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

amrit: on 4/23/14 at 7:24am UTC, wrote Gravity without graviton, mass without masson, dar energy without darkon

Marshall Barnes: on 5/22/10 at 20:30pm UTC, wrote Amrit: I'm done talking to you because you ignore everything that doesn't...

Marshall Barnes: on 5/22/10 at 19:55pm UTC, wrote Georgina: You've convinced me now that there really is something...

Georgina Parry: on 4/26/10 at 6:42am UTC, wrote Dear Marshall Barnes, You said to Amrit "Your psychological reference to...

Amrit: on 4/20/10 at 19:36pm UTC, wrote Dear Marchal when you walk you measure velocity with "tick" of clock in...

Marshall Barnes: on 4/18/10 at 22:01pm UTC, wrote Amrit: I can prove it. In fact I will be conducting an experiment that...

amrit: on 4/8/10 at 12:01pm UTC, wrote Barnes, if time exists as a physical reality in which change run than you...

Marshall Barnes: on 3/14/10 at 13:28pm UTC, wrote Amrit: Time is not a measuring system in its purest form. Because of...



FQXi FORUM
November 25, 2017

ARTICLE: Readers' Choice: Time at the Event Horizon [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

John Merryman wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 22:45 GMT
One more excellent example of why time doesn't work as some meta-dimension along which series of events exist.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 01:40 GMT
"Einstein famously taught us that time is relative, and there are no absolute clocks, quantum mechanics is built on the notion that time is absolute. So before going any further, the physicists had to get a handle on what makes time tick.

So, just what is time? It’s essentially being able to tell the change in one observable quantity with respect to changes in another—making up a clock tick. In classical physics, the clock is external to the system being studied. But if you’re considering situations near the origin of the universe, or close to black holes, you are not going to have any handy clocks nearby. You won’t even find objects or variables that could behave like classical clocks and rulers, says Pullin. Instead, you’ll be forced to use some of the variables of the system you are studying, to measure the rest of the system."

Time is not the process of moving from one event to the next, but one event replacing the previous. The earth doesn't travel the fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. Time is an effect of the motion, not the basis for it. There is no external clock. It has more in common with temperature than space.

report post as inappropriate


Brian Beverly wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 09:36 GMT
Finally! I will be teaching these ideas to my future students.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 11:47 GMT
In the universe observer observes material change in space. Time as a part of space cannot be observed. According to Gödel time is not part of space. Fourth coordinate of space-time is spatial too.

Quantum gravity describes space as granular. Space is made out of quanta of space QS volume of Planck. Prevalent idea in physics is that space has three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. It is difficult to imagine that quanta of space QS have three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. Experimental data confirms that with clocks we measure a frequency , velocity and numerical order of material changes that occur in a quantum space. Physical time that is run of clocks (“tick” of clocks) is not a part of quantum space in which change occurs. With clocks we do not measure time as a fourth dimension of space. Quantum space itself is timeless. Fourth dimension of quanta of space QS is spatial too. Space-time is mathematical model merely were fourth coordinate X4 is a product of imaginary number i, light speed and number t that represents “tick” of clock: X4 = i x c t.

In stronger gravity speed of clocks and of all material changes slows down.

You can read more on the subject of time and gravity in my essay "Awakening of the Observer in Physics"

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 12:15 GMT
PS Few days ago 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. There is no mechanism known and described how shrinking of space-time slows clocks speed.

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


Anonymous wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 18:08 GMT
I think these models are in trouble. The Fermi spacecraft has demonstrated that very different frequencies of light travel at the same light speed. I kept saying these ideas of frequency dependencies, such as from LQG, on the speed of light were wrong. Well read ‘em and weep

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/oct/HQ_09-254_Fermi
_anniversary.html

On May 10, 2009, Fermi and other satellites detected a so-called short gamma ray burst, designated GRB 090510. Astronomers think this type of explosion happens when neutron stars collide. Ground-based studies show the event took place in a galaxy 7.3 billion light-years away. Of the many gamma ray photons Fermi's LAT detected from the 2.1-second burst, two possessed energies differing by a million times. Yet after traveling some seven billion years, the pair arrived just nine-tenths of a second apart. The speed of light for the two photons is the same to one part in a million billion.

This causes troubles for these "slice and dice," to use a phrase from the above article, ideas about spacetime near the Planck scale. The problem is this results in the breaking of Lorentz symmetry, which should show up as a small difference in light speed for photons with different wavelengths.

String theory makes a nice prediction that the quantum foam which produces this effect is valanced or renormalized out from observable physics. I don't think gravitation is quantized directly. At most I think general relativity exhibits quantization at the tree or one-loop level. I think general relativity is transformed into another form. In a general setting gravitation is transformed in a way which reduces the gravitational multiplet to an abelian Skyrme theory. In this way one does not have to directly quantize gravity. Spacetime and gravitation is essentially a smooth, classical field that emerges from an underlying substratum.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 20:33 GMT
LC plese explain what is "underlying substratum". Do we have any evidence of it or it is one more hypothetical idea ?

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 22:42 GMT
amrit,

On a philosophical point, thought is a function of making distinctions, but reality is a consequence of connections.

On a more practical note, logically space is an equilibrium state and motion is relative to that equilibrium, not other motion. That's why the speed of light is constant.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 23:58 GMT
Just a thought; What would space as an equilibrium state do for the need for a Higgs?

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 31, 2009 @ 10:01 GMT
John I would like to put more light in the subject here: What is with time near and in black holes: Imagine you are in spaceship traveling into direction of a black hole. With your friend that has remained in a spaceship far away you will communicate that your clocks run slower by coming closer the black hole. At the certain distance from the centre your spaceship will be smashed. What will remain is observer. Let’s imagine observer travels beyond Schwarzschild radius. Here he sees that mass transforms in quanta of space that build up cosmic space. In black holes are mass transforms into space. Hawking predict that black holes emit elementary particles. In that way black holes are rejuvenators of the universe. Astronomical observations show that AGN sucks in old stars and throw out fresh gas.

My idea is that in intergalactic space density of quantum space is extremely high and elementary particles are continuously created out of quanta of space. In black holes and AGN density of mass is high; density of quanta of space is extremely low. In black holes and AGN mass is transformed back into quanta of space. This transformation is in a permanent, universe has no beginning and no end. It is a system in dynamic equilibrium.

Quantum space is timeless; physical time is merely run of clocks. There is no physical time behind run of clocks. Clocks are fundamental measuring instruments of physics. Barbour idea that time does not exists is not pragmatic. Time does not exist as a fourth dimension of space as Gödel already explained. Physical time definitely exists as a run (thick) of clocks in a timeless quantum space.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 31, 2009 @ 10:12 GMT
PS regarding light speed:

You take light as a phenomenon A in a medium B that is cosmic space. If A has same speed for different moving systems in medium B this means that A is vibration of medium B.

Light needs 8 minutes to arrive from the sun to the earth. So light propagate in space with a light speed. But once light is arriving to the earth than it can be seen as a vibration of space itself.

Packets of energy named “photons” are emitted from the sun and they “jump” from one to other quanta of space in a Planck time. First photons need 8 minutes to arrive to the earth.

So signal of light moves with light speed through cosmic space but also light is a vibration of cosmic space.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Oct. 31, 2009 @ 12:26 GMT
Amrit,

There might be possible evidence, or something which could in principle be searched for. If you read my essay paper

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/494

which is really half a sketch of sorts, I talk about the D5-D2 brane duality. This involves aspects of black hole complementarity. It we could produce quantum black holes in the laboratory then in principle this physics could be observed. The M2 or D2 brane has the signatures of the Chern-Simons Lagrangian that is involved with the underlying Skyrmion structure I advance. This emerges from the automorphisms of the Jordan exceptional matrix, which indicates that underneath things, physics is reduced to a simple abelian structure with fermionic content.

Some signatures for black hole-like amplitudes have been dectected in the RHIC, so there might be more data with the LHC. So we might get some signatures of this, say a hundred bytes of data out of 10^{15} per second, which is the LHC data stream rate. Rather astounding to think this is the magnitude of the information LHC detectors will log in.

This underlying structure involves the cosmological constant as well. That it one main thrust of my paper, where by observing the vacuum structure of the universe we are "looking inside" a black hole. The fermionic content exhibits quantum phase transitions, similar to the behavior of Landau electron fluids.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Oct. 31, 2009 @ 12:30 GMT
Carrying further, the net impact is that gravitation or general relativity is not fully quantized. It emerges as a semi-classical theory from an underlying substratum that is quantized. The structure (underlying structure) here is abelian and nicely linear. That can be quantized well enough. What emerges at lower energy is gravitation (and other gauge fields), and where gravitation is highly nonlinear and not quantizable directly. Gravitation at this lower energy is only semi-classical, or quantized on the tree level or one loop quantum correction level.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 31, 2009 @ 14:21 GMT
Lavrence

I read your article. You see black holes more as a mathematical objects, I see them more as a physical objects. Black hole exists in a medium we call cosmic space. If space has a granular structure must also have density. In black holes density of space is extremely low in intergalactic space density of space is extremely high. In centre of black holes mass transforms in quanta of space, in intergalactic space quanta of space transforms in elementary particles. This transformation is permanent, universe is in dynamic equilibrium.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 31, 2009 @ 18:27 GMT
amrit,

I also see it as a cycle of what is falling into gravitational black holes as emerging as the cosmological constant/vacuum fluctuation/dark energy which causes intergalactic space to expand and the process starts over again. About a decade ago, in a conversation on this topic, it was pointed out to me that light and other forms of radiation would be the logical medium by which this energy/space is redistributed, or at least a significant percentage of it.

Lawrence is right about there being a tidal wave of information coming from the LHC and, I suspect, the rejuvenated Hubble. Some of the old ways of thinking will have a lot to withstand.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 1, 2009 @ 01:32 GMT
The point of the Fermi data is that spacetime does not have the sort of grandular structure people think it has. I don't see black holes as mathematical structures, but mathematics is the language of physics.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 1, 2009 @ 09:47 GMT
Lawrence,

The problem is there is a natural institutional preference for the order of mathematics over the messiness of reality. So the institution spins off into its own debates over form that have little bearing on reality. I suspect history will not be to kind to the whole Big Bang to multi-worlds modeling currently obsessing the physics community.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 1, 2009 @ 10:07 GMT
"Messiness" would be a misnomer. Complexity and chaos might be more descriptive.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 1, 2009 @ 12:40 GMT
John and Lawrence

Hawking proposes black holes emitts particles:

. I. V. Volovich, V. A. Zagrebnov and V. P. Frolov, Quantum particle creation (Hawking effect) in nonstationary black holes, Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, http://www.springerlink.com/content/k7466h61j25r3164/

I think here more on global cosmic dynamics. Here idea is proposed that in black holes inside Schwarzschild radius where density of mass is extremely high and density of space is extremely low mass is disintegrated in quanta of space. Quanta of space are “fundamental elements” of energy that builds up elementary particles.

In outer space where quantum space is extremely dense quanta of space get formed into cosmic rays.

“Enigmatic for many years, cosmic rays are now known to be not rays at all, but particles, the nuclei of atoms, raining down continually on the earth, where they can be detected throughout the atmosphere and sometimes even thousands of feet underground”.

. Michael W. Friedlander, A Thin Cosmic Rain - Particles from Outer Space, Harward University Press (2000) http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/FRITHI.html

Transformation
“mass - quanta of space - mass” is permanent. Universe is a system in a permanent dynamic equilibrium without beginning and with no end.

According to the first law of thermodynamics energy of the universe cannot be created and not destroyed, it can only be transformed. The sum of energy in the universe is constant.

Expanding of the universe is the result of high density of quantum space in outer space. High dense space is expanding similar as a high dense gas. With a continuous creation of elementary particles in outer space amount of mass in the universe is increasing and cosmic space is getting less dense. This process is more intensive as a transformation of mass in quanta of space in centre of black holes. Process of continuous creation of particles in outer space increases presence of mass in the universe, ends expansion and starts contraction. Universe shrinks in huge back hole where mass will be transformed into quanta of space. Density of quantum space will extremely increase; this will lead to the new “big bang”.

Gravity rules permanent cosmic dynamics of expansion and contraction with transformation of mass in quantum space and vice versa.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 1, 2009 @ 14:23 GMT
The universe is not a system in some eternal equilibrium. This is something which has been thought to be the case, and even Hawking spent considerable effort trying to show the universe came about from a random fluctuation, just one which resulted in an unusually low entropy form. There are serious problems with this idea. In particular it is not hard to argue that an unusually low entropy fluctuation, but one which is not as low in entropy and more probable, could just generate a virtual reality generator (processor) or the Boltzmann brain. Yet these ideas are difficult to support.

The universe has the entropy it currently has because it had lower entropy in the past. So the universe started out with a very low entropy. So the number of microstates it existed in at the very early stage was small, and the number of possible configurations for these microstates into macrolevel configurations (macrostates) very small. It is the case with the setting up of a billiards table. The racked balls represent a very limited number of states (positions on the table) in a configuration which is unique. Then breaking the racked balls puts the system in a scattered configuration, where a whole range of microstate configurations can generically describe the arrangement. Further if we see two balls scatter each other, and take a video of the event we are not able to easily tell which has time forwards and backwards. Yet we can certainly distinguish the time direction for breaking the racked balls. A video where an arrangement of balls spontaneously arranges itself into the racked position is clearly time reversed.

This gets into the issue of multiverse, and while I really dislike that term, it has some merit to it. Just consider a model where quantum fluctuations of the vacuum state in the universe results in some vacuum energy, as determined by the cosmological constant, is quantum tunneled out of the spacetime. This packet is the seed for another spacetime vacuum or universe. In this setting there is no unique time direction imposed on the new cosmology, or for that matter the vast number of other ones. So the net time direction as a sum over all of these is zero and there is ultimately reversibility.

There are aspects of this multiverse approach to the arrow of time which are attractive and which present difficulties. But pondering these things is at least interesting.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 1, 2009 @ 15:38 GMT
LC Multiverse is pure philosophy with no experimental data.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 1, 2009 @ 16:01 GMT
If you get the idea in my paper, you might see that we could test some of the physics behind multiverse (multiple cosmologies), at least in principle. Aspects of black hole complementarity are involved with this, and we could detect physics associated with the generation of nascent spacetime vacua or "universes."

It is terribly unlikely we will ever be able to communicate with these cosmologies, or measure information internal to them. Yet since the process for their generation is analogous to a Lamb shift in a quantum gravitational setting, we might be able to detect that. We should be able to measure quantum amplitudes (channel production) for black holes starting in the upper TeV range of energy. So, we will have to see of course.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 1, 2009 @ 17:49 GMT
Lawrence,

"The racked balls represent a very limited number of states (positions on the table) in a configuration which is unique."

Doesn't gravity serve to "collect the balls" into a state of high energy, low entropy? Much as gravity builds stars, until they start to break down and radiate it away. Where does this energy go? If it isn't absorbed, it travels at least 13 billion lightyears and from all other stars creates a level of radiation in intergalactic space. Now in this intergalactic space are clouds of gas that collapse into galaxies and stars. Is there a stage where that radiation transforms into the gas?

"Just consider a model where quantum fluctuations of the vacuum state in the universe results in some vacuum energy, as determined by the cosmological constant, is quantum tunneled out of the spacetime. This packet is the seed for another spacetime vacuum or universe."

This really leaves a lot of practical issues. What is it tunneling through? It seems there is a whole dimensional medium or structure in which these seeds would need to "germinate."

The cosmological constant was originally proposed to balance gravity from causing the universe to collapse to a point. So this vacuum energy is the opposite of gravity. If it's going to fall into some tunnel, wouldn't that be gravitational collapse? Possibly that radiant energy collapsing into a gas?

The problem I keep pointing out about the concept of space being defined as "three dimensional" is that three dimensions are essentially the coordinates of a center point. Now there are infinite numbers of points in space, so if you are going to insist on space as being three dimensional, then it would seem every point constitutes its own universe. Is the multiverse simply the consequence of trying to insist space is three dimensional and having the math insist there must then be infinite numbers of other universes, which are simply other center points?

We (the sciences) really don't fully understand gravity, nor is the linear dimensionality of time anything more than a mathematical formulation of narrative. Not to mention all the other aspects of physical reality we have poor explanations of. Yet an enormous structure of theory is being built on this. Maybe some of it does point in directions that will prove to be fruitful, yet doesn't the possibility exist that some of those loose ends can actually be tied together? It would certainly be far more efficient.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 1, 2009 @ 17:55 GMT
In times of change, learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.

–Eric Hoffer – Longshoreman, Philosopher

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 1, 2009 @ 18:21 GMT
Yes, John, to think in terms of "space-time", "arrow of time" for me is a world that no longer exists.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 1, 2009 @ 19:37 GMT
Entropy increases with gravity clumping matter together. The ultimate form of this entropy is a black hole with entropy proportional to area of the event horizons. The radius of the black hole is proportional to its mass, so the more mass it acquires the higher the entropy.

Multiverse ideas stem from the fact that the universe, which is approximately a de Sitter vacuum, and objects in it such as black holes is not quantum mechanically stable. The cosmological constant is related to a vacuum energy density ρ

Λ = (8πG/c^4)(ρ + 3p),

with a pressure p = -ρ. Tiny fractions of his vacuum energy density ρ, which is very small, quantum mechanically tunnels into other spacetime “bubbles,” for lack of a better term here, and serves as a mass-gap or seed for the generation of a nascent spacetime or “universe.” These new cosmologies will then do much the same and “ad infinitum.”

There are lots of questions which could be asked, such as whether these are just quantum amplitudes that are in fact mathematical constructions, or whether these are honest to God real universes. I am not out to make anyone “believe” these ideas, and nobody working on these believes them as such. These are working hypotheses which solve some theory problems, which in turn may have observable consequences.

I think it is possible that spacetime is an emergent classical field, which exhibits quantum corrections, but none of the horrid violent fluctuations (quantum foam) that is considered by many. We might think of quantum physics as due to a quantum field potential (invoking a bit of Bohm’s idea for the moment) which then quantum perturbs spacetime on a small scale. What underlies this is I think an abelian Skyrmion type field with Fermionic content. This is what is quantized at higher energy. If we are to think of spacetime as an emergent physics, then the arrow of time is similar to the direction of magnetization in a ferromagnet. At low temperature these are defined locally, say with each emergent spacetime, but on the higher energy perspective there is no global arrow of time. Our universe is then analogous to a small domain of magnetization in a ferromagnet, and these other universes are other domains. These are connected to each other in a larger superspace, which … . It gets a bit complicated.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 1, 2009 @ 23:19 GMT
Lawrence,

"Multiverse ideas stem from the fact that the universe, which is approximately a de Sitter vacuum, and objects in it such as black holes is not quantum mechanically stable. The cosmological constant is related to a vacuum energy density ρ

Λ = (8πG/c^4)(ρ + 3p),

with a pressure p = -ρ. Tiny fractions of his vacuum energy density ρ, which is very small, quantum mechanically tunnels into other spacetime “bubbles,” for lack of a better term here, and serves as a mass-gap or seed for the generation of a nascent spacetime or “universe.” These new cosmologies will then do much the same and “ad infinitum.” "

This was what I originally thought was the explanation for expanding space, that the quantum energy falling into black holes was essentially tunneling back out/traveling other dimensions, to less dense space, causing it to expand. It was someone else who convinced me that radiation would have the same effect.

The point I'm making about time isn't complicated. Any energy, motion, activity, etc. is going to change the configuration of the elements involved, be they quantum or classical. Now the conventional view is that time goes from configuration A to configuration B. My point is that the effect of the motion of the elements is creating and then replacing these configurations, so there is no "arrow" from A to B, but that both A and B come into existence and then pass out of it. A ferromagnet has orientation. Time has no orientation because the are infinite numbers of magnets pointing in all directions and the future emerges from the past, like a chick emerges from its shell, as the old crumbles away and the new gathers energy. A further point about this, that I made in response to Julian Barbour's essay on time, is that there can be no "point" in time, since it is a measure of motion, not the dimensional frame on which the series of events exist. So the only dimensionless "point" in time would require freezing the very motion being measured. It would be like stopping the fluctuation of the vacuum. Since most, if not all, energy is the motion, reality would cease to exist. So there could be no quanta of time, since that would require some point of reference to distinguish one from the next and there could be no initiation and termination points. There is simply the field of energy in motion and events/time is an effect of it.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 1, 2009 @ 23:33 GMT
amrit,

Yes, I see myself as less and less as something separate from and traveling through my context and more as part of the events streaming away from the ferment of the present.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 00:36 GMT
The process is related to the quantum evaporation of a black hole. A black hole will lose a bit of mass and radiate away bosons with equal amounts of mass-energy. This can also polarize the vacuum structure and squeeze off a tiny portion of vacuum energy into a bubble which will inflate into a nascent cosmology. The de Sitter spacetime can also decay in such a manner that the cosmological constant is reduced due to a radiative response. This can carry off a bit of vacuum energy as a "seed" or mass-gap for the production of a nascent cosmology.

I attach some notes I just rendered up on this. I probably should check the mathematics to correct for possible errors. Yet I think the over all scheme is correct.

Cheers LC

attachments: CC_decay_and_baby_universe.pdf

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 02:53 GMT
Lawrence,

That doesn't disprove my point. Not that I get all the math, but you have energy falling into black holes and evaporating away. At the same time we have dark energy causing space to expand constant with a cosmological constant. Say the quantum energy does pop back up somewhere else. Why does it have to do so in another universe, when we have this dark energy coming from somewhere else? Do we need to pass it through other universes? Ockham wouldn't approve.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 03:09 GMT
This is a tunneling process. The cosmological horizon at r = sqrt{3/Λ) defines a tunneling potential barrier and a pole. The part about the computation of

S = (sqrt{3}π/4)δΛ

involves a singularity in the complex plane and a branch cut with a residue of 2πi*res(f(z)). So this connects one space with another. The emission of radiation from the cosmological horizon is then a scattering phenomenon, where the horizon decays in the transition and sends radiation into the existing cosmology plus some tunneling bit into other spacetimes. The attachment of a numerical rendering of this process I worked up.

Cheers :LC

attachments: cosmic_tunnel.gif

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 10:13 GMT
Lawrence,

Yes, but where does it tunnel to? Even if it scattered billions of light years away, then sources billions of light years away could be tunneling in the opposite and all other directions and this would be the source for dark energy. Why does it have to be seeding another universe when ours is evidently being seeded with a similar energy?

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 12:50 GMT
I tunnels into superspace, or the space of super-gravity. Of course this invokes ideas which I suspect you and many others object to. Think of the entire universe, or what is called the multiverse, as a grand system in 10 dimensions evolving in 11 dimensions. This system evolves ultimately as a great quantum Feynman-like path integral. There are then many different paths the system "samples," and what we call our spacetime universe is one of them. There may then be others, and with different time directions. As such from this grand perspective the whole "shebang" is time reversal invariant and nice in a unital (unitarey-like) setting, but we only see at large a very local aspect of this which appears to have a strict arrow of time.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 15:07 GMT
"Arrow of time" is math model only.

In the universe exists numerical order of material change that we measure with clocks. Numerical order itself has no direction, it runs in timeless space.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 16:08 GMT
I think locally, should I say on the frame bundle on this D3-brane, the unidirectionality of time does exist. It is just that more globally it might not. The unidirection of time is a local symmetry breaking of sorts, similar to the magnetization direction in a ferromagnetic domain.

It is interesting that it is regarded as "hip" somehow to say time does not exist and so forth. Yet for something which is presumed not to exist we live out our days very much involved with time, eg time = money, and devote a lot of energy in time keeping and scheduling.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 17:29 GMT
Lawrence,

So we live in this multiverse, Energy is exiting stage left/black holes/gravitational collapse and entering stage right/dark energy, doppler expansion. Even if there is lots going on behind stage that we can't see, unless there is an imbalance between what is coming and going, then the stage/the universe is not expanding/collapsing.

As for time, I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying it's a consequence of motion, not the basis for it. Which would make it similar to temperature. I certainly don't say temperature doesn't exist. I find it interesting that you don't seem to understand this basic point, even to disagree with it. I certainly doubt it is beyond your facilities, so there is some suspicion you would simply prefer not to address it.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 18:18 GMT
John

Yes time is a consequence of measuring motion.

For physical time to exist you have to measure motion with clocks.

No measurment, no time.

I publish on that recently in Indian Journal of Physics

Amrit S. Sorli, Time is Derived from Motion, The Icfai University Press, Journal of Physics, Oct 2009 http://www.iupindia.org/Physics.asp

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 18:22 GMT
PS

hange run in timeless space and are independent on time as a run of clocks.

Clocks (time) are devices to measure change.

There is no physical time behind run of clocks.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 19:24 GMT
I think there is little point in dabate over whether motion induces time or visa versa. This strikes me as a sort of non-problem.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 19:33 GMT
Lawrence

Measuring of motion induces time.

Motion itself does not induce time.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 20:07 GMT
Motion exists independent of measurement. The planets clearly orbited the sun long before people began to measure their celestial positions and velocities.

Cheer LC

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 21:52 GMT
Lawrence,

"Motion exists independent of measurement. The planets clearly orbited the sun long before people began to measure their celestial positions and velocities."

Exactly. Time is the changing configurations of what exists. As such it is these events going from future potential to past circumstance. It is not some meta-dimension along which the present moves from past to future. We are mobile creatures and thus tend to view the future as the space in front of us, that we are about to traverse and the past as that path which we have already traveled. It is this basic orientation on which the notion of time as an adjunct to space is based.

As I pointed out previously, it is a non-problem for most of the people on this planet whether the sun revolves around the earth, or the earth rotates relative to the sun. Depending on your perspective, it could be argued that both are true. It's just that when you try to make sense of planetary orbits that it becomes necessary to accept the earth rotates relative to the sun. Now we have these physical theories describing time as a form of static block, in which the present's location is as relative as one's location in space. Also theories trying to project deterministic processes onto a probabilistic future and come up with a multi-world scenario in which all possibilities happen, rather than considering it's the probabilistic future collapsing into the determined past, etc.

Motion is relativistic and subjective, yet we try to reduce the cumulative effect down to a one dimensional narrative path. This has been going on since the beginning of history. In fact it is the basis of history. Consider how we have cut the cycles of the moon to fit the solar year. Our religious and civil traditions are a function of creating a narrative storyline that the whole group can think of as their cultural foundation.

E.O. Wilson described the insect brain as a thermostat, in that it essentially reacts to temperature changes. In a very real sense, that is how our right brained parallel processing function works, in that it is reacting to the energies of the present. It is our left brained serial processing function that is essentially a clock, in recording the series of cause and effect circumstances through which we, as individuals pass. We then weave our experiences into that of others and create a group narrative. So it is extremely natural that we should view the process of time as a passage, but that doesn't make an effective explanation for what is happening. There is no fourth dimension along which we travel. It is the changing events which are created and replaced by the sum of activity.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 22:45 GMT
My point is that motion existed prior to anyone measuring it. Also time is something which exists without necessarily measuring the motion of something. Motion is in its simplest form v = dx/dt, and both x and t are geometrical quantities and the velocity intertwines the dx with the dt. One does not proceed from the other. They both just "are." Attempting to get time from motion or motion from time is a "chicken & egg" problem. This is carried further with spacetime where c is an invariant. I think the final state of the universe is an empty Minkowski spacetime. The geometry of the spacetime is such that null directions define a "c," even if there are no photons, and this converts spatial distance into temporal ones. To say anything much further is to get into a thicket of philosophical handwringing.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 02:46 GMT
Lawrence,

I don't guess I'll not be able to get you out of your thicket either, but maybe one more try;

Lets not say motion, since that implies orientation. Let's just say "activity," as in fluctuation.

If you have a level of activity, then it will qualify as having temperature, whether or not there is someone to measure it. Just as that activity will affect change, whether or not there is someone to measure it. Now it would be impossible to have this activity without it causing change, but the various stages of change do not exist in some extra dimension. They are being created and dissolved by that activity.

Now if you happened to have read many of the various theories of time posted in last years contest on the nature of time, you might have noticed that many of them, by eminent members of the physics community, posted various permutations of the notion generally referred to as "block time," in which that very notion of these events do exist in some other dimension. Many of them where quite inventive, such as how the various dimensions of space and time might manipulated to that we could travel in time, just as we can travel in space. Now if you were to understand time as these events being created and necessarily dissolved, since the same energy is required to manifest the next event, this notion of block time, that that "dimension" is something more than a convenient construct, is ludicrous. Thus understanding why I find the idea worth disputing.

report post as inappropriate


J.C.N. Smith wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 10:55 GMT
Mr. Crowell, Mr. Merryman,

In looking at the dialogue between the two of you, I can't help wondering whether you've found time to read my essay, 'On the Impossibility of Time Travel.' I believe it addresses some of the questions you're debating, and puts them in a worthwhile perspective. My view of time can be summarized very simply and succinctly: What we've traditionally thought of and referred to as "the flow of time" is, in reality, nothing more and nothing less than the evolution of the physical universe.

Cheers

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 12:06 GMT
John And Lawrence

Nice discussion. We all 3 agree on one point: motion is independent on time.

So what is time ?

My definition is: Physical time is run of clocks. Clocks/time are measuring devices invented by man.

Do we still agree on that ?

If yes following question is to be answered: How that we experience motion in linear time ? The answer is: Linear time is a mind construct based on neuronal activity of the brain.

With this question of time is resolved: Universe is timeless. Time/clocks are invented to measure motion.

This is pragmatic solution of time. Barbour would like to abandon time in physics. My opinion is that is not realistic and has no sense.

Time is esential part of physics. We have only to understand it well.

Here Godel vision is fully developed and has concrete results:

Universe is without time, timeless, time is a measuring device merely.

Yours Sincerely Amrit

PS Dear J.C.N. Smith

You say: "the flow of time" is, in reality, nothing more and nothing less than the evolution of the physical universe.

I would not agree with that. Universe is timeless, evolution of universe is timeless too. We measure evolution of thde universe and in this way time enters, but only in our vision in our experience. Universe itself is timeless. Universe is NOW.

Read my essay: Today observer in physics is imprisoned in neuronal linear time. He experiences motion through the neuronal time.

Conscious (awakened) observer is aware of neuronal time. He experience motion directly as is perceived in eyes.

perception of motion - mind processing in neuronal time - experience (unconscious opbserver)

perception of motion - experience (conscious observer)

This is where physics meets with knowledge and awareness of how mind functions, with esence of Bhuddist meditation of watching, witnessing the mind

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 12:45 GMT
PS

to read more, see my article on file attached

attachments: 1_Bridging_Observer_and_Observed.doc

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 12:49 GMT
sorry here is last version

attachments: Bridging_Observer_and_Observed__amrit_sorli.rtf

report post as inappropriate


J.C.N. Smith wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 12:50 GMT
The physicist's operational definition of time: Time is that which is measured by clocks.

The physicist's operational definition of a clock: A clock is a device which measures time (often followed by some sort of obfuscating gobbledygook about how clocks are based on a "regular motion," which, of course, one could only determine by using a clock).

Just a wee bit of circular reasoning perhaps? And we still wonder why modern physics is in a state of disarray?

The "mind" is not sufficiently well understood to serve as a credible basis for a theory of physics.

Cheers

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 13:04 GMT
Dear Smith

There is no one experimental evidence of physical time existing beyond clocks run. So the new more adequate, correct definition of time in physics is:

PHYSICAL TIME IS RUN OF CLOCKS.

For example clocks run slower in stonger gravity not because 4-th coordinate of space-time there is shrinking, but because this is how universe functions: material change run slower in stronger gravity field.

Shrinking of 4-th coordinate of space-time is only a math description.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 13:29 GMT
J.C.N. Smith,

"Time is measured on a clock," is a reasonable definition of time. I would say that basically this is about all one needs to consider.

There is a whole lot of stuff in physics which has a strange existence, and a little circularity to it. Take Newton's second law F = ma. Here you have a dynamical quantity (force) equal to a kinematic quantity (mass) times a geometrical one (acceleration). From a subtle categorical perspective this is a really funny equation, one which might drive medeival scholastic types nuts. Yet I suspect few physicists lose a lot of sleep over this.

Time and all geometric quantities are I think on some equivalent level, whether these are distance, time, velocity, acceleration and so forth. Now acceleration is a bit different because it is not a proper frame to observe physics from, but to be honest I think advancement in quantum gravity might put acceleration on the same footing as velocity. Which ever is the case distance and time are equivalent and converted into each other by the speed of light and transformed into each other on frames by the Lorentz group.

There really is not a lot of reason to get wrapped up in philsophical ideas beyond this. If time and distance are categorically equivalent, then so is velocity v = dx/dt. There is nothing else beyond this, and no need to get into strange ideas about time not existing, or time as something induced by motion or ... . These are just geometric categories which make physical theories work.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 15:59 GMT
Distance, velocity and acceleration are primary physical realities independent on observer and measurment.

Time/clock is a measuring device introduced by the observer.

So time you cannot put in same catergory as distance, velocity and acceleration.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 17:08 GMT
""Time is measured on a clock," is a reasonable definition of time. I would say that basically this is about all one needs to consider."

I would have a minor quibble with this. If there is no definable regular motion, we may not be able to assign a set value to units of time, but as long as there is activity and the changing circumstances that result, there will still be past events and the potential for future ones. One of the core principles that relativity makes over Newtonian physics is that there is no absolute measure of time. Even the most regular of cycles will change if variables such as gravity or velocity are changed. Time and measuring time are two different things.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 17:25 GMT
Mrit said, "Time/clock is a measuring device introduced by the observer."

But also is a ruler.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 18:12 GMT
John you say: Time and measuring time are two different things.

No, there no evidence for that.

Clock (clock run clock motion)is a measuring device for other motions.

All motion run in space.

Physical time is exactly run (motion) of clock.

Space itself is timeless.

We live in NOW.

report post as inappropriate


J.C.N. Smith wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 21:00 GMT
Mr. Crowell,

You wrote, "There is a whole lot of stuff in physics which has a strange existence, and a little circularity to it. . . . . Yet I suspect few physicists lose a lot of sleep over this."

Perhaps the only physicists who might lose just a tiny little bit of sleep over this sort of inconsequential circular logic silliness are the ones who are trying to understand why General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics don't exactly mesh up?

Cheers

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 21:30 GMT
It is not that big a deal really. Think of the old school definition of matter, "Anything that has mass and occupies space." That is sort of circular. To be honest I doubt that much real progress in physics will happen through philosophical debates over definitions. That projects things back into scholasticism.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


J.C.N. Smith wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 21:47 GMT
"To be honest I doubt that much real progress in physics will happen through philosophical debates over definitions."

On the contrary; it is work which is not guided by clear definitions of terms which will not lead to much progress in physics. Philosophical discussions leading to clear definitions of terms certainly can lead to progress. We obviously will need to agree to disagree on this point.

Cheers

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 23:03 GMT
amrit,

We live in now, but there is activity in now and it keeps changing the configuration of now. Think back to when you were a small child. You were every bit as aware of the now as you are today, but what you are aware OF has become much more complex as has your understanding of it.

Time isn't a dimension along which the present moves. It's the process of what is present changing form. Whether it's a clock like metronome, or random activity.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 23:17 GMT
J.C.N,

"My view of time can be summarized very simply and succinctly: What we've traditionally thought of and referred to as "the flow of time" is, in reality, nothing more and nothing less than the evolution of the physical universe."

The point I like to emphasize is that when we understand time as process, rather than dimension, then it goes the other direction. Since we are not traveling the fourth dimension from the past into the future, it is the consequence of process/evolution which turns the future into the past. On the philosophical terms that Lawrence objects to, this means we are integral to the events and not just points of reference navigating them. It doesn't preclude free will, just means reality affects us to the degree we affect reality. We are defined by our limits and limited by our definition.

Sorry I haven't been following the current contest. It's been a time thing and what little internet time I have has been mostly used to clock the debt bomb.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 00:18 GMT
I tend to think that Richard Feynman got this right by calling it philosfuzzy. Physics from its inception has had funny elements to it, starting with my observation about F = ma and the singularity in 1/r^2 forces. Yet progress can still continue. The important thing is whether we can calculate things which reflect the observable world.

Cheer LC

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 02:44 GMT
Even progress is a fuzzy concept. We never know if we are just swimming against the tide.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 08:54 GMT
Dear John

Motion (not time) runs in NOW, means in present moment, means in timeless space. We are born, we live and we dy in timeless space.

With cloks/time we measure motion in timeles space. Do not mix change in present with time. Change (motion) is natural physcal event.

Measuring change (motion) with cloks is man made physical event.

The diffrence is essential.

Time is not part of the universe. Time/clock run is a man made device to measure motion in the universe.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 10:19 GMT
amrit,

I think we have a difference of opinion there. The perception of change is conscious, but the effect of change isn't.

Does measuring temperature create the scale of hot/cold?

Admittedly without conscious perception, it is all rather mindless happenstance, but events occur, whether they are seen or not. It would be irrational to assume otherwise.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 13:02 GMT
John

Change cannot produce time.

Time/clock is a measuring tool.

The problem is that we "project" neuronal linear time in the physical world. We see time outside we are not aware that our experience of motion is through time that is inside.

Physics to understand real nature of physical time has to deal with neuronal time first.

Physical time/clock run is a measuring reference system. Not more and not less.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 17:42 GMT
amrit,

I understand you are saying we have a perception of events which inanimate reality is not aware of and it is simply present.

My point is that there are physical processes at work and the effect of time is a consequence of them. If a rock rolls down a hill, it certainly has no material existence outside of the present. There is no metadimension in which it is at the top of the hill and at the bottom of the hill, but there is a process, a continuum of presents, or presence, so that at one point in the past, it was at the top of the hill and now it is at the bottom of the hill.

Let me paraphrase the old Tao koan; If a clock is ticking and no one hears, or sees it, does it still move?

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 18:41 GMT
Keeping in mind that the rock does not move into the future, the event of it being at the top of the hill recedes into the past.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 19:49 GMT
Dear John

Yes, great insight. This is the point. Rock rolls and clock "thick" in space only. With clocks/time we measure rolling of the rock.

I need 20 years to get that....there is no time behind motion. Time is only describing motion.

I'm quite emotional in a way peaceful seeing that you got the point. This my vision cost me a lot. For years I was treated as a "strange guy". No one was ready to take me as a student on PhD: "Physical Time is Run of Clocks".

I feel now things are comming ready.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 19:53 GMT
PS

Let me paraphrase the old Tao koan; If a clock is ticking and no one hears, or sees it, does it still move?

If no one sees it or hears it, clocks still move but time not. For time to exist observer is needed.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 20:20 GMT
The problem I see is that physics is not in the business of determining whether model structures exist. In this case geometrical structures such as space and time. Yet, if we are to assume space exists and time does not, then a Lorentz transformation rotates time (which does not exist) and space (which we (or I) am presuming exists) into each other. So some element of something which does not exist gets transformed into something that does. That is a bit silly IMO.

Barbour is of course on the vangaurd of the idea time does not exist. This is due to the Wheeler DeWitt equation, which acts as a timeless contraint. Yet to be honest I think the WD equation has some problems. Also a lot of theory developed along these lines is now in trouble with the Germi Gamma Ray observation of equal speeds of light for different frequencies of radiation.

Cheer LC

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 20:21 GMT
I meant Fermi, not Germi LC

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 02:15 GMT
amrit,

"If no one sees it or hears it, clocks still move but time not."

Time is just a word. The effect it symbolizes is the changes due to motion. They exist, so time exists as a consequence of motion, not the basis for it. I can understand why you want to say time doesn't exist, because you/we are taught it is that elementary dimension and you realize that doesn't exist. Your problem is that this effect of change is still elemental to the function of life, so people will look at you funny, if you say "time" doesn't exist. If you want them to even think about what you are trying to say, then you have to argue it is different from what they think it is, not that it doesn't exist.

As an effect of motion, it is much more like temperature than space.

Lawrence,

"The problem I see is that physics is not in the business of determining whether model structures exist."

Physics certainly should! Presumably it's about the physical. Blame it on the mathematicians claiming purity of form over messy reality.

"Barbour is of course on the vangaurd of the idea time does not exist."

Then he goes and tries to deduce some unit of time "worthy of the name" from a theory of least action. How can one claim it's an illusion and then, in the next breath propose an irreducible unit of this illusion?

"Also a lot of theory developed along these lines is now in trouble with the Fermi Gamma Ray observation of equal speeds of light for different frequencies of radiation."

That does seem to be significant. It really seems to blow a hole in the effort to quantize everything, including space.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 10:40 GMT
Lawrence, you wrote: Barbour is of course on the vangaurd of the idea time does not exist. This is due to the Wheeler DeWitt equation, which acts as a timeless contraint. Yet to be honest I think the WD equation has some problems. Also a lot of theory developed along these lines is now in trouble with the Germi Gamma Ray observation of equal speeds of light for different frequencies of radiation.

WD equation can be without sign "t". Newton equation for gravity has also no "t". This simply means that gravity is immediate phenomena. Recent research shows they are few phenomena in physics that are immediate, see ma essay.

.......................

John, if you think that motion produces time than you have to prove that. Where is time produced by motion. I do not see it. There is no evidence of such a time. Barbour is right saying time in which events run does not exists.

I do not know exactly his statement regarding "physical time/clocks run".

I see clocks/time fundamental in physics.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 13:47 GMT
Newton's law of gravity has not time, but it has little utility unless used with Newton's second law of motion F = ma. So you have

F = -GMm/r^2

and

a = d^2r/dt^2

put them in F = ma and voila you have a dynamical equation that involves time.

This is different from the WD equation, which is really a constraint equation with Lagrange multiples imposed as the choice of lapse functions.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 16:44 GMT
Lawrence

In equations "t" is number of numerical order of motion.

For example 5 second, means that clock did 5 thicks.

v = d/t

if you move on distence of 10 metters and clocks thich 5 times this means that you move with velocity of 2m per second.

1. you move in space only

2. clock runs/thicks in space only

3. velocity v happens in space only, time t is only a device to measute it

we measure with clocks numerical order of motion, through inner neuronal time we experience numerical order as duration, but physical events has no duration on its own.

yours amrit

3.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 16:49 GMT
PS At Planck level events happen without clock thicking. They are immediate. As gravity and EPR experiment.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 17:50 GMT
Save it to say I am not convinced of your argument. It might sound "hip" to say that time does not exist but frankly physics is not in the business of saying what model or geometric entity exists or not.

As for the Planck distance, there is lots of confusion about this. It does not mean that space or spacetime are sliced up into these units. It is a length scale which gives a limit on the quantum information available to any experiment.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 18:04 GMT
amrit,

"Barbour is right saying time in which events run does not exists."

That's right, because the events are not running in time, they are creating time.

"we measure with clocks numerical order of motion"

Exactly. One tick happens and then is no more. Next tick happens and then it too is gone. The only constant reality is the clock.

The linear dimension theory is that somehow, this clock is traveling along the fourth dimension on which these ticks exist, much like pages of a book exist before and after we read them. The reality is that the ticks only exist as they are happening.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 18:10 GMT
Rovelli propose that there is no time on Planck level. How time dissapear at Planck level ? There is no time in the whole universe om micro and macro level.

Time/clock is measuring devivce. Some phemonena happens in time zero. They are immediate. Clock cannot "thick" even a nano second or less and event happens.

This cleraly shows that event does not happen in time as a medium.

This clearly shows that time/clock is a measuring device merely.

For me: TIME = CLOCK RUN

CLOCK RUN = TIME

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 19:03 GMT
Again lots of confusion here. The Planck length, or Planck time, and their recirpocal or conjugages as Planck momentum and energy, just represent a cut off in scale beyond which one can't access information. It is the scale where a black hole deBroglie wavelength is equal to the horizon radius or circumference. That is all folks, there is nothing really about time not existing or any such stuff. There is nothing here about any Platonistic idea about things existing or not. Just stick to the basic stuff and not read between the lines of equations to draw philosophical inferences.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 09:45 GMT
Lawrence

"Planck time" is the basic unit to measure numerical order of material change in the timeless universe. Material change have no duration. We give them sense of duration by measuring them. With clocks we primary measure numerical order of material change. We experience this measurment through inner linear time, so we experience "duration". Universe is running "here and now" in timeless space.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 14:03 GMT
You are making a lot of metaphysical conjectures. There is nothing about physics which demands this.

LC

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 14:56 GMT
Lawrence

This is the fact. Flow of material change in the universe has no duration. It get duration with measurment. For duration observer is needed that measutes it.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 17:52 GMT
amrit,

Time is no more a point than it is a dimension. There is simply activity. If you try describing it as a point, that requires freezing the motion. So what is described as the present is a fuzzy presence.

To say there is no duration because time is not a dimension is changing the meaning of the word. There certainly has been duration from yesterday to today. There is no clear and absolute point of distinction where one ends and the other begins though.

Observation doesn't create time. The cause and effect of activity is the basis of thought. It is this feedback from our environment which is the basis of rationality. No telling where the ultimate essence of our consciousness comes from, but without the effect of activity, it would be a rather featureless state.



Space is the equilibrium state. Activity emerges as a disequilibrium. Time and temperature are effects of that disequilibrium. Life and observation are many more layers of emergence above that.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 18:28 GMT
Amrit, So this means by dating dinosaur bones we impose the time frame of the mesozoic? Sorry, but this makes no real sense. I have a hard time thinking that the nature of the universe is dependent or constructed around our activities or observations.

LC

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 19:22 GMT
John and Lawrence

Dinosaur bones were discovered in timeless space. Animals themselves have been developed and have been lived in timeless space. Man was developed and live as a race in timeless space. You are born, you live and you will go away in the same timeles space.

Clock "thick" in this timeless space and show us numerical order of events.

Birth of grandma has nuber n, birth of son number n+30, birth of granson n+60.

An event can exists only in timeles space where there is no past and no future. In timeless space an event cannot have duration on its own as a physical reality.

Duration is result of measurment. Sure physical term of duration is correct. It is important to understand that with duration of an event is the same as with physical time itself. They both exist because of process of measurment.

Introduction of timeless space will tottaly change our vision of universe and life.

ZEN knows we are living in eternal now.

Idea of timeless space is bringing spirit of zen in physics.

Sometime I'm astonished myself what a new vision.

For few years I'm aware that duration of an event is a result of its measurment. The day I got that I was in shock: "In the Universe events have no duration ?" All is running into NOW ?

Yes, it is. And there is no contradiction in this vision.

IN TIMELLESS SPACE WE MEASURE WITH CLOCKS NUMERICAL ORDER OF EVENTS THAT HAVE NO DURATION ON ITS OWN. DURATION IS RESULT OF MEASURMENT WITH CLOCKS AS A REFERENCES SYSTEMS.

yours sincerely amrit

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 22:10 GMT
Amrit writes: You are born, you live and you will go away in the same timeles space.

It is interesting that in saying this you have to use tensed language.

Physics tells us nothing about whether time exists, or space for that matter. These are geometrical entities which have connection to clocks and rulers.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 7, 2009 @ 01:37 GMT
amrit,

In that case, clocks have been around a lot longer than people.

You have to have something to measure, in order to measure. N+60 is sixty times the earth has circled the sun since N.

And N keeps receding further into the past with every moment.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 7, 2009 @ 08:30 GMT
Lawrence is used tensed language because physical past exist as a numerical order of change. "Before" and "after" has sense in numerical order measured with clocks.

John

We have "natural clocks". Planet earth rotation is a natural clock. It is important to understand that earth rotates in timeless space wheere therwe is no time. Our sense of duration is result of measurment. All universe is existing in timeless space that we experience as a present moment. As we experience timeless space through linear inner time we think that present moments follow one after other. This is pure illusion. Present moment is always the same. Eternity is now. Conscious observer is aware of that fact.

That fact will have an immence impact on entire humanity. People will "wake up" through proper understanding of time which leads into timelessness.

sincerely yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 7, 2009 @ 10:13 GMT
amrit,

That's the same general point I'm also making. Even the concept of "now" is a description of time, because it connotes a geometric point. There is only the physical field of energy in space and as it changes shape, it creates a flow of events. So to the extent there is the effect of time, it is emergent from the activity of this field, just as temperature is an emergent effect.

Our brains are divided into two hemispheres. The right brain is a parallel processor that is associated with emotion, while the left brain is a serial processor that is associated with intellect. Essentially the right brain is a thermostat that monitors and acts on variations of energy, while the left brain monitors and acts on causal relationships. Thus our rational side constructs reality as a series of events and the lessons learned from them, while our right side tends toward a non-linear and thus intuitive response.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 7, 2009 @ 12:07 GMT
John, you wrote: There is only the physical field of energy in space and as it changes shape, it creates a flow of events. So to the extent there is the effect of time, it is emergent from the activity of this field, just as temperature is an emergent effect.

Yes change of energy of timeless space and change of energy into timeless space creates flow of events.

No, physical time is not extent of flow of events.

PhysicalTime/ClockRun is invented reference measurment system for measuring flow of energy that creates change.

Yes, temperature is emergent effect of energy flow, time is not, no evidence for existence of such a time. Such a time is pure illusion, never observed, no data conforms it. There is no physical time behid clocks run.

sincerely yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 7, 2009 @ 12:44 GMT
I have a hard time honestly accepting this. Science is based on the idea thtat there exists a natural world independent of our observations. Further, relativity tells us that space and time tranform into each other depending upon a coordinate frame. So choosing a coordinate frame has the effect of transforming something which does not exist with something that does.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 7, 2009 @ 17:10 GMT
Lawrence you say: Further, relativity tells us that space and time tranform into each other depending upon a coordinate frame.

Space transforminig in time ?

Do we have only one experiment proving that ?

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 8, 2009 @ 00:25 GMT
Space and time rotate into each other. It is called the Lorentz transformation. This is old stuff.

I just prefer to stick with the working physics and not get tied up in knots over whether time exists or not. Physics does not tell us about the existential status of geometric or model dependent quantities.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 8, 2009 @ 09:20 GMT
Lawrence

Lorentz transformation describes coordinates relation between two inertial systems.

Space and time can not rotate into each other. How they could. Can you explain this.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Peter van Gaalen wrote on Nov. 8, 2009 @ 11:19 GMT
Hi Amrit,

you wrote (oct 30 11:47): "Quantum gravity describes space as granular. ... . Physical time that is run of clocks ("tick" of clocks) is not a part of quantum space in which change occurs."

"Quantum space itself is timeless. Fourth dimension of quanta of space QS is spatial too. Space-time is mathematical model merely were fourth coordinate X4 is a product of imaginary number i, light speed and number t that represents "tick" of clock: X4 = i x c t. "

You have three different reasons (correct me if I am wrong):

1. Quantum space itself is timeless.

2. time is fourth spatial dimension X4 = i x c t.

3. for duration of material change an observer is needed that measures it.

I like to address these points.

1. I think this is due to that the description of quantum mechanics is incomplete.

2. you call ict the fourth spatial coordinate X4, but we also can write time as tc2 and length as lxc. Now length and time are not spatial anymore. It is an arbitrary matter of choice how to represent time and length. (I myself prefer to give only vector quantities the imaginary unit i, Therefore time as -tc2 and the spatial coordinates become ilxc, jlyc, klzc) So spacetime itself is also not spatial. But again this is arbitrary.

We have spacetime continuum, and you believe that time is not physical. but we also have momentum-energy continuum. In the same line of reasoning I can say that energy is not physical.

plancks constant is Energy * time/phase. planck constant is also momentum * length/phase. why not query wether length or momentum exist?

3. Not only duration of material change but also distance in the configuration of the material change.

I agree with Lawrence : "It might sound "hip" to say that time does not exist but frankly physics is not in the business of saying what model or geometric entity exists or not."

It the article: "Einstein famously taught us that time is relative, and there are no absolute clocks, quantum mechanics is built on the notion that time is absolute. So before going any further, the physicists had to get a handle on what makes time tick."

For me it is obvious that quantum mechanics is incomplete, the last sentence in the quote from the article had to be: "So before going any further, the physicists had to get to know what was wrong with the description of quantum mechanics.

Grtz, Peter

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 8, 2009 @ 13:09 GMT
The boost from a frame defined to be at rest by an observer, and a frame moving with velocity v along the x direction obeys the boosts

t' = γ(t - vx/c^2), x' = γ(x - vt), γ = 1/sqrt(1 – (v/c)^2)

The (t, x) and (t’, x’) coordinates are rotated into each other by hyperbolic rotations. This is basic stuff. I would recommend reading a basic text on special relativity to see how these transformation equations are derived.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 8, 2009 @ 19:19 GMT
Peter and Lawrence

t' = γ(t - vx/c^2), x' = γ(x - vt), γ = 1/sqrt(1 – (v/c)^2)

In this formula t means "thick of clock". Thick of clock cannot be a dimension.

A dimension is X4= tc2, so a product of number t that represents thick of clock and light speed.

Physical time is thick of clock, mathematical time is number "t" that represents "thick" of clock. So fouth coordinate is spatial too. This was already Godel idea.

Lawrence

This is basic stuff. I would recommend reading a basic text on special relativity to see how these transformation equations are derived.

Yes, idea of physical time being run of clocks is in accordance with thios basic stuff. t and t' are numbers representing "thicking" of clocks in different inertial systems

Peter

2. time is fourth spatial dimension X4 = i x c t.

Time is not fourth spatial dimension. Product of time and light speed is fourth spatial dimension.

3. Not only duration of material change but also distance in the configuration of the material change.

Yes, right.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 9, 2009 @ 01:27 GMT
I just follow my nose on this stuff. Time is measured by counting accumulated intervals on a clock. Space is measured by units on a ruler. The theoretical description of what is measured is a four dimensional metric space with hyperbolic transformations. That is all I am concerned about. I don't worry about the ontological status of these things.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 9, 2009 @ 02:52 GMT
amrit,

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

"Temperature is sometimes used as an example of an emergent macroscopic behaviour. In classical dynamics, a snapshot of the instantaneous momenta of a large number of particles at equilibrium is sufficient to find the average kinetic energy per degree of freedom which is proportional to the temperature. For a small number of particles the instantaneous momenta at a given time are not statistically sufficient to determine the temperature of the system. However, using the ergodic hypothesis, the temperature can still be obtained to arbitrary precision by further averaging the momenta over a long enough time.

Convection in a fluid or gas is another example of emergent macroscopic behaviour that makes sense only when considering differentials of temperature. Convection cells, particularly Bénard cells, are an example of a self-organizing system (more specifically, a dissipative system) whose structure is determined both by the constraints of the system and by random perturbations: the possible realizations of the shape and size of the cells depends on the temperature gradient as well as the nature of the fluid and shape of the container, but which configurations are actually realized is due to random perturbations (thus these systems exhibit a form of symmetry breaking).

In some theories of particle physics, even such basic structures as mass, space, and time are viewed as emergent phenomena, arising from more fundamental concepts such as the Higgs boson or strings. In some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the perception of a deterministic reality, in which all objects have a definite position, momentum, and so forth, is actually an emergent phenomenon, with the true state of matter being described instead by a wavefunction which need not have a single position or momentum. Most of the laws of physics themselves as we experience them today appear to have emerged during the course of time making emergence the most fundamental principle in the universe and raising the question of what might be the most fundamental law of physics from which all others emerged. Chemistry can in turn be viewed as an emergent property of the laws of physics. Biology (including biological evolution) can be viewed as an emergent property of the laws of chemistry. Finally, psychology could at least theoretically be understood as an emergent property of neurobiological laws."

Time is an emergent phenomena, in which the changing configuration of the state creates events which go from being future potential to past circumstance.

report post as inappropriate


Peter van Gaalen wrote on Nov. 9, 2009 @ 06:46 GMT
John: "Time is an emergent phenomena, in which the changing configuration of the state creates events which go from being future potential to past circumstance."

I still don't see the connection between time and emergent behaviour. You say thet "...even such basic structures as mass, space, and time are viewed as emergent phenomena..." So why not saying: mass is an emergent phenomena?

I believe that a 'particle' before measurment has no position nor momentum. But in the description of the wavefunction quantities like 'length' and 'momentum' are still used.

Energy and time both are scalar quantities. I wonder if the flow of time and the positive energy theorem have some connection. I think there has to be also a 'positive time theorem', for the same reasons there is a positive energy theorem.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 9, 2009 @ 10:22 GMT
Peter,

The first three paragraphs were reposted from the article I linked.

Specifically I compare time to temperature. Space and energy/mass are a more complicated problem.

Thought experiment: Take some pool balls and rearrange them. You have two events, the original and the second state. These are not different balls, but their relationships to one another have changed, but the balls did not travel in anything other than in the volume of space. The arrangements are what came and went. First they were in the future and then in the past. So time emerges as an effect of motion, but it is the future becoming the past, not a fourth dimension along which events exist and the present travels. We just happen to think in terms of the ordering of events, from past events to future ones, not the process of their coming and going, which is from the future into the past. The wave of future potential is collapsing into the circumstances of the past.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 9, 2009 @ 11:24 GMT
Lawrence you say: I just follow my nose on this stuff. Time is measured by counting accumulated intervals on a clock. Space is measured by units on a ruler. The theoretical description of what is measured is a four dimensional metric space with hyperbolic transformations. That is all I am concerned about. I don't worry about the ontological status of these things.

There is no time existing that is measured with clocks. Clock run itself is this time. We measure with this time/clock material change.

This has nothing to to with ontology. This is pure experimental physics.

Do you have one experimental data that prove existing of time behind clock run ? Present it here.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 9, 2009 @ 11:28 GMT
John you say: Time is an emergent phenomena, in which the changing configuration of the state creates events which go from being future potential to past circumstance.

Sorry, No evidence for that. Our debate should be based on facts. What is not a fact can not be considered real. Time existing behing clock run is pure imagination.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 9, 2009 @ 11:30 GMT
Peter

There is no observation of "flow of time". This is pure imagination.

We can only observe "flow of change" that we measure with clock/time.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 9, 2009 @ 14:01 GMT
The question of time is far more subtle than this. I wrote on the open blog page:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/230

something about time and spacetime intervals. There are some questions about travelling faster than light. I indicate towards the end there are issues involved with "time operators" and the structure of quantum mechanics and relativity.

I am not sure how to communicate this further. I am not arguing that time exists as such, even though it is something we subjectively experience on an almost universal level, and we do measure it with clocks. My point here has been that physics is not in the business of telling us whether geometric constructtions, whether time or space, have a certain ontological status or relativity.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 9, 2009 @ 14:36 GMT
Lawrence

At a Planck level information and energy transfer is immediate. Timeless quantum space is a medium of immediate information and energy transfer.

By imediate transfer "thick" of clocks is zero. We have several data of physical events that are immediate. Speed of transfer there is faster than light. See my essay.

- Planck level - immediate transfer (gravity, EPR experiment and others. Time/clock "t" iz zero.

- Photon level - light speed transfer (electromagnetic radiation)

Time/clock "t" more than zero

- macro level - slower than light speed

Time/clock "t" more than zero

Yes, linear time exist on subjective level.....about that I say here in particularities.

It is physics business what time is and what space is from phenomenology point of view. I see that extremely important because being aware what is model and what is physical reality is distinquishing physics from philosophy.

Physics is a natural science. I think in physical terms, I'm aware that mathematical terms are only a support for description.

Today you can publish an article in peer rewieved physics journal only having a good mathematical formalism. A question of how this model corresponds to the physical reality is secondary. I see this as a weak point of physics. Physics is not only mathematics, pysics is much more. Physics is a scientific picture of reality we live in, we are part of it.

yours sincerely amrit

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 9, 2009 @ 17:37 GMT
Why Godel is right ?

In Special Theory of Relativity space and time are intrinsically linked, united into one manifold called “space-time”. The three coordinates X1, X2 and X3 are spatial the fourth one X4 is temporal. Gödel introduced idea that X4 is spatial too. Profound analysis of the fourth coordinate shows that X4 is composed out of “c” light speed, imaginary number “i” and time “t” that represents “thick” of a clock:X4= ict. Time “t” that we gain with clocks describes numerical order of material changes. Clocks are reference systems for measuring frequency, velocity and numerical order of material changes. Gödel is right: fourth coordinate X4 is spatial too. Space itself is timeless. Mathematical time “t” is only an element of X4 and represents physical time that is run of clocks in timeless 4 dimensional space.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 9, 2009 @ 17:57 GMT
amrit,

"John you say: Time is an emergent phenomena, in which the changing configuration of the state creates events which go from being future potential to past circumstance.

Sorry, No evidence for that. Our debate should be based on facts. What is not a fact can not be considered real. Time existing behing clock run is pure imagination."

The potential exists that we will still be having this discussion tomorrow. Whatever the case may be, whatever we write now, will at that point be yesterday. That is what is commonly referred to as a fact.

The only physical reality is what is present. Events go from being in the future(tomorrow), to being in the past(yesterday).

"Yes, linear time exist on subjective level.....about that I say here in particularities."

Ref: Emergence.

report post as inappropriate


Peter van Gaalen wrote on Nov. 9, 2009 @ 18:19 GMT
Amrit, what basal quantities exist according to you?

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 9, 2009 @ 18:40 GMT
It was Minkowski who introduced spacetime and the four dimensional hyperbolic metric. Godel derived later a solution to the field equation of Einstein's general relativity. Minkowski's geometry introduced the light cone and the projective geometry of null world lines for massless particles or photons.

The Planck distance is a limit to the information that can be obtained about the universe on a small scale. There really is nothing particularly different about this scale when it comes to geometry. There is nothing about this scale which indicates in any clear way a timelessness. In fact along with Planck length there is a Planck time.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 9, 2009 @ 19:54 GMT
PS

If Einstein would publish in 1905 a paper in Analen der Physic where he would interpret fourth dimension of space as a product of light speed and run of clocks, this today would be basic statement of physics.

If I would wrote an essay on FQXI where I would propose idea of forth dimension of space being time all would be against, would say that I have no basic knowledge about foundations of physics.

This is possible because of unconscious observer.

Conscious observer is the future of physics.

Lawrence Planck time is a basic value for measuring numerical order of physical events. With measuring numerical order we obtain duration that is result of measurment.

In fact nothing in universe has duration on its own without measurment, universe is NOW.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 9, 2009 @ 21:42 GMT
As a rule in science you don't want to explain an unknown with another unknown. In doing so you really explain nothing. In the case of consciousness we really don't know what it is exactly. We have no scientific understanding of consciousness. So attempting to explain quantum gravity with consciousness at this time will accomplish nothing.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Peter van Gaalen wrote on Nov. 10, 2009 @ 07:22 GMT
Hi Amrit,

I don't see any difference between your fourth spatial dimension X4 and 'ict' Minkowski invented. Minkowski called it a 'proportional imaginary quantity'. Minkowski invented/discovered this a hundred years ago. I think we all agree that ict is essential in describing the spacetime continuum.

Amrit, you call the fourth spatial coordinate X4: I don't have problems with that. "time is thick of clock": I can live with that description of time. You can keep repeating "time is thick of clock" but you can't ignore "length is point of ruler".

I like to have your opinion about this:

You call 'ict' the fourth spatial coordinate X4, but we also can write proportional time as -tc2 and proportional spatial coordinates as ilxc, jlyc, klzc). So spacetime is not temporal nor spatial. It is a matter of choice. And there are other ways how to write proportional time and proportional length, all in accordance with time-like solutions. It is a matter of choice how to represent proportional time and proportional length.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 10, 2009 @ 08:41 GMT
Peter

Yes length we measure with ruler.

Proportional time -tc2 is not time, is a dimension.

My point is that time is not a dimension, not a distance, time is run of clocks.

Dimensions and distances are a product of velocity and time.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 10, 2009 @ 19:41 GMT
Hi Peter

After discussing with you I decide to write an article without philosophy. Pure physics. I send it to IJTP for eventual publishing.

yours amrit

attachments: Fourth_Coordinate_X4_is_Spatial_Too.rtf

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 11, 2009 @ 12:56 GMT
Whether you regard time as real or not, time is modelled in spacetime physics as what is called a 4th dimension. The ontological status of this dimension is not terribly relevant, but the geometric model does result in working physics.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 11, 2009 @ 13:21 GMT
Lawrence yes, real is what works. 4-th coordinate in not time. I hope we all agree on that, mathematical formalism shows that X4=ict, where t is only clock thick.

I encourage all physicists here stop thinking in terms that physical events happen in time, because it is wrong. Time is a measuring system merely.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 11, 2009 @ 17:49 GMT
Lawrence,

"Working" is a somewhat subjective term. There have been any number of models, throughout history, that worked. Up to a point. The problems start to arise when the adherents to these models start proposing increasingly fantastical extensions of these models to explain contrary evidence, rather than re-examine the premises on which they operate. Knowledge, like much of nature, is a process of expansion and consolidation. The discipline of physics seems ready for a consolidation phase.

Possibly the convenience of modeling time as a dimension has reached the limits of its effectiveness.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 11, 2009 @ 19:10 GMT
I presume by clock "thick" you mean "tick." Look, this is a lot of philosophical interpretation here. x_4 = ict in the Minkowski metric is spacetime. That is all there is to it. One just works with the formal system of relativity theory as it is without worries over the ontological status of time or any geometrical structure.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 12, 2009 @ 02:41 GMT
Lawrence,

Does that mean every extrapolation from dimensional time, such as block time and multiworlds, is valid physics?

It was a perfectly good model to assume the sun circled the earth. Explaining the movements of the planets and stars just required a little more projection of this celestial mechanics.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 12, 2009 @ 04:08 GMT
One must be careful I think in knowing the difference between a theory and an interpretation. Talking about block time, or evolving block time, or ADM "no time" (time does not exist), is an interpretation. In quantum mechanics we have many worlds, Copenhagen, Bohmian beables, and so forth --- again interpretations. Even statistical mechanics has its interpretations, with the Boltmzmann micro vs macro state view vs the Jaynes Bayesianist approach. These interpretations are valuable if they permit you in some way to more readily solve a certain problem. Yet interpretations are not theories! There is also no decision criterion by which one interpretation is found to be clearly true and another false.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 12, 2009 @ 08:52 GMT
Lawrence and John

You do an expeeriment: think only for one day that motion runs in space only and that with time/clock we measure motion.

You will see at the end of the day that all works perfectly.

In all foumulas of physics symbol "t" represents clock run, means clock "tick" (or thick - my gramar is ot best).

In physics time is and can remain a mathematical dimension, but time definitelly is not a physical dimension in which change run. Change run in space only.

yours amrit

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 12, 2009 @ 10:23 GMT
Lawrence,

The line between theory and interpretation does get a little fuzzy. Theories are projections of known quantities. Interpretations are projections of theories. Knowledge, on the other hand, is a cumulative effect where all evidence supports and re-enforces the perception. The idea of time as a dimension is supported by lots of evidence, just as the idea that the sun circles the earth was supported by lots of evidence. The problem is that there were discrepancies around the edges. Given the state of telescopes at the time, these were fairly minor to most people.

Consider the point about time I keep making: Does the earth travel the fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, or does tomorrow become yesterday because the earth rotates?

Now it seems the response is quite often that it is simply a matter of perspective, but then so is the question of whether the sun circles the earth, or the earth rotates is simply a matter of perspective.

When you really sit back and think about it, it is a large difference. It's the difference of whether time is a fundamental dimension, such as space would seem to be, or whether it is an emergent effect, like temperature.

It does also play out in many other, more philosophical aspects of reality, given that such concepts as time travel are based on one model, but the other broadens our understanding of the present, since the cumulative effects of all motion are not reduced to this one linear dimension.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 12, 2009 @ 15:19 GMT
John, you ask:

1. Does the earth travel the fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow ?

No, earth travel in space only, yesterday and tomorrow is human experiencing of earth motion around its axsis.

2. Does tomorrow become yesterday because the earth rotates?

No, tomorrow becomes yesterday because we experience rotation of the earth through inner neuronal time. Earth rotates into space only not in time. Conscious observer experiences space as a present moment, as NOW.

Unconscious observer experiences motion in space through inner liner time and for him NOW are following one after another. He is not aware that motion (material change) run always in sama space in same NOW.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 12, 2009 @ 15:24 GMT
PS

conscious observer: motion in space = NOW, with clocks we measure motion of motion in space

unconscious obseerver: motion in space = TIME, with clocks he measures time that does not exist at all

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 12, 2009 @ 15:28 GMT
PS

conscious observer: motion in space = NOW, with clocks we measure motion in space, motion in NOW

unconscious obseerver: motion in space = TIME, with clocks he measures motion in time. The problem is that this time does not exists, he believes that he measures time, he has no proof that

report post as inappropriate


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

"No, tomorrow becomes yesterday because we experience rotation of the earth through inner neuronal time. Earth rotates into space only not in time. Conscious observer experiences space as a present moment, as NOW."

As someone who spends a significant percentage of my "time" outside, it is my belief that the passing of days is more than a function solely of perception. Yes, perception is is necessary to conceive of the concept, but it is the feedback loop of interaction between one's neurons and the larger physical reality that are the two sides of perception. Otherwise consciousness without activity would be blank and activity without consciousness would be mindless.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 12, 2009 @ 17:49 GMT
John, I cannot help: Universe si timeless. Universe is NOW.

With the idea that time is run of clocks in NOW is entering the realm of physics.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 12, 2009 @ 18:09 GMT
Interpretations are similar to theory in ways, but they are ways in which some aspect or result of a theory are extended in ways which are not effective. They are as the word suggests, ways that a result of a theory are interpreted to make sense with our expectations of things or some philosophy

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 13, 2009 @ 01:40 GMT
amrit,

"Now" is still a concept of time, which implies a dimensionless point, or instant. A more effective concept that might more effectively express what you are saying would be "is." As in simply what physically exists, without delineating it in any geometric frame.

Lawrence,

When we extend a theory out to the point it does become ineffective, that serves as an arrow pointing back to what might be wrong with the expectation of which theory is the formalization. Such as the linear narrative, of which the time dimension is a mathematical model.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 13, 2009 @ 09:32 GMT
Dear John,

yes NOW is the only time that exist as a concept and as a physical reality. We measure duration and numerical order of events with clocks in this NOW - presnt - timeless space.

If all understand that than my job here is done.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 13, 2009 @ 13:39 GMT
Examples of interpretations are with quantum mechanics, which range from many worlds, Copenhagen, Bohmian beables, and so forth. Relativity has its interpretations with regards to time; block world, evolving block, ADM "no time" and so forth. Statistical mechanics has its interpretations with the Boltzmann approach which touches on statistical frequentism and the Jaynes approach based on Bayesian statistics. These tend to define schools of thought or camps," where it upholders regard their interpretation as the codifying aspect of a theory.

These are ineffective as theories, for there really is no way we can perform an observation to falsify any of them. They are then really more formalisms which permit an analyst to solve certain problems. Bohm's interpretation is very much a minority report, but years ago I found it useful in working some problems in quantum chaos. This is not to say I became a hidden variablist. Many worlds is useful for quantum cosmology. The Jaynes approach to statistical mechanics is useful for information theory. These interpretations are not without their utility, but none of them appears to be verifiable --- or more importantly falsifiable.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 13, 2009 @ 15:22 GMT
Lawrence become an open "clock/timer" and you will see that much of your ideas will gain new light.

Real is what works. A theory that has no elegant solution is false.

A theory with "inner beauty" is always good. It shines cosmic logos.

"Time is run clock" has an immence power. You will see............

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 13, 2009 @ 18:42 GMT
Lawrence,

Newtonian theories of gravity get spaceships to other planets. Any map of the terrain has its uses, but if you find yourself increasingly lost, then the logical solution is to backtrack.

Personally I'm just trying to make the point that time is an emergent effect of motion, not the basis for it and as such, is the future becoming the past, not a fundamental dimension along which the present travels. I can understand why, as a point of professional standards, someone such as myself isn't going to be taken seriously, especially since many such professionals have devoted their careers to models based on time as a causal dimension, even if only a statistical one. But I find discussing the subject interesting and informative to my somewhat limited knowledge base, so I thank you and everyone else for the argument.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 13, 2009 @ 18:44 GMT
amrit,

"yes NOW is the only time that exist as a concept and as a physical reality. We measure duration and numerical order of events with clocks in this NOW - presnt - timeless space.

If all understand that than my job here is done."

Always keep in mind that life is a journey, not a destination. When everything balances out, it's just a flatline on the old heart monitor.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 13, 2009 @ 21:18 GMT
The problem is not about being lost. It is simply that physics is not likely to ever be something which is some grand axiomatic scheme. Moldoveanu seems to think so, but hoestly I have grave doubts. There will always exist so called "interpretations." Some might not like them, but these are probably a persistent fact of life. This idea of timelessness is an interpretation, not a theory. For those who work with the Wheeler-DeWitt equation and the ADM approach to relativity timelessness is an aspect of that formalism. Yet, there are problems with this perspective and the notion of timelessness really amounts to an interpretation ---- not a theory!

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 14, 2009 @ 10:10 GMT
Lawrence,

Any map or model is necessarily less than the whole.

I'm not arguing for timelessness anymore than I'm arguing for temperaturelessness. I'm just saying it's an emergent effect of motion, not some fundamental basis for it. It is an effect of the fluctuation, not a parameter of the vacuum.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 14, 2009 @ 10:15 GMT
Lawrence result of my research is that TIME IS RUN OF CLOCKS IN TIMELESS UNIVERSE. I do not care is that theory, interpretation...or whatsoever. For me this is A PHYSICAL FACT. What physics will gain out of it is not my work any more. I'm a phenomenologist.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 14, 2009 @ 10:17 GMT
John,

time is not an effect of motion. Time is an effect of measurement.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 14, 2009 @ 16:27 GMT
amrit,

Measurement of what?

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 15, 2009 @ 09:36 GMT
Measurment of frequency, velocity, numerical order of material change.

In generally all measurments with clocks.

As meter is an uniti for distance, a second is an unit for numerical order of physical event that run in timeless space.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 16, 2009 @ 00:44 GMT
amrit,

"material change, physical event?"

Would that then be a measure of activity/motion?

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 16, 2009 @ 15:24 GMT
yes time/clock is a measure of motion.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 16, 2009 @ 17:37 GMT
amrit,

So what you call measurement and I call effect are the same.

Consider temperature as well. It is a measure of motion, but if you put your hand on a hot stove, it is certainly an effect as well.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 17, 2009 @ 13:08 GMT
Dear John,

time is result of measurment,

temperature is result of motion.

Temperature is electromagnetic radiation and time is run of clocks.

Difference is quite big.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 18, 2009 @ 01:38 GMT
amrit,

Ok, lets go through this one more time. What is being measured?

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 18, 2009 @ 01:42 GMT
P.S, Electromagnetic radiation is electromagnetic radiation. Temperature is a MEASURE of it.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 18, 2009 @ 11:59 GMT
Actually temperature is the level of present activity relative to a predetermined scale. Economic statistics, such as unemployment, GDP, etc, could be considered a temperature reading of human activity.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 18, 2009 @ 12:41 GMT
John I hope I got you:

Thermometer is measuring temperature.

Clocks is measuring motion.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 19, 2009 @ 03:03 GMT
amrit,

Close. Thermometer is measuring motion. It is measuring the amount of motion against a pre-determined scale. Such as celsius is a scale of 100, from freezing point of water to boiling. Now that scale is a human construct, based on the fact that we use a 10 digit counting system, due to the fact we have 10 fingers. Now the boiling and freezing points of water, as well as the fact we have ten fingers, are a function of nature. That we should construct a measuring system from one fact, to measure the other fact, is a function of our consciousness.

Clocks are constructs to record various regular cycles of motion. They may not have much bearing on one another, such as the fact that the cycles of the moon, ie, months, are not neatly divided according to the solar cycle of the year, but since it doesn't affect our lives, we just used the concept to break years into 12 months and barely notice where the moon is. Whereas with days, it does matter that they have some relation to years, so occasionally we add leap days, minutes, seconds, to keep days and years matched.

Our minds function through reductionism, in that we try to find patterns in the world around us and if that doesn't work, we simply make patterns to fit our needs. Thus we cram the effects of all this motion into one concept we call "time."

So just as if we studied motion on a small enough scale, there would be no concept of temperature, since the motion would be too granular to have a consistent average. And so physics finds that on a small enough scale, time also disappears because the configuration changes are to the point of being statistical, if they exist at all.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 19, 2009 @ 08:24 GMT
John, you say: And so physics finds that on a small enough scale, time also disappears because the configuration changes are to the point of being statistical, if they exist at all.

Universe is timeless, so time as a part of universe cannot exist and cannot disappear. Time is run of clocks merely. Smalles natural clock is motion of photon. Smallest unit of time is Planck time.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 19, 2009 @ 10:13 GMT
amrit,

And Einstein said that for the photon, since it has no internal motion, time is stopped.

And as Lawrence said about Planck length, it is a function of the ability to measure. As I have been saying, since you can't define the point where a planck unit begins and ends, as such points are smaller than Planck, it means it is just a fuzzy, ALMOST dimensionless point.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 19, 2009 @ 12:09 GMT
John in universe time can not stop because time has never started.

We live in eternity that we experience as "present moment", as now.

In physics this is represented with a concept of timeless space where time/clock is measure of motion.

There is no time behind clocks run. Photon moves in timeless space. We can measure its speed with clocks. This is where time enters. Time/clock is a measuring device.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 19, 2009 @ 17:45 GMT
amrit,

"We can measure its speed with clocks. This is where time enters."

Right. The effect of time emerges with motion.

"Time/clock is a measuring device."

Time is an effect, just like temperature. A clock is a measuring device, just like a thermometer.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 19, 2009 @ 18:25 GMT
Yes John, this is how it is.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 20, 2009 @ 01:24 GMT
amrit,

It is what it is.

Cheers,

John

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 24, 2009 @ 09:55 GMT
Universe is in a permanent dynamic equilibrium.

http://vixra.org/abs/0911.0057

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Dec. 23, 2009 @ 21:23 GMT
Time is a Measuring System Derived From Light Speed

yours amrit

attachments: Time_is_a_Measuring_System_Derived_from_Light_Speed.pdf

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jan. 3, 2010 @ 21:17 GMT
In what way are related psyhological time and physical time ?

yours amrit

attachments: In_what_way_are_related_psychological_time_and_physical_time__sorli_2010.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Marshall Barnes wrote on Mar. 14, 2010 @ 01:14 GMT
Amrit:

Psychological time deals strictly with the subjective perception of time. It includes duration dilation, for instance, which is different from time dilation. Time dilation involves physical time which, like psychological time, involves different perceptions of time but they are not subjective vs objective. Although Special Relativity provides for different temporal frames of reference (for that matter so does GR) each reference frame is real, although it might not agree with another.

So, while it is possible, with psychological time, to perceive time to have gone by at a rate that is not accurate, time dilation, regardless of the cause, creates a real temporal reference frame, regardless of its synchronization with another frame of reference. The proof of that is in the twins paradox. According to the twin's clock that was accelerated on the high velocity trip into space, only days have gone by, but according to the rest of the external universe (which includes the twin on Earth) it has been years. The fact that the traveling twin, however, didn't age as much is what sets this kind of time apart from a mere difference in perception, as is the case with psychological time.

report post as inappropriate


Marshall Barnes wrote on Mar. 14, 2010 @ 13:28 GMT
Amrit:

Time is not a measuring system in its purest form. Because of language, we use the word "time" to describe the passage of moments of actual time, such as when we ask someone what "time" it is.

Time is a dimension that is attached inextricably to space. Space is where things are. Time is where events are. No time, no events. Period.

I have a fully developed model for time that does not require rewriting the laws of physic or saying Einstein was wrong or anything else. It does however answer all of the major questions about time that make people try to say that it doesn't exist. Time is real and I've yet to see compelling evidence that shows otherwise and that includes anything and everything from Zeno to McTaggart, to Godel to Barbour.

Oh yeah, and that funny character, Peter Lynds.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 12:01 GMT
Barnes,

if time exists as a physical reality in which change run than you have to prove that.

If this is not provable than you have to accept my vision of physical time as a run of clocks in space.

Yours amrit

attachments: 1_In_what_way_are_related_Psychological_Time_and_Physical_Time_SORLI_2010.pdf, 1_Time_is_run_of_Clocks_in_Timeless_Universe_FQXI.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Marshall Barnes wrote on Apr. 18, 2010 @ 22:01 GMT
Amrit:

I can prove it. In fact I will be conducting an experiment that will prove it next month and I will present my findings May 28th at a convention that will be announced.

As far as your vision of physical time is concerned, it's incomplete. Your psychological reference to time I can rule out by merely going back to the universe before there was Man. No brains to perceive time, yet there was still time.

Your idea that events run in space and not time ignores that fact that events happen is an asymmetrical sequence. Sequences are time ordered. As I said, no time no events. As far as EPR signaling goes, those processes happen neither in time or space only the measurement effects. The faster than light signaling is the result of a subspace connection that the two particles maintain despite the fact that they are separated in space and time. Since time and space are inextricably connected and we know that the particle pairs are separated in space, they must also be separated in time, yet FTL signaling still takes place. This is the result then of a connection that exits in some other dimension.

Your experiment with Achilles and the tortoise is incomplete. Both moved through time as well as space. They both moved 10 seconds into the future, they just didn't move the same distance in space. Let's fire a laser pulse from the starting line where Achilles is at the same time the race begins. At 10 seconds that pulse will be over a million miles away, so far and so fast that it won't even be in the same time frame as the tortoise and Achilles. So much for your theory of no movement in time only space.

Time is not a measuring device for motion. It's a dimension where events happen which we measure in seconds, hours, days, etc, just as we measure space in inches, feet, miles, light years. Motion is an event that has a velocity. That is why we can use time to measure it. After all, time still exits if something doesn't move. Motion is not a requirement for time to exist.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 06:42 GMT
Dear Marshall Barnes,

You said to Amrit "Your psychological reference to time I can rule out by merely going back to the universe before there was Man. No brains to perceive time, yet there was still time." With respect Sir, this is not a logical argument. Even if you have a "time machine" and can go back to the time before man to take a look, you can not say no brain and still time exists. Unless you are saying that you conduct this experiment with out a brain. Whether at the observation itself or interpretation of the results of that observation.If you are merely conducting a thought experiment, how are you doing it without a brain ? It is your brain, putting your temporal experience onto objective physical reality without time,imo. (You have given a literally -brainless- argument. That is a pun by the way not a personal insult.)

Time is the sequencing of events carried out by the mind. The change is a spatial change occurring in space. The argument time still passes even if things are stationary does not hold because nothing is stationary. Every sub atomic particle has continuously changing position in space.

It is incorrect that sequences are time ordered. This is shown by Einstein's work on relativity. The order of a sequence of events depends on the spatial position of the observer. The time between lightning and thunder in a thunderstorm illustrates this quite well. The time between flash and bang depending on distance of observer from storm location. Two events occurring simultaneously in an objective space without time may be observed as simultaneous by very close by stander or to have an order of occurrence according to a more distant observer. The precise order depending on which event occurred closer to the observer position. It is how events are experienced not how events -are- in space. That is what space-time is. Time and space are inextricably connected, you are correct on that point . They are connected in the mind and within the space-time model of reality that models the subjective reality produced by and experienced by the human mind. IMHO.

There have been some interesting discussions of this sort of objective modeling of time in the recent blogs. Which may give you another perspective to consider.

report post as inappropriate

Marshall Barnes replied on May. 22, 2010 @ 19:55 GMT
Georgina:

You've convinced me now that there really is something pathological about time deniers. The inability to comprehend concepts in writing is literally breath-taking. You're telling me that I'm not being logical about saying that there was time before there were people and you attempt to defend that statement by saying if I went back in time in a time machine there would still be a...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Amrit wrote on Apr. 20, 2010 @ 19:36 GMT
Dear Marchal

when you walk you measure velocity with "tick" of clock in space.

Out of that follows: Velocity is derived from the numerical order of events that we measure with a clock.

Yours Amrit

attachments: From_Spacetime_to_Timeless_Space_..............pdf

report post as inappropriate

Marshall Barnes replied on May. 22, 2010 @ 20:30 GMT
Amrit:

I'm done talking to you because you ignore everything that doesn't fit into your robotic, mantra-like concept. I've news for you:

1. If you are impressed by Zeno's paradox to the point that you can't see that it was never anything more than a mind game, you're not worth my time anyway.

2. You can use math to prove almost anything - even things that are wrong. Take M.C Escher's drawing Relativity for example. You can program all the proper angles into a computer and a computer will reproduce it in 3 dimensions on a screen but you can't produce it in the real world. It's an impossible drawing to create physically, just like all of your time doesn't exist, statements.

3. My name is Marshall not "Marchal". If you can write in english, you can damn sure spell my name in english.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 07:24 GMT
Gravity without graviton, mass without masson, dar energy without darkon

attachments: 10.11648.j.ajmp.20140303.11.pdf

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.