cat cannot be both. Cat life/death and atom decay/no decay are directly related.

Box is closed and we do not know decay of atom happen or not. Our not knowing does not play any role in the whole experiment. Death happens or not, depends on atom decay.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 01:53 GMT
amrit,

"Clocks run slower in stronger gravity field."

Because the rate of atomic activity is slower. Since it is also slowed by motion of the clock through space, than a clock runs fastest when it is motionless and not in the presence of gravity.

"Yes, but observer has no influence of cat life."

The whole universe is made up of quantum phenomena. We don't know what happens until we observe it. Whether it's light from a distant star, or a cat dying. These events are first in our future, then in our past.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 07:15 GMT
John these events are always in timeless quantum space. Before and after is only numerical order of events.

Regarding cat: cat is existing in timeless quantum space and radioactive substance too. If tom decay cat is dead is atom do not decay cat is live.

There is no other option. Cat can not be alive and dead simultaneously.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 09:42 GMT
amrit,

True.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 23, 2009 @ 06:39 GMT
After few month of discussion here I’m wondering why physicists are so “attached“ to the idea of space-time. In formula itself X4 = i x c x t there is no inner logic that time would be fourth coordinate of space. Some theoretical physicists argue on space-time being fundamental foam of the universe, basic arena. This foam should be made out of quanta of space QS Volume of Planck. My question here is where are 3 components of space and one component of time in this QS ? We have to open to understanding that universe is timeless. There is no trace of time in the universe. There is only motion.

And clocks are man invention to measure motion. Physical time is “tick” of clock in a timeless quantum space.

I would encourage experts which are convinced space-time being fundamental stage of the universe to actively participate debate here. It is a great opportunity to challenge human capacity to go beyond its limits. In order to build up in physics a new theoretical frame of timeless quantum space we have to recognize space-time being merely math model only that do exactly not correspond to the physical reality. Timeless quantum space is far more accurate approximation of physical reality.

report post as inappropriate


Jake wrote on Sep. 26, 2009 @ 01:26 GMT
Did no one else notice that 7 minutes referenced in the third paragraph does not equal 560 seconds as stated later in the same paragraph?

report post as inappropriate


Jake wrote on Sep. 26, 2009 @ 01:28 GMT
Whoops, I didn't click the "read all article comments" link. Apparently several of you noticed that error. Eek.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 27, 2009 @ 23:41 GMT
'tis daycant like

report post as inappropriate


Munk wrote on Sep. 28, 2009 @ 19:54 GMT
Barbour does not want to believe in time anymore because he is nearing the/his point in time 'where' his experience of it will cease to exist. That, plus it would bring chemical pleasure to have a sense of accomplished purpose, instead of a chosen meaningless lifetime of thought dedication.

report post as inappropriate


Lewis wrote on Sep. 29, 2009 @ 17:30 GMT
I would have to say he is right about skeptics. It is easier to believe there is no time rather than no motion. Things either have to be changing position or position needs to be changing things. Think about that. Any ideas surrounding position changing things please email me, thepantherisin@yahoo.com.

report post as inappropriate


ohbe1n wrote on Sep. 30, 2009 @ 01:39 GMT
We live in space for a period of time. All the math and physics (my educational experiences) were concerned with these dimensions. With what, then, shall Julian Barbour describe existence?

report post as inappropriate


John wrote on Sep. 30, 2009 @ 01:44 GMT
@MUNK

Was that really necessary?

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 2, 2009 @ 16:29 GMT
Barbour say time is an illusion.

My vision is that we have to distinguish between physical time, neuronal time and math time.

yours amrit

attachments: 2_MATHEMATICAL_SPACETIME__NEURONAL_SPACETIME_AND_TIMELESS_QUANTUM_SPACE_arXiv.doc

report post as inappropriate


Davi wrote on Oct. 4, 2009 @ 11:06 GMT
Timelessness, and relativity. What is a point? Infinitely small to Infinitely big. Time doesn't exist in a point. Mass seems to dictate gravity. In a point envelope, time is absent. Looking backwards in discovery the 4th dimension is only a point which comes before the third dimension. Einstein was the most intuitive thinker I understand by our instruction method. Quantum Mechanics is a sight stemming from relativity as man unravels the rope to find the point of origin. Humans are subjects in time with finite existence. Doubt it an you will die before figuring anything out, but the 4th dimension is timeless and nothing more than a point we exist within. In the case of humans, you must ride the cusps of limits, to see what is on the other side.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 4, 2009 @ 11:35 GMT
Davi the point is that change run in timeless quantum space.

Their velocity (run of clocks included) is relative to the density of quantum space.

Less space is dense, more space is curved and stronger is gravity. Stronger is gravity lover is velocity of change.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Oct. 5, 2009 @ 12:49 GMT
"To get a handle on Mach’s viewpoint, imagine a particle spinning out in space. If there were no stars forming a backdrop against which to measure the particle’s motion, can we really say that the particle is moving? To Mach, the answer was no, in an empty space there is no distinction between the particle spinning and the particle being stationary."

By its sheer existence, the "particle" can NOT be in empty space as the particle itself occupies space. To say that the particle is spinning implies movement. It IS moving relative to itself, i.e. the outer layer of the particle changes relative to its center.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 5, 2009 @ 22:24 GMT
Anon,

"By its sheer existence, the "particle" can NOT be in empty space as the particle itself occupies space. To say that the particle is spinning implies movement. It IS moving relative to itself, i.e. the outer layer of the particle changes relative to its center."

Very good point. It would necessarily have centrifugal force.

I think physics will eventually accept that space is an equilibrium state.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 6, 2009 @ 13:58 GMT
John, elementary particles are compressed energy of the quantum space. Particle that does not change density of quantum space is mass-less. Particle does not occupies space, space is also inside of particle. Particle is where space is more dense. See more on file attached.

Yours Amrit

attachments: Quantum_Space_and_Gravitational_Motion_of_Massive_Bodies.doc

report post as inappropriate


Roy Johnstone wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 00:23 GMT
Hi all

"To get a handle on Mach’s viewpoint, imagine a particle spinning out in space. If there were no stars forming a backdrop against which to measure the particle’s motion, can we really say that the particle is moving? To Mach, the answer was no, in an empty space there is no distinction between the particle spinning and the particle being stationary."

I think the point of this statement is that without any other physical object, there is no reference point by which to quantify the particle's spin or any other motion. Try calibrating a 24 hour clock with only the Earth existing in an empty void! Yes, the particle, as specified, may possess spin and would therefore have intrinsic angular momentum, but this could only be measured *internally* as anon said.."relative to itself", this is of no use to an observer. That is the whole essence of relativity & Machian principles.

Cheers

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 10:12 GMT
amrit,

And possibly the opposite is true. Empty space is less dense, so that from the perspective of dense space, it is expanding, just as dense space is gravitationally collapsing. When you add the two together, they cancel out and the result is an overall flat space, or equilibrium.

Roy,

You are making the assumption of a perfectly objective, external observer, yet observation requires some frame of reference and in this case, the only reference is the spinning particle.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 12:40 GMT
John

Distribution of energy in the universe tends to be homogeneous. Mass is structured condensed energy of the space. Around mass space is less dense.

Mass change density/curvature of space and that generates gravity.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 17:21 GMT
amrit,

Gravity is a process, not static, so it is drawing in what might be defined as space, or at least what occupies it. This means the area between gravity fields is losing this structure, so since gravity is condensing space, then it must be expanding between gravity fields and this is exactly what we see with redshift. This doesn't mean gravitational objects are actually moving away from each other, as the expansion is effectively falling into the gravity wells. Of course, these wells are then radiating energy back out into this open space.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 8, 2009 @ 06:28 GMT
Dear John

We know that 80% of red shift has origin in gravitational shift. So might be universe do not expand.

In General Theory of Relativity original solution for gravity is change of curvature of cosmic space. In original papers on General Relativity (1916) Einstein did not mention gravitational waves. This idea arises few months later in order to resolve “action on distance”. Here wee see that there is no action on distance. Gravitational motion is result of change of density/curvature of quantum space.

In today’s physics the conviction still prevails that gravity works directly between massive bodies. Research here shows that mass changes structure of timeless quantum space and this change generates gravitational motion. There is no direct attraction force between massive bodies. Hypothetical gravitational waves emitted and absorbed by the mass seem to be fictitious entities. Gravity motion is result of dynamics between mass and density/curvature of timeless quantum space.

More about the subject see:

Amrit S. Sorli, Density/curvature of Quantum Space Generates Gravitational Motion

http://vixra.org/abs/0910.0007

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 9, 2009 @ 16:18 GMT
Amrit,

"Gravitational motion is result of change of density/curvature of quantum space."

The only way to change the density is either to expand the volume, or reduce the energy. Since gravity is the contraction of volume, this leaves reducing the energy. The energy being lost is the spectrum of electro-magnetic radiation that is expanding out across space. So this expansion of the volume of radiation reduces the volume of gravitational mass.

So maybe light is the real gravity wave.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 10, 2009 @ 19:00 GMT
John

cosmic space is a kind of energy. We do not know much about it.

My proposal is that space has density. More mass in a given volume less dense is space. Change of density of space generates gravity.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Roy Johnstone wrote on Oct. 11, 2009 @ 02:24 GMT
John and Amrit,

I think it is important to distinguish between energy density resulting from a centre of mass, which is radiated back out, and the (potential) energy of the gravitational field itself, which is negative. The result of the balance between the positive energy of radiation and the negative energy contained in gravitational fields gives a cosmological equation of state of E=0.

Gravity does not "condense" space. It causes massive objects to accelerate toward the centre of mass due to curvature, as Amrit said, described by the GR metric. So it is "drawing in" mass/energy, not space. In fact, the volume of space in a gravitational field is *expanded* with the curvature, due to a SR effect originally described by Einstein's rotating disc/cylinder examples and applied to gravity due to the equivalence principle. So in effect this accords with Amrit's claim of space being "less dense" in gravity fields. It also provides John's "expanding of the volume", as gravity is *not* the "contraction of the volume" of space.

Just thought, could the apparent cosmic expansion simply be due to a global expansion of space being caused by the *global* distribution of matter fields in the same way? On cosmic scales this may cause an expansion of space on the geometric hypersurface (as observed) and could still co-exist with a globally "flat" geometry? Mmmm...not sure though if this would be observable from within the Universe??

Cheers

report post as inappropriate


Roy Johnstone wrote on Oct. 11, 2009 @ 02:26 GMT
Sorry, forgot to mention also that the gravitationally induced expansion of spatial volume has been observationally confirmed recently by the Cassini space probe!

Cheers

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 11, 2009 @ 06:53 GMT
Roy

I do not agree with dividing energy in positive and negative.

Energy simply is.

Sum of energy of space (gravitational) and mass is not zero, it is constant.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 11, 2009 @ 15:50 GMT
Amrit,

Roy isn't saying there is no energy/zero, but that the positive energy of radiation and the negative energy of gravitational fields balances out.

Roy,

"Just thought, could the apparent cosmic expansion simply be due to a global expansion of space being caused by the *global* distribution of matter fields in the same way? On cosmic scales this may cause an expansion of space on the geometric hypersurface (as observed) and could still co-exist with a globally "flat" geometry? Mmmm...not sure though if this would be observable from within the Universe??"

Keep in mind that the only distant light we can observe is what has traveled through the least dense space.

I don't think of space as a consequence of energy. In fact, I'm inclined to think of energy as a consequence of space. The vacuum isn't due to the fluctuation. The vacuum is the equilibrium state of the fluctuation. Science likes to think only what can be measured exists and that space is created by measurement. The wouldn't explain why something spinning in an otherwise completely empty void would still have centrifugal force, or why the speed of light is constant, irrespective of the velocity of its source. Space is the equilibrium state around which these positive and negative fields fluctuate.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 11, 2009 @ 16:06 GMT
Say we have a small celestial body spinning in fairly empty section of space. We know it's spinning because the distant stars are in celestial motion, but also because there is a centrifugal force, like is used to sling shot satellites off planetary orbits. This effect isn't due to the fact there are other stars out there, but because that body is spinning relative to some equilibrium state.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 11, 2009 @ 16:53 GMT
John energy is energy, energy is not positive and not negative.

Quantization of the cosmic space allows introduction of density of cosmic space. Medium that has granular structure can also have density. More mass is in a given volume of quantum space, less space is dense. In General Theory of Relativity gravity is generated by change of curvature of cosmic space, here by change of density. The basis for curvature of space is its density. Einstein curvature tensor G in a form 1/G is Density tensor of quantum space.

Idea here is that quantum space has its density. More mass is present in a given volume of quantum space, less space is dense and more space is curved. In quantum space physical time is run of clocks; time is not part of space, quantum space itself is timeless.

Einstein curvature tensor G is in relation with Density tensor D of quantum space by equation:D = 1/G wich becomes in geometrized units D= 1/8piT

Curvature of space has it physical basis in its density. Change of curvature of quantum space corresponds to the change of density of quantum space that generates gravitational force. With introduction of density of quantum space “action on distance” is resolved. Dynamics between mass and density of space generates gravity motion.

see the whole article on

http://vixra.org/abs/0910.0007

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 10:05 GMT
amrit,

Let me put it this way; If space is curved inward, it is contracting and becoming more dense. If space is curved outward, it is expanding and becoming less dense. If space is doing neither, it is flat and in equilibrium.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 15:12 GMT
Density tensor D of quantum pace is D=1/G where G is Einstein curvature tensor wich becomes in geometrized units D= 1/8piT

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 19:38 GMT
see my recent article on

http://vixra.org/pdf/0910.0014v1.pdf

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 23:54 GMT
Amrit,

There is some level of energy in space, be it simply "fluctuation." Some areas the density of that energy is decreasing and some it's increasing. Why? Say some is positive and some is negative. They attract. That creates greater density. At some point this process breaks down and the energy gets radiated back out and the space defined by that energy is expanding.

The Big Bang theory seems based on the assumption that all this energy can coalesce to a point and expand from there. It seems more logical, from a physics perspective, that the default state would be a high entropy, even distribution of energy. What seems to be the motivation factor to prevent it is this equilibrium isn't stable. Even if evenly distributed, areas will still tend to collapse, creating less density around them and a build up of high energy, low entropy within them. Thus an infinite process.

Even the Big Bang theory implies this progression, as the entire universe implodes and explodes, but it tries to deny the equilibrium state of space and has to add various fudges, from inflation to dark energy to make it work.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 13, 2009 @ 07:31 GMT
Yes, John energy flow matter-quantum space-matter in the universe is in dynamic equilibrium.

I do not see right saying positive or negative energy. This idea if from Dr. Hawking. Energy of mass is positive and energy of gravity is negative, sum is always zero. For me sum of energy is constant and not zero.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 13, 2009 @ 10:06 GMT
amrit,

"For me sum of energy is constant and not zero."

Meaning it can never be in perfect equilibrium. There is always motion.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 14, 2009 @ 15:05 GMT
John yes, mass transforms in quantum space and quantum space transforms in mass

see more in my article on viXra

http://vixra.org/abs/0910.0007

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Oct. 14, 2009 @ 21:28 GMT
thunderbolts.info e/m field and plasma the new physics

report post as inappropriate


dan truesdell wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 00:16 GMT
Although in physical systems, which are always bound by some gravitational or electromagnetic field, there must always be "motion" because you cannot find yourself in truly empty space, at least at this "point" beyond the Big Bang.

But 40 years with computers has bent my feeling about time into discrete pieces, which are quite important to the synchronicity of information. Without time to break into little pieces, the state of a system would just be a jumble of gray goo.

Also, my own memory seems to be indexed by time, I don't remember "where" without also remembering "when". So, whether physical reality manifests in time and space or not, our psychological systems cannot function without those concepts. Whether in physical or mental reality "space time" must exist.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 20:13 GMT
Dan

Space-time is an inner map of the mind into which we experience change in timeless space. We measure this change with clocks. Clocks run in space only and not in time. Run of clocks itself is time.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Oct. 18, 2009 @ 06:16 GMT
This article should have started:

"For someone who believes time doesn’t exist, Julian Barbour sure is old."

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 18, 2009 @ 11:10 GMT
Our definition of time cannot be based on belief. On the base of elementary perception we can conclude that physical time is run of clocks in quantum space.

Time exists as a man created physical reality with which we measure material change. Change run in timeless quantum space. Universe is timeless phenomena. Einstein and Godel knew that. Now is on the scientific community to recognize space-time as a math model merely and timeless quantum space as a fundamental physical reality where time is run of clocks.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Craig wrote on Oct. 18, 2009 @ 13:24 GMT
A cone would be better than a triangle. Time is relative to what one is doing, i.e. sleeping for 8 hrs can seem like it was a couple of minutes, and if one takes schroenengers Cat experiment then nothing exists in space or time until it is observed, so there fore everything in the universe disapears until it is observed or acknowledged by ones own consciousness i.e. mine, so when i die everything disapears and entropy is restored.A somewhat narsosistic approach but fits really well into everyday life.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 18, 2009 @ 17:43 GMT
Hi Craig

Schrödinger cat in box is an interesting question. Cat remains in a box one hour. When atom decay happens cat is dead, until atom decay do not happen cat is alive.

Cat is alive or dead before we open the box. It is not that with opening box cat will be alive or dead. Opening of the box has no relation to cat life.

If cat is alive when we open the box decay of atom did not happen in one hour, if cat is dead we can do autopsy of the cat and calculate when atom has decayed.

Cat biochemical reactions are natural clock “tick”. With autopsy we can see when (if) cat as biochemical clock has stopped.

Cat experiment is independent of the observer. Atom may decay or not.

Might be observer love for cat helps that decay of the atom do not happen.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


john wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 03:39 GMT
time does not exist. therefore each Plank instace of time is a different multivers.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 12:50 GMT
John Planck instance is the NOW in which change run, in which clocks run.

Quanta of space changes electrical charge from positive to negative in a Planck time. This is a basic vibration of quantum space. All other change run in this fundamental physical reality of quantum space.

See more about that on

vixra - mind science

my article Consciousness is a Basiv Frequency of Quantum Space.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Gordon Mays Baird wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 09:46 GMT
I have inherited directly from my father John Logie Baird who invented Television a deep interest in the Universe and the role that man plays.

Here are some ideas on our universe.

The Expansion or non-expansion of our universe.

I have in my past notes kept referring to the fact that nothing explodes at an even rate. If this was possible the design of the motorcar engine could be greatly remodelled to a far better fuel efficiency.

We have learnt to live with many things in our world that are most irregular, yet as soon as we view the stars we expect perfect balance and symmetry.

The big bang would cause a trail of smaller explosion and we can today see these happening, with our technology. These smaller explosions can cause us to read that the universe is expanding or shrinking depending on our viewpoint.

If we look to measure the rate of expansion of the universe, with a cooling star in the picture the Universe will seem t be shrinking while if measured near a new explosion it will seem to be expanding. Have we taken into account the utter turmoil that black matter seems to be in?

All the explosions and suction of black holes must cause the answer to this question to be reflected by the position of readings taken.

Einstein Proved Wrong!!



A fact is that directly going against Einstein’s laws, light is not the fastest thing in the Universe. A Black Hole sucks matter in so fast that no light escapes! Therefore the suction of a black hole is faster than light.

I wonder how many theories this up sets.

If light cannot escape a black hole because of the speed of the suction, the matter of the suns and planets increases so fast that we cannot see the light, can this be a form of invisibility. We do need light to see with our eyes but there are other ways to see including inferred. Viewing the black hole thought the spectrum may provide some very interesting observations. Can the speed of the electrons that spin around a nebula be increased so much that they can make the object invisible? Or is this how Gravity is formed and the object becomes lighter?

Once we know that light has a speed that is not the fastest in the Universe it opens a door to find out the speed of things faster, like Black Hole matter. I wonder what speed the matter exits the Black Hole? I wonder how far it exits before it slows down enough for us to see it? I guess the speed of light?

Posted on Gordon's of London over a year ago!!

Gordon Mays Baird

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 25, 2009 @ 15:00 GMT
Hi Gordon

In black hole matter transforms in quanta of space, in centre of galaxies AGN space is formed in elementary perticles. Transformation of energy "mass-space-mass" is permanent, universe is eternal, non-created sistem.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 25, 2009 @ 17:48 GMT
Today I had discussion with one of the members here. He is convinced that "time dilatation" as slower velocity of clocks is a result of 4th coordinate of space-time shrinking.

Even if space-time would exists as a physical reality would not be possible to explainj how shrinking of space is related with slower speed of clocks.

It is quite amazing how we are attached to some fix ideas in physics that have no correspondence to physical reality.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Bobba J wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 01:54 GMT
Shoe on head?

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 10:08 GMT
Consciousness in head !

report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Dec. 3, 2009 @ 00:44 GMT
Very few understand that the most important property of time is its

SPONTANEITY. We know we can`t rush time and this is why we use spontaneous

processes to measure it. The sand falling in the hourglass, the mechanical

relaxation of the quartz crystal, the spontaneous electronic transition etc. Need I say more?

The local RATE of time is a measure of the local rate of spontaneous processes,

the clock being the standard example. The time DURATION is just a convention and does not really exist. Such a DURATION is our integration of the rate of time.

The only true time DURATION is the period of an EMW, because at the speed of light time stops; the period is therefore a stable lenght of time.

The local differential in the RATE of time determines where and how fast things are moving spontaneously. Gravitation is an example.

The word TIME has many meanings and descriptions ... Not choosing one is suggesting all and meaning none...

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Dec. 9, 2009 @ 16:25 GMT
Time IS motion. Without motion, no time!

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Dec. 18, 2009 @ 09:29 GMT
I can't stop thinking about how 560 seconds is not at all the same thing as seven minutes.

report post as inappropriate


Geoffrey Haselhurst wrote on Dec. 22, 2009 @ 03:29 GMT
Hello,

I just wanted to confirm the concept that time does not exist, and the universe is not expanding.

The error of Newton was to relate motion to the motion of matter particles in an absolute space and time.

Instead it should be the wave motion of space that causes matter and time.

This is logical and the most simple way of describing physical reality.

See;

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Most-Simple-Scient
ific-Theory-Reality.htm

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/metaphy
sics.htm

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/mathematical-physics/l
ogic-truth-reality.htm

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-
Time.htm

"Motion must always have been in existence, and the same can be said for time itself, since it is not even possible for there to be an earlier and a later if time does not exist. Movement, then, is also continuous in the way in which time is - indeed time is either identical to movement or is some affection of it." (Aristotle)

Sincerely,

Geoff Haselhurst

report post as inappropriate


Tim wrote on Dec. 29, 2009 @ 18:45 GMT
Please see

http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/index.html

which yields a unidrectional arithmetic capable of algebra but lacking in geometry, very much consistent with the views of Barbour. The keywords

emergent spacetime

are a consequential step beyond the time puzzle, for physics does not answer the question

Why Spacetiem?



- Tim

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jan. 10, 2010 @ 22:54 GMT
Barbour is right saying that universe is timeless, and wrong saying that there is no physical time.

Physical time is run of clocks in timeless universe.

yours amrit

attachments: 1_In_what_way_are_related_psychological_time_and_physical_time__sorli_2010.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Brad Gillin wrote on Jan. 19, 2010 @ 12:57 GMT
I have been thinking about the gravity problem. Does it exist? I say no. I suggest, rather a spatial displacement caused by all matter. This displacement thereby creates a pressure zone which pushes matter towards the center of the displacement zone. Perhaps: energy=matter=displacement=pressure=order; also mass=matter x accelleration. If I am reasoning this out correctly this should resolve the quantum gravity problem.

report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Feb. 20, 2010 @ 19:36 GMT
Stuff I wrote some years ago. May help in your exploration of time ..

Here are 12 properties associated with the nature of Time as may be deduced from known physics

1-Spontaneity: Time runs by itself. Nobody makes time run. Time is spontaneous. We know we can’t rush time. This is why our time measuring instruments are based on spontaneous processes; sand falling in the hourglass,...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Feb. 20, 2010 @ 19:47 GMT
re-post from the Maths Durham forum. This is intended to help people make the difference between physics and metaphysics. A question about the Nature of something is a very specific Metaphysical question; it is not physics!

Science is empirical. What does it mean? It means that we recognize not knowing about the underlying reality. It means that we accept this ignorance because we have found about 300 years ago a pragmatic approach to this situation. We simply treat this universe as a black box. We ignore the content of the box and concentrate our study on our interaction or experience (empirical) with the box. By studying our experiences with the box we have come up with regularities and some possible image and idea of what the box contains. These are our laws of physics and the models that we can infer from them. But no matters how pointed our empirical method is, no matters how sharp and detailed our models are, they are still modeled and framed on the requirements of proof within the empirical system. In other words, the empirical method was meant to study our experience of the box, never to find its content, which must be addressed in a metaphysical approach. No matter how wonderful our science may appear, it is just child’s play. Without knowing the content of the box, we do not have any idea of what we are really doing. This is the limit of physics. We don’t do or understand as much as we could and should. The content of the box is about the two following metaphysical questions; what is the universe made of and what makes it evolve by itself? The two pillars of metaphysics: substance and cause.

Somehow on the way, we forgot half of the question. We feel today the price of this ignorance/oversight…. and we are very late ..

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Mar. 2, 2010 @ 23:24 GMT
Here is another way to explain the previous post: Physics vs Metaphysics

Since the early Greek philosophers, we have understood the distinction between two important concepts: the underlying reality and our perceptual experience. Over the centuries, we have always mixed the two concepts at the same time and amounted to nothing. Around the time of Newton, Descartes and others, the empirical method was born. We would forget for now/for now about the underlying reality and would consider the universe as a black box. We would concentrate our study on our experience of the black box, i.e. the empirical concept and approach and find the laws that best described our experiences. But no matter how successful the empirical concept is in this year 2010, the other concept (underlying reality) is still sitting on the back burner where we left it 300 years ago. Because we do not know what the universe is made of (what is the substance) and what makes it work by itself (the cause), all of our best science remains an educated guess on outcomes. And, that is the limit of physics.

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate


john wrote on Mar. 9, 2010 @ 22:06 GMT
if the universe is not expanding then the big bang never happened. if this is true the universe needs a cycle to keep itself in being. a mechanism would have to exist for hydrogen to be burnt in stars then the matter produced turned back into hydrogen. if the universe does this then it could be true perpetual motion. i find it very hard to see how anything can be created from nothing as the big bang implies or that matter or energy can be made into nothing as in black holes. if light slows down as it moves through space producing more red shift the further travels it would explain why the local galaxies are not expanding

report post as inappropriate


john wrote on Mar. 10, 2010 @ 22:25 GMT
clocks measure the rotation of the planet. calenders measure how many rotations it takes to orbit the sun.this is not anything to do with time or the measureing of time.there is only one time and that is the present which lasts for all eternity.energy matter and space move but time must by its nature stay still.

report post as inappropriate


john wrote on Mar. 12, 2010 @ 20:17 GMT
their seems two main sides when studying the universe. those that believe it was created by god, big bangs or some other method. the other side believe it has always existed. is it really possible to create something from nothing or to annihilate matter into nothing. i was always told making things appear from nothing is called magic and not science.

report post as inappropriate


Jack SARFATTI wrote on Mar. 14, 2010 @ 01:32 GMT
"To get a handle on Mach’s viewpoint, imagine a particle spinning out in space. If there were no stars forming a backdrop against which to measure the particle’s motion, can we really say that the particle is moving? To Mach, the answer was no, in an empty space there is no distinction between the particle spinning and the particle being stationary."

Of course it's hard to imagine a controlled experiment to test the above idea. The other problem is that virtual quanta inside the vacuum gravitate. Actually virtual fermion-antifermion pairs gravitate attractively like dark matter and virtual bosons anti-gravitate repulsively like dark energy. The point is that at most 4% of the stuff of the world are real quanta excited out of the covariant aether quantum vacuum. Therefore, Mach's picture of Newtonian bodies appears a bit naive in the hindsight of quantum field theory.

Einstein told Heisenberg in 1925 that the theory determines the observations as much as the observations determine the theory. In terms of Einstein's geometrodynamics there is no conceptual problem at all with the expansion of space as operationally defined by the temperature of the microwave background.

Of course, if Barbour & Company attempt to re-invent the wheel they must show how the conventional Einstein theory is a classical limiting case of their new paradigm, but perhaps they may have already done that? I have not read Barbour's papers.

report post as inappropriate


Marshall Barnes wrote on Mar. 14, 2010 @ 16:06 GMT
I plan on commenting on this article in greater detail at a later time (oh but if time doesn't exist, does that really make sense...?) but this statement demanded an immediate response -

"To get a handle on Mach’s viewpoint, imagine a particle spinning out in space. If there were no stars forming a backdrop against which to measure the particle’s motion, can we really say that the particle is moving? To Mach, the answer was no, in an empty space there is no distinction between the particle spinning and the particle being stationary."

This is the kind of thing that just makes me groan. If the particle is spinning out in space, the stars aren't going to give me any reference in relation to the particle spin unless the we think of spinning with the particle and seeing the stars whirl by, as if being on a merry-go-round. If the particle is moving in a trajectory through space, as the phrase "a background against which to measure the particle's motion" seems to imply, there's other ways to determine velocity.

That statement is meaningless. Why can't I use some instrument to measure its motion? Since when were the spin of particles determined by what was in the background? Let's say I have a ball in a dark room with no light except from the ball, which is that glow in the dark, kind. The dark room is large enough for me not to see any reflection coming from the light of the ball. Is the ball spinning in place? How to tell? I can bounce something smaller off of it. If it bounces straight back off, then the ball has no spin. If, however, the smaller object bounces off at an angle that deviates from what would be allowed if the ball were stationary, then the ball is spinning.

Good grief..

report post as inappropriate


john wrote on Mar. 24, 2010 @ 13:06 GMT
if hydrogen is cooked in stars to produce all the other heavier elements does that mean everything in the universe is made from just one basic material.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Apr. 6, 2010 @ 06:29 GMT
Marcel you wrote:

Stuff I wrote some years ago. May help in your exploration of time ..

Here are 12 properties associated with the nature of Time as may be deduced from known physics

1-Spontaneity: Time runs by itself. Nobody makes time run. Time is spontaneous. We know we can’t rush time. This is why our time measuring instruments are based on spontaneous processes; sand falling in the hourglass,...

No evidence time run by itself..........Universe is timeless. Time is run of clocks.

Yours Amrit

attachments: 1_Physical_Time_Is_Run_Of_Clocks__Quantum_Dream.pdf

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 13:01 GMT
Dear friends,

Understanding of time nature requires exact distinguishing between physical time and psychological time.

yours amrit

attachments: Exact_Understanding_of_Time_Nature_FQXI.pdf

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Apr. 19, 2010 @ 06:48 GMT
Dear friends,

keeping Clock as a Measuring System Concept of Time can be abandoned completely.

Yours Amrit

attachments: Keeping_Clock_as_a_measuring_System_Concept_of_Time_can_be_abandoned_completelly.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Lance G. wrote on May. 23, 2010 @ 16:08 GMT
Unscribing Time

Most still consider time and events as linked. Yet,there is no hand in hand universal cohesion throughout found by scientists and most theoreticians. Currently, we assume events happen chronologically and hence assume linear time and a deterministic progression, e.g. entropy.

Closer looks at the cohesiveness reveal componentness instead.Many events make up what is...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Luis Biarge wrote on May. 27, 2010 @ 19:12 GMT
I have a blog against the expansion of the universe, with arguments that show this is impossible.

How the people consider there are evidences for the Big Bang I study these evidences.

I have arguments and Hypotheses in: http://bigbangno.wordpress.com

Thanks.

report post as inappropriate


Wilton Alano wrote on Jul. 6, 2010 @ 01:45 GMT
Time and Energy are the two faces of the same coin. Time is just elapsed into an energized "system".

As we know from our refrigerators, when movements are frozen, time is frozen. So, Time just means that something is moving. Or, in other words, that in moving, particles or corpses have "past", "present" and "future" positions in space.

That defines "Time"! :)

report post as inappropriate


Max wrote on Jul. 27, 2010 @ 17:07 GMT
Just thought I'd point out that seven minutes is not 560 seconds, it is 420 seconds.

report post as inappropriate


dan wrote on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 15:12 GMT
@ WILTON ALANO

not quite. first of all time and energy being two faces of the same coin? never saw this in any physics treaty.

and second of all, when moving, particles have past, present and future you say. but in order to have these you have to have some point of reference otherwise I can easily exchange your past with your future and viceversa. not to mention about the need of a reference when you say present.

report post as inappropriate


p90x wrote on Sep. 6, 2010 @ 00:38 GMT
P90X Workout DVDs

P90X Workout

P90X

P90x reviews

report post as inappropriate


Skeptical wrote on Sep. 13, 2010 @ 01:00 GMT
If the universe is "changing shape" as he suggest, why then is it clearly observable that the vast majority of the universe is seen with red shift? Why is there not more blue shift? Seeing the entire universe moving very rapidly away from us does seem to imply that the fabric of space is pushing everything outward infinitely.

report post as inappropriate


john wrote on Oct. 23, 2010 @ 17:33 GMT
all the material in the universe as always been here. it is not possible to make it into nothing or create something from nothing. big bangs and god belief are just ways of explaining why the universe is here. the basic material which makes up cosmos has changed from matter to energy and back again infinitly. i would love to have it explained to me how something can be created from nothing

report post as inappropriate


JOHN wrote on Nov. 7, 2010 @ 14:36 GMT
WHO SAID LIGHTSPEED IS CONSTANT AND DOES NOT SLOW DOWN. WHEN WAS THE SPEED OF LIGHT THAT AS TRAVELLED FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS BEEN MEASURED AND WHO MEASURED IT. EINSTEIN SAID IT TO SUPPORT HIS THEORY OF RELATIVITY WHICH IS USELESS WITHOUT LIGHT BEING CONSTANT. SELF INTEREST AS NO PART IN USEFULL SCIENCE AS DARWIN FOUND OUT THE HARD WAY. IF THE RED SHIFT IN LIGHT IS THE RESULT OF LIGHT SLOWING DOWN IT WOULD EXPLAIN WHY ALL LIGHT OUTSIDE THE LOCAL GALAXIES IS RED SHIFTED.BLUE SHIFTED LIGHT COULD NOT BE OBSERVED BECAUSE THE DISTANCE IT TRAVELLED WOULD SLOW IT ENOUGH TO RED SHIFT IT. IF THE SPEED OF LIGHT OVER LONG DISTANCES COULD BE MEASURED I WOULD BE VERY PLEASED TO HEAR ABOUT IT.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 24, 2011 @ 07:55 GMT
John wrote: "WHO SAID LIGHTSPEED IS CONSTANT AND DOES NOT SLOW DOWN (...) IF THE RED SHIFT IN LIGHT IS THE RESULT OF LIGHT SLOWING DOWN IT WOULD EXPLAIN WHY ALL LIGHT OUTSIDE THE LOCAL GALAXIES IS RED SHIFTED..."

Correct but the mainstream dogma is supported by billions of dollars:

http://www.physorg.com/news179508040.html "More than a dozen ground-based Dark Energy projects are proposed or under way, and at least four space-based missions, each of the order of a billion dollars, are at the design concept stage."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Tom Geer wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 18:39 GMT
Has anyone tried to develop a cosmology in which pi is a rational number or, better yet, an integer?

report post as inappropriate


jules k wrote on Mar. 29, 2011 @ 05:04 GMT
well, i'm rather sorry this article didn't delve deeper into his theories. ultimately, i suspect we will find some oddly surprising validity to the idea that time should be reconsidered.

while i won't argue that time doesn't progress, it seems likely that as we start to actually establish what our relationships are to other dimensions, we will find ourselves pressed to rewrite much of what we currently hold true. the massive blanks in M theory as it stands certainly leaves enough room for interactions that are time-like yet defiant of our current idea of Time.

in my own notes, i intentionally misuse the word "sidereal" to mark places where one can possibly expect to find alternate threads of time, flowing in angular difference to the our standard version. in fairness, i'm willing to work from a place where i can believe that our current physical perception of time itself is skewed by our inability to perceive a full picture of time's flow. roughly along the lines of saying that we've never modelled another triangle to compare ours against.

yeah, i'll look for Mr Barbour's book

report post as inappropriate


neilesh wrote on Sep. 5, 2011 @ 10:30 GMT
if we assume that relativity slow down the time , then what about time shown by digital watches , is this happen same with digital watches , does time also slowdown in digital watches

report post as inappropriate


John Swink wrote on Feb. 3, 2012 @ 21:33 GMT
You cite Barbour as saying "To get a handle on Mach’s viewpoint, imagine a particle spinning out in space. If there were no stars forming a backdrop against which to measure the particle’s motion, can we really say that the particle is moving?" This can be refuted by imagining yourself as that particle. If you are spinning, you will feel centripetal force as your arms, legs and hair are pulled outward. Regardless of what the rest of the Universe is doing, your motion and its resulting acceleration will be relative to an absolute reference grid. Other objects may also be moving, but your spin, if not your velocity can be easily measured against that grid. This proves that there is an absolute reference grid for location.

report post as inappropriate


Jin He wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 02:38 GMT
The trouble with physics is that people have to make a living of their own, so do physicists who run the huge evil business which is supported by Vatican: Big Bang theory.

report post as inappropriate


Larryjphotography wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 09:39 GMT
For years I drove friends and wife crazy with my attempts to explain that time is a fabrication,of man. The Universe knows nothing of time. The universe dose not exist physically .

report post as inappropriate


joseph guzman wrote on Mar. 4, 2013 @ 02:34 GMT
I can logicly explain why space expands. In lamens terms. An if any one is intrested in what i have to say please e mail me guzmanjoseph51@gmail.com

report post as inappropriate


Steve the thinker wrote on Mar. 20, 2013 @ 16:13 GMT
We know not what we see. We see not what we know. We seek the answers thats what makes us keep living. However the right questions must be asked!

report post as inappropriate


David Vognar wrote on Oct. 4, 2013 @ 22:33 GMT
So amazing. I had my own little idea of how the universe can be expanding outwardly and also inwardly. It links with Barbour's idea of more order appearing in the universe. My idea takes advantage of the entropic fact that just as order is increasing on smaller and smaller scales, order is decreasing on larger and larger scales. Assuming there is a center of our multiverse, the entropy-inducing...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 8, 2014 @ 16:46 GMT
Hubble Redshift in a Static Universe

"We find that the UV surface brightness of luminous disk galaxies are constant over a very wide redshift range (from z = 0.03 to z ~ 5). From this analysis we conclude that the Tolman test for surface brightness dimming is consistent with a non-expanding, Euclidean Universe with distance proportional to redshift."

What causes the (Hubble)...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 10, 2014 @ 19:10 GMT
"Olbers' Paradox: Why is the Sky Dark at Night? If the universe were infinite and filled with stars in a uniform distribution, then every line of sight would terminate on the surface of a star and should be bright. To be sure, those further away would be fainter, but there would be more of them. Careful analysis suggests that the sky should be as bright as the surface of an average star. Noting that the night sky is obviously not that bright, there are two lines of explanation. First, the universe appears to be of finite age and that light from stars at an infinite distance would not have reached us in the age of the universe. Second, we observe that the universe is expanding and that stars further away from us are receding at a faster rate. The result of this expansion is that the light from more distant stars is Doppler shifted more toward the red and beyond a certain distance would not contribute significantly in the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum."

"...the light from more distant stars is Doppler shifted more toward the red and beyond a certain distance would not contribute significantly in the visible region" but would still be detected if the speed of that light remained unchanged. A more plausible line of explanation is to assume that the light slows down as it travels through the space vacuum (in a STATIC universe). For not so distant stars this is expressed as Hubble redshift but beyond a certain distance the star light does not reach us at all.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 10, 2014 @ 19:37 GMT
Peter as I posted, I saw Pentcho's and since part of my post was more appropriate to discuss here, I repeat...

On the cosmology topic. Our universe's mass is said to be about 1052kg. Was this mass there from the beginning of its evolution? That is, was it always constant by means of your "Mass 'flow' is continuous" mechanism? Does your model universe have a fixed or infinite size, or was it smaller in size in the past and increasing? Or as in my opinion, was the mass of the universe and its radius both smaller in the past and both increasing, with their fixed ratio given by the parameter Omega ~ 1 from the beginning, thus making unnecessary an inflationary scenario to convert Omega >> 1 to ~ 1? Recall that the purpose of inventing inflation was for this purpose to resolve the 'flatness' problem. So, what if the universe was born already flat?

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 10, 2014 @ 23:48 GMT
Pentcho,

That really is asking what the nature of light really is. One basic property it expresses, is expansion, just as a basic property of mass is contraction, ie. gravity. Yet they seem to be intimately entwined.

Now we think of light in terms of photons, or quanta of light, which is a point particle, of sorts. This is because whenever we attempt to measure it, that is what we detect. Yet the only method we have of measuring light is to interrupt it with something necessarily heavier.

So what if light and mass are two sides of the same cycle and when we try to measure light, we are actually starting a contraction process by which it is reverting to mass like qualities, by this effort to measure it?

Then ask yourself, if this light in its expansion state is essentially holographic and each quantum extracted is an expression of the whole, not just some atomized, digital unit, then as light progresses through space, much is lost to innumerable contacts with mass and possibly that below a certain energy level, it might just condense out as a form of cosmic ray, gas, etc.

This might explain why the background radiation is so flat at 3.7k, as a form of dew point, below which the radiation collapses on its own. Then these quanta start binding together and eventually fall back into the gravitational vortices.

So it is not that the light loses energy and slows, but that the energy that is light is constantly being lost to mass.

Regards,

John

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jun. 9, 2014 @ 06:23 GMT
Pentcho,

This time I appreciate your style of quoting and reasoning. I am ready to learn, and I feel that experiments and very basic thoughts are more trustworthy and fertile than hierarchies of theories on possibly questionable foundations.

It would be nice if you could already add some ideas how to further combine or even apply your picture.

The recently most impressive to me news was the possibility to use neutrinos as a tool for looking into the inner of earth, sun, or even cosmic objects. Can neutrinos possibly interact with photons?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Apr. 4, 2015 @ 13:41 GMT
I like being able to go back in time to previous articles and even comment on them. I like Barbour's approach in questioning the expansion of the universe since I too believe that it is shrinking and not expanding at all. Ironically, though, what that means is that time is actually real and space is the emergent concept. Shape and space are what seem more real to us than time, but the exact opposite is actually true.

report post as inappropriate


Ron Wolf wrote on Nov. 22, 2015 @ 17:56 GMT
Interesting, I'd like to know more. Pls point to a one (or several) publically accessible things to read on this.

report post as inappropriate


Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Nov. 22, 2015 @ 21:26 GMT
I can't help thinking that a purely Machian universe in which time is an illusion, space is arbitrary, and motion doesn't exist, is a world in which every illusion can be proved mathematically.

One must be reminded that Mach could not be convinced of atomic theory.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 4, 2016 @ 17:44 GMT
Static Universe With Hubble Redshift

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-un
iverse.html

"No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning"

There is no need for any "quantum equation". Recently it has been shown that light in vacuum can be slowed, which gives strong support to both Halton Arp's "intrinsic redshift" hypothesis and "tired...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 29, 2016 @ 12:00 GMT
Olbers' Paradox Is Due to Slow Light

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/olbers.html


"Olbers' Paradox: Why is the Sky Dark at Night? If the universe were infinite and filled with stars in a uniform distribution, then every line of sight would terminate on the surface of a star and should be bright. To be sure, those further away would be fainter, but there would...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 29, 2016 @ 15:31 GMT
Pentcho,

"a similar slowing could well be created in sound waves"?? Even if Padgett was correct, this didn't imply that phonons and photons behave according to emission theory. Padgett's effect is only claimed for slowing and only in the near field. You are persistently wrong.

I abstain from commenting on the putative evidence for BB and the idea of a finite universe.

++++

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 2, 2016 @ 16:50 GMT
"Vacuum has friction after all. In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle says we can never be sure that an apparent vacuum is truly empty. Instead, space is fizzing with photons that are constantly popping into and out of existence before they can be measured directly. Even though they appear only fleetingly, these "virtual" photons exert the same electromagnetic forces on the objects they encounter as normal photons do. Now, Alejandro Manjavacas and F. Javier García de Abajo of the Institute of Optics at the Spanish National Research Council in Madrid say these forces should slow down spinning objects."

Could these forces slow down photons coming from distant galaxies, thus causing the Hubble redshift? If not, why not? Cosmologists would suffer?

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Ingslot Vonnesline wrote on Aug. 22, 2016 @ 09:40 GMT
Barbour is one of the specials...what marks him out for me the most is the simple sequence of reason at the core of each view he holds, proportionate with the size of his investment.

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.