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

John Merryman: on 9/6/14 at 1:35am UTC, wrote Lyle, It doesn't sound at all like JCN. John, I certainly agree time...

Lyle Moss: on 9/6/14 at 0:02am UTC, wrote @ John : are you J.C.N. Smith? if so - this is TOO weird

John: on 9/5/14 at 6:01am UTC, wrote This is so ad hoc its astonishing that there are people who would not shoot...

Darius M: on 6/22/14 at 18:41pm UTC, wrote Time is what Kant called the act of spontaneity which generates the...

Sam Gray: on 4/13/11 at 0:51am UTC, wrote Some fundamental things are discussed here by all persuasions. However...

JOE BLOGS: on 3/17/11 at 9:09am UTC, wrote My hypothesis is that a big crunch is like a Godel universe in which time...

wilton.alano@gmail.com: on 3/13/11 at 22:22pm UTC, wrote Joe blogs, One event succeed the other and no reversion is allowed. What...

wilton.alano@gmail.com: on 3/13/11 at 21:51pm UTC, wrote Dear Amrit, Sorry, but I can't agree with this idea. Time is synonym of...



FQXi FORUM
April 23, 2017

ARTICLE: Time and the Multiverse [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

amrit wrote on Jun. 17, 2010 @ 21:10 GMT
time runs only in the mind,

universe (and eventually multiverse) is utterly timeless

yours amrit

attachments: BLOCK_UNIVERSE.pdf

report post as inappropriate

wilton.alano@gmail.com replied on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 21:51 GMT
Dear Amrit,

Sorry, but I can't agree with this idea.

Time is synonym of energy and change. Into an energized system (all are), particles and parts change their spatial position all time. In this case, the position 'before' is different from the position 'after'. Is that change of position what cause "time elapse".

So, when you say 'time elapses', you are saying - first of all - that this system is energized (things change their spatial position).

In an hypothetical unenergized system, at zero absolute degrees, no time could be elapsed, because nothing would be energized and - therefore - nothing would change their spatial position.

"Time" is just another point of view of energy, and energy is something real, nos "mental". If you say no time is - in fact - elapsed, so you are sayng no energy happens in the cosmos.

Cheers.

Wilton

report post as inappropriate


Zephir wrote on Jun. 17, 2010 @ 22:54 GMT
In Aether Wave Theory (AWT) universe behaves like giant fluctuations of dense gas and its entropy remains rouhgly the same. All objects smaller then the wavelength of cosmic microwave background should be a subject of entropic process, i.e. radiation, whereas all larger object should be driven by negentropic processes, i.e. gravitation.

http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/08/awt-and-cosmolo
gical-time-arrow.html

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jun. 18, 2010 @ 06:12 GMT
Zephir quanta of space QS that are building elements of quantum timeless space, you call it ether have no entropy. Basic frequency of QS is consciousness itself. Because of that in space is always NOW.

Material universe above Planck scale is ruled by entropy – from gas are created atoms that are than transforming to the atoms with heavy atom mass where energy is “locked” in matter.

But in black holes matter is transformed back intro QS in consciousness itself.

In outer space where density of QS is high QS are transforming continuously in “cosmic rain”, in subatomic particles that constitute atoms.

This flow of energy “matter – space (consciousness) – matter is not in time, it is eternal.

And eternity is NOW.

We experience universe that is always NOW into timer frame “past-present-future” that is of the mind.

Negentropic process of life evolution is development of matter towards living systems that have ability to experience consciousness. Humans we are close to that point. The last barrier is illusion that we live in time as a part of space. Space is utterly timeless, time live in us. Time is part of the mind.

Yours Amrit

report post as inappropriate


J.C.N. Smith wrote on Jun. 18, 2010 @ 13:48 GMT
What we perceive and refer to as "the flow of time" is nothing more and nothing less than the evolution of the physical universe. When seen from this perspective, the concept of "time running backward" makes no logical sense. The universe does what it does. Our job is simply to understand what it does. Our faulty use of words such as "time" gets in the way of our doing so. For additional details please see the discussion to be found here.

report post as inappropriate

Kronos II replied on Nov. 27, 2010 @ 05:26 GMT
Excellent insights, J.C.N. Since you appealed to logic, here's another common sense insight that pseudo scientists prefer to ignore:

Classic Understanding/Definition: Time is the measure of motion. As such, it can only be positive (or run forward).

Think of anything in motion and in any direction. Even double-slit or other experiments will start at a particular time and the motion involved will expend more time. Time as the measure of all motion cannot run backwards.

But allow anyone to redefine time (the theory of relativity also does not touch it, either, because the measure of motion can be slower but cannot move backwards)so as to take away it's objective nature, and all sorts of silliness can occur.

Moving Forward!

KII

report post as inappropriate


svetlana wrote on Jun. 18, 2010 @ 14:35 GMT
very interesting article!

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jun. 18, 2010 @ 21:34 GMT
in the universe "before" and "after" exist only as a numerical order of events in space that we measure with clocks. Clocks run in space only, not in time.

report post as inappropriate


Karl Coryat wrote on Jun. 19, 2010 @ 01:48 GMT
The question about the arrow of time is backward. The direction of the arrow comes from the flow of information -- see Wheeler on the information-theoretic nature of the Universe. The past is that portion of the Universe from which information flows. Information does not and cannot come from the future, only and always from the past. From any point, therefore, an observer sees two directions: a past (the direction where information comes from), as well as a future, which is "dark" -- no information at all. Call it entropy, call it evolution, call it whatever you want...it's all information at the very bottom, and this is what determines the perceived arrow of time.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jun. 19, 2010 @ 11:43 GMT
Karl,

information always moves in space only, no one ever has seen information is moving in time.

“Past-present-future” is mind model through which we experience motion of information in timeless space.

with clocks we measure information and energy transfers in space

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jun. 19, 2010 @ 21:43 GMT
The entire universe might be an n-dimensional spacetime on the string scale, where n = 10, 11 or 26. On scales larger than this there are submanifolds of four dimensions that are cosmologies. Each of these could have different time directions. The n-dimensional spacetime compactifies up dimensions except four and defines a set of spacetime cosmologies. Further, these spacetime cosmologies...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 20, 2010 @ 10:15 GMT
Is it a global joke or a global ironic science ....10 11 27 28.....no ....falses

A biverse here a string there a multiverses here an anti universe a serie here an idea of pierre paul jacques here....allthat is false...pure mayhs without real universal coherences .....be more pragmatic in the physicality, you confound all...humbly and respectfully.Your entire universe is a virtual human universe simply where you are in the center...it's time to be more rational.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jun. 20, 2010 @ 11:37 GMT
Lawrence we can discuss about "arrow of time" only in a sense of "numerical order of material change" ..........

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jun. 20, 2010 @ 13:15 GMT
The biverse here is a sort of device. Here this device is an instanton or tunneling state, which is used to connect different spacetime cosmologies in a quantum scaffold --- so to speak.

When it comes to the nature of time I am not particularly impressed with the idea of time not existing. This idea comes from the ADM Hamiltonian for “space plus time” approach to general relativity which obeys NH = 0 and the momentum version N^iH_i = 0. The first of these H = K + R, K being symbolic for the trace conditions on the extrinsic curvature and R the Ricci curvature of the spatial manifold, is extended to the quantized for in the Wheeler-DeWitt (WD) equation HΨ[g] = 0. This outwardly has the appearance of a Schrodinger equation HΨ[g] = i∂Ψ[g]/∂t, but where the right hand side is zero. Of course this has to be the case, for there is no universal time variable t one can appeal to properly. What is time is imposed by the analyst in how spatial manifolds with the constraint H = 0 are linked to each other. It is not hard to extend the WD equation to include a harmonic oscillator field σ so that one introduces a time variation and you have HΨ[g,σ] = i∂Ψ[g,σ]/∂t in some local (within a saddle point integration) region. The point is that the AdM and WD equations do not mean time does not exist, but rather that these are constraints imposed on a spatial manifold.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Jun. 20, 2010 @ 15:18 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

It sounds like our ideas may be merging again.

Dear Steve and Amrit,

It is obvious to me that Space-time must be a broken (3+1)-brane symmetry, and this idea of time not existing as an independent dimension is just a fad. As a particle physicist myself, I enjoy looking for unified symmetries and broken symmetries. The fact that this broken dimensional symmetry is so evident should allow us to seriously consider the idea of Hyperspace dimensions that exist under the rules of another broken symmetry. Consider how ugly the Standard Model symmetries are: SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1). IMHO, It is hypocritical to seriously consider the "truth" of such a complicated Standard Model symmetry, and simultaineously deny the "truth" of time and space being seperate brane symmetries. Steve says his model is 3-D, but he has hidden time within his "spin" degrees of freedom. Likewise, Amrit has tried to hide time within his "block". Give me a break, guys - these models are *NOT* exclusively 3-D! You have both introduced extra degrees-of-freedom that resemble dimensions. If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck!

Once upon a time, I didn't believe in Hyperspace or the Multiverse. How do you prove that which you can't see? Now these ideas (and scale invariance) seem to naturally fall out of my mathematical models. Is it wrong to use this mathematics to model reality? All I can say is that the mathematics seems consistent...

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 20, 2010 @ 17:27 GMT
Hi Ray,

Like all the time, I am frank.

I think humbly what people wants my ideas or wants the grants .....money monney always these stupidities which cause our global problem, I can understand people have seen the potential of my theory .But it's a little strong no all that ......I say that because I know the human nature and the pleasure for some people to like monney .....I dislike this money ....

The complexity is in 3D the simplicity also , that's all ....

People can use all the strategies that they want, never that will change.

I am parano yes ,it's like that ......EUREKA with humility if people are jaleous or try ....it's not my road.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jun. 20, 2010 @ 17:51 GMT
Of course like I am parano, thus my words must be taken with a balance and a sorting,

Dear Ray,

I insist on this 3D , the division rests in 3D , the hidden dimensions are in 3D ....all maths extrapolations must be rational also, we can't play like we want with physics.....the time is a constant of evolution and we can't invent these pseudos sciences where all the universal coherences and global irreversibilities aren't considered in its pure serie and limits, the referential always dear Ray.

My model is in 3D and will rest always in 3D .....let's find the correct fractal of the uniqueness please...the volumes, theirs velocities of rot spinals and orbitals, their densities, their number finite, the lattices between spheres......if we insert falses parameters, that will imply a lot of confusions.

The incompleteness dear Ray do not prove nothing , is it a reason to extrapolate thet ....no for me fortunaly.

Your ideas are interestings, you, Lawrence, Florin, Girn,lisi.....the team what....hahaha interestings but falses because you have all fear to rebegin in the good road , ....vanity+business+maths without limits=extradimensions and lie algebras without real physicality .....these algebras are falses dear friends for the physics...the groups .......always the groups and their superimposings....The globality of these ideas are falses, simply

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jun. 21, 2010 @ 12:12 GMT
Duck is flaying into space

Clock is running into space measuring duck flight

Unconscious observer experiences duck flight into “past-present-future” that is of the mind

Conscious Observer is laughing into eternal now in which duck is flaying

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jun. 21, 2010 @ 12:36 GMT
Ray,

There is this strange idea that time does not exist. Of course we have to wonder whether time exists in the same way as a particle does. Maybe it does not exist in that sort of hard ontological sense. Yet it is something which we measure with a clock, and from an operational perspective that is sufficient. Quantum mechanically events are marked by the outcomes of measurements, or where quantum probabilities are realized. We might be tempted to think that time is a quantum process of some basic nature and that space “hangs” on it as a garment hangs on a rack. So there might be some prospect that thinking about this in some inverted way is a strategy worth considering.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jun. 23, 2010 @ 14:31 GMT
I'm in the camp that regards time as physically real, where time is identical to information. In connection with my definition of time -- n-dimensional infinitely orientable metric on random self-avoiding walk -- I found this interesting paper:

Olber's Paradox

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jun. 23, 2010 @ 23:10 GMT
A version of this work by Diao could be used to describe the path integral in the sense that Goyal does in his elementary logic of quantum physics.

I think is associated with fundamental quantum events, which form a scaffold for spacetime. In that sense I could say that time exists. Time in the continuous meaing of the word exists "well enough" as I see it.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jun. 24, 2010 @ 03:09 GMT
Lawrence, nice observation. It supports empirical extension of the quantum domain to the cosmic, and thus adds nonzero time to quantum event analysis n the classical scale. Throw in scale invariance and n-dimension continuity of the time unit, and you've got my theory of physical time and gravity dissipation over n-dimension kissing spheres.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jun. 21, 2010 @ 20:52 GMT
Lawrence,

Time is not “something” that we measure with clocks.

With clocks we measure numerical order of material change.

Time as “something” in ontological sense is a mind model into which you experience numeric order of material change.

amrit

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jun. 23, 2010 @ 18:08 GMT
Amrit,

What do you mean by "mind?"

Tom

report post as inappropriate

amrit replied on Jun. 23, 2010 @ 19:20 GMT
Hi Tom

Rad my paper on file attached and you will see what i mean by "mind"

yours amrit

attachments: INTEGRATION_OF_RATIONAL_AND_CONSCIOUS_EXPERIENCE.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jun. 21, 2010 @ 21:26 GMT
Amrit,

Ultimately you are burying the concept in time in the notion of change. Change v. [Chanj] To become different, to alter or vary. Then how does something vary? It does so according to this thing called time.

This trend of regarding time as nonexistent is silly. I will not say with certainty time is ontic quite in the same way that a hard particle is. However, quantum events determine eigenvalued outcomes which occur in a sequence ordered temporally. I can’t prove that time exists, but science is not about proving things exist, science is only about making measurements and determining whether things measured satisfy certain relationships. Those relationships are what we call theories.

Calling time something we simply perceive mentally as objects moving in space is really just a word game. You have in the end just come up with another definition of time.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jun. 23, 2010 @ 19:17 GMT
Yes, I replace concept of time with numerical order. With clocks we measure numerical order of material change that run in the universe. We experience change in a perspective “past-present-future” that is a mind construct (psychological time).

PS

Time is not information. We all see that information moves in space:

-post DHL moves in space

-telephone information run on wires

- mobile and internet information run on electromagnetic waves

No one ever has seen information moving in time as time does not exist.

Concept of time is not corresponding to the physical reality. Concept of numerical order is corresponding perfectly to the physical reality.

The case is that we experience information motion in space through time that is of the mind.

Yours Amrit

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jun. 24, 2010 @ 13:30 GMT
Amrit,

I recall a Buddhist story, in which a monk explains a flag waving in the wind, "The flag is not waving. The wind is not waving. Your mind is waving."

Even a waving mind transmits information through nerve synapses.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jun. 23, 2010 @ 23:14 GMT
Again you are replacing time with verbs, such as run. Information does move in time. If I send a light signal pulse from x and y with a distance d it moves in a time t = d/c.

Back in the early 1990's there was a silly pundit-news program called "The McLaughlin Report." The sound bites you give remind me of that program.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

amrit replied on Jun. 24, 2010 @ 11:29 GMT
I'm not replacing time with anything,

photon moves in space.........with clocks we measure numerical order of its motion.

Read INTRODUCTION on file attached.

attachments: 2_Block_Universe.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jun. 25, 2010 @ 00:17 GMT
A block time argument does not eliminate time. It only places time in the same role within a static 4-d spacetime. Yet what we observe is the evolution of a spatial surface and its data in that block time.

The block universe and other ideas are sort of interpretations of relativity theory. They are similar in some ways to interpretations in quantum mechanics. In other words they are superfluous.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

amrit replied on Jun. 26, 2010 @ 12:31 GMT
in block time universe time is run of clocks....not even that there is no time at all, with clocks we measure numerical order of material change....the trouble is you do not get that because you experience universe in mind model of time "past-present-future"

this is my last letter in this summer….watch your mind and you will discover origin of time

see you in September

report post as inappropriate


Carmen Putrino wrote on Jun. 24, 2010 @ 03:45 GMT
Time has everything to do with conciousness. Time and conciousness are the same thing. Time moves in the direction of our focus. Without time, there is no conciousness. Without consciousness, there is no time.

report post as inappropriate

amrit replied on Jun. 24, 2010 @ 11:31 GMT
All what you say above is utterly wrong.

yours amrit

PS

read my papers on viXra

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 24, 2010 @ 12:16 GMT
and also without time , there isn't evolution.....the increase of mass on this line of time shows us the increase of intelligence and consciousness evidently.

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

amrit replied on Jun. 25, 2010 @ 11:38 GMT
Steve

evolution runs in space only not in time........."line of time" is a mind concept.

Universe is timeless.

This is one of my last posts.

I'm getting tired explaining the same truth on and on.

If people here do not get it is my responsibility.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jun. 26, 2010 @ 23:40 GMT
Ray,

CPT symmetry pertains in d = 10, 11 or 26 dimensions. The CP symmetry may pertain at the quantum gravity limit, but might be violated with the onset of semi-classical gravity and the dominance of the inflaton field. The inflaton field obeys the standard Klein-Gordon equation

[equation]

where the potential function has this odd behavior with a very small slope for some...

view entire post


this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jun. 26, 2010 @ 23:49 GMT
I have no idea why this rescripted things before the first equation and a portion of the equation this way. Just ignore that rubbish and it still reads ok.

With the RHS of last equation should read -∂V(φ)/∂φ

Cheer LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Jun. 27, 2010 @ 00:12 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

I agree with inflation. I think that inflation also leads to self-similar scales. You mentioned 10,11 and 26 dimensions, but I thought your model was 27 dimensional, and mine is 28 dimensional.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jun. 27, 2010 @ 00:57 GMT
The 26 dimensions is for the bosonic string, and this type of theory can emerge from the 27 dimensional Jordan matrix theory under the light cone or infinite momentum gauge condition. To go to 28 dimension this amounts to a sort of F-theoretic construction.

Largely I am trying to crane things up to these extended theoretical models. If you start out with the ultimate theory I think few people will listen to you.

I decided to restart this thred, for I find these large nested threads are annoying.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on Jun. 27, 2010 @ 12:39 GMT
Oh how Tempus Fugit?

There is nothing(literally)in the FUTURE,that can influence the PRESENT,and thus be logged or verified as a PAST?

There is something in the PAST, that influences the PRESENT that has a baring on outcomes of the FUTURE!

How can Universes be external to each other?..if there is a multiverse, then these must all reside inside NOT outside each other?..like balloons of differing coulours that are blown up one inside the other, then using different colour lasers, can be deflated without bursting the outer balloon?

report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on Jun. 27, 2010 @ 12:45 GMT
The something in the "past" has to be information about what was?..what used to be "today" that dissapears,we cannot see yesterday?.. but today must also retain a little bit of missing information, and relevant information at that.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Jun. 27, 2010 @ 14:57 GMT
"Space is what we measure with a ruler. Time is what we measure with a clock." A. Einstein

A ruler has only one part, so it can only measure one dimension at a time, but a clock has two parts, the hand(s) and the face, so time is a relational aspect between these two. Since our minds are programed to perceive the series of events we encounter, time would seem to be a function of moving from past events to future ones. Given that there is no universal order by which events are recorded, or absolute rate by which they are spaced, Albert Einstein devised an ingenious method of correlating spatial and temporal positions. Unfortunately a serious leap of faith must be taken, in accepting the present moment as being as subjective as the events occupying it are transitory, even though all of physical reality only exists as this presence.

What if though, it is not the hand of the clock that moves from one unit of time to the next, but the hand, representing this state of presence, which is the constant and it is the units of time passing through it, as the process of this physical presence turns potential into actual and then residual?

That it is the face moving counterclockwise in relation to the hand, much as the earth rotates west to east, rather than the perception of our terrestrial location that it is the sun moving east to west.

The clock evolved from the sun dial and the hand is a representation of that shadow produced by the light of the sun. Most of us do accept it is actually the earth which moves, why not start applying that fact to the clock?

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jun. 27, 2010 @ 15:36 GMT
John, I am very disappointed that you have still not grasped the rudiments of general relativity.

A "clock" is the number of vibrations per unit of time in a cesium atom (or any other arbitrary way of counting cycles). It has no "hands," no "face." Spacetime is a continuum, however, of rod and clock measurements -- special relativity, the physics of uniform motion, informs us that the constant speed of light converts clock measurements to a spatial metric; general relativity, the physics of accelerated motion, informs us that we share a common space regardless of one's state of motion.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jun. 27, 2010 @ 16:17 GMT
I will give John one benefit of the doubt here. General relativity has two notions of time. The invariant time is proper time ds^2 = g_{ab}dx^adx^b, which is the most important concept of time --- it is physical time. The other is coordinate time, which is really just a book keeping device to compute in some frame bundle or metric choice. Quantum mechanics relies upon coordinate time since quantum fields are fixed on spatial manifolds determined by some coordinate condition. The wave equations depend upon the coordinate time. A clock on a reference frame measures the proper time, but it has working components. An atomic clock is something which measures a quantum oscillation of a system, and the dynamics of this system is Schrodinger. So the clock works according to this coordinate time. This does mean in a funny way there is no “pure clock,” so to speak. Time may then be some sort of quantum effect.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jun. 28, 2010 @ 00:20 GMT
Tom,

For someone with a great deal of respect for math, you don't seem to have much comprehension of equivalent functions. Obviously the vibrations are the units being measured, the face of the clock. So, I ask, what is doing the measuring? Yes, in relativity the present is subjective, but there must be some device tracking the length of time/duration between one vibration and the next! That would be the hand of the clock.

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Jun. 29, 2010 @ 09:17 GMT
John, I want to point you to a sounder basis for you idea that " ... these vibrations, representing units of time, are first potential, then actual, then residual information in the measuring device."

transactional interpretation

Unless we find a suitable context, our discussion can't go anywhere. I only know that relativity is not the context.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jun. 29, 2010 @ 16:01 GMT
Tom,

It will take more than a lunch break to go over that.

report post as inappropriate


a mendelsohn wrote on Jun. 30, 2010 @ 01:42 GMT
I don't mean t jump in, but I think that John Merryman is referring to adiabatic heating when talking about compressing a gas results in increased temperature. is that correct?

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

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jun. 30, 2010 @ 02:30 GMT
I don't think so, a.m. From what I could understand, John was posing a direct relation between volume and temperature, treating temperature as an intrinsic property of matter that supposedly increases with decreased volume, rather than as the measure of average kinetic motion that it is.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jun. 30, 2010 @ 16:04 GMT
Tom,

I understand what temperature is. You don't seem to understand the point I keep trying to make.



Temperature is a scalar level of molecular or atomic activity. It is an effect of motion. I have been trying to point out that time is also an effect of motion, ie. the changing, serial configuration which results from motion. I compare the theory that time is another dimension of space, to saying temperature is another parameter of volume. I realize it is a ridiculous argument, but I'm using it as an example of why time as another dimension of space is a ridiculous argument.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Jun. 30, 2010 @ 16:28 GMT
Dear John,

Did you read Peter van Gaalen's "What is Ultimately Possible" contest essay at

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/509

?

He bases "dimensionality" on units and, based on my interpretation of his essay, he would probably say that your Temperature argument is a good argument for new dimensions due to the existence of Time AND Temperature (although Peter explicitly counts energy rather than temperature).

So I ask "Is your counter-example a good reason to consider ONLY 3 dimensions, or is it a good reason to consider MORE than 4 dimensions?" I fall into the latter category. I think Tom and Lawrence would agree with me - although they probably have different perspectives. I know that Amrit and Steve have supported 3-D as staunchly as you.

As I have told Amrit and Steve, they are replacing a 4th dimension of "time" with other contraptions that still contain time's degrees-of-freedom. If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jun. 30, 2010 @ 03:40 GMT
Tom,

The relationship beteen the Leech lattice in 24 dimensions and the 196560 dimension and the complete automorphism of the monster group is an interesting structure. The monster group though takes you up another level though. The 24 dimensional Leech has a relationship with the F_4 group and the automorphisms on M_{24}. F_4 maximal quaternionic representation is the 24-cell. So from 24-cell to 24 dimensions with 196560 roots. Then one might deign to go up to the next level. Mind you I suspct this might be the ultimate theory, but we lack a lot of tools to work there in a way sufficient for physics.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 1, 2010 @ 15:52 GMT
Lawrence, you're over my head. I get the gist, but I don't think in terms of complete lattices. I have a hard time seeing how we can get a nonperturbative theory that way.

By the same token, such approximation methods as Causal Dynamic Triangulation, which also relies on rigid transformations, however abstract, gives me the same mental block.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jul. 2, 2010 @ 01:30 GMT
Conway and Sloane is a good source on the mathematics of sphere packing and codes. The physics has two departures. One is with a sort of solid state physics. Each sphere represents that scale for the occurrence of a single quantum bit, and these quantum bits exist in field amplitudes which are Bloch waves. The fundamental lattice is the E_8 lattice, which as a root space also defines the group as well. This is a remarkable feature of E_8, and so if the E_8 group defines the gauge theory of the wave, this gauge theory also defines the Bloch wave structure as well. This leads to Skyrmion physics for these waves, which is a sort of topological vortex wave. This on a scale ~ 10 times the sphere radius is essentially a string.

The second interest start from when this lattice theory is that when reduced to 4 dimensions. The lattice is the 24 cell, tetrahedrachorion, with an F_4 group representation, and lower representations in D_4 ~ so(16) and B_4 ~ so(9). F_4 is stabilized by the automorphism group of E_8, which is G_2. B_4 ~ so(9) gives the 10 dimensional supergravity with an infinite momentum gauge condition. So this reduces to gravitational physics in various ways. It is of some interest to determine how this does connect with Loop Quantum Gravity and Causal Dynamic Triangulation theory. I have this idea that if the two connect it will serve to reduce string theory on the physical vacuum to some small subset of what has been worked out, and it might serve to solve some ambiguities in the LQG/CDT theories, such as the Barbero-Immirzi ambiguity.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 2, 2010 @ 12:54 GMT
Lawrence,

In those terms, you are closer to my thinking, although I don't understand all the models. To the extent that the sphere scale transmits information on the state of the group, I grok -- I think that in physical terms, this information is the inertial state. To explain:

From basic geometry, let's assign the dimensionless point a value of negative 3. That would impart a value of negative 2 to the 1-dimension line, and to the 2-dimension plane, negative 1. So the three-dimensional domain is zero, and we have the order of zero to 4 dimensions:

-3, -2, -1, 0, +1

Matching sphere kissing numbers to these values, we find 0, 2, 6, 12, 24.

The first non trivial kissing number is in three dimensions: 12. What my model finds, is that this zero-valued 2-sphere (S^2) is a recurring singularity of non-zero dimension in the n-dimensional Euclidean order of kissing spheres. To see why this is not the contradiction that it appears to be, let's go back to the flat 2-dimension plane, with a value of negative 1:

This space has to be complex, because only the field of complex numbers is algebraically complete. So consider for a moment the real Cartesian plane, with 6 spheres kissing an identical sphere. Then consider the negative (hyperbolic) space bounded by the spheres. We find a closed loop, and that is what I mean by a string -- the space of fluctuating energy on the boundaries of moving kissing spheres, whose fundamental dimension is 2. When we use 2 dimension analysis on the complex plane, then, the possibilities for string configuration are no longer confined to a closed loop -- closed and open strings "dance" on the manifolds of the recurring S^2 throughout the n-dimensional Euclidean sphere kissing order. We learn:

1. 3 is the minimum dimension for the origin of inertia;

2. Mass is the product of space and time alone, from zero average vacuum energy density;

3. Negative space ("brane") surfaces promise a non-perturbative path to a unified theory.

I find by straightforward numerical calculation from this mnodel that the 4 dimension horizon is identical to the 10 dimension limit, so supersymmetry is a result, rather than an assumption. A tiny epsilon term added to the zeroth term of the kissing order, calculated from first principles using complex analysis, explains the low baryonic content and locally weak gravity of our universe.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jun. 30, 2010 @ 19:40 GMT
Lawrence:

Time may then be some sort of quantum effect.

What kind ofquantum effect ?????????

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jul. 1, 2010 @ 00:21 GMT
I am working on discrete groups which act on AdS_n and S_n in a duality between

AdS_nxS^n/Γ

AdS/ΓxS^n.

S^n/Γ --- an SO(n) group in a quotient with a discrete system, is in a Klein group system. This leads to a semidirect product on the hyperbolic group and the Lie group that is a Heisenberg group, and this group defines a time operator on this discrete set. Remember, Pauli demonstrated that a time operator acted as a sort of Hamiltonian generator, which prevented energy eigenvalues and worse it eliminated the crucial least bound condition on the spectrum. However, this problem does not exist if the time operator is on this discrete group. Physically the time operator describes the proper times for a collection of timelike geodesic which intersect hyperboloids. It is a bit much to try to write in a blog post.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Noel Eberz wrote on Jul. 2, 2010 @ 23:18 GMT
I just found this website - but my interest in time and its arrow goes back a ways (see www.cosmic-concerns) and that the answer is closer to home. As brief as possible, regarding time: The Fundamental elements and their Interrelatedness:

1) Time is only ‘Now’ – There is but one copy of the universe and it’s Now, the only venue of change. No other temporal state exists. Our present daily existence is an example of real continuous change compared to all other rapid or slow physical changes. Further, mentally the past is only memory, the future mere anticipation, again, both extant only Now.

2 & 3) Space & Energy – The two bare essentials: Space the volume, contains the space fabric with unique electromagnetic properties. And Energy, ever in motion, is either in transit at the Velocity of light (Voc) or is arrested (confined/slowed) in mass configurations. - - -

4) Mass is a ‘kernel of mass with additional confined forms of energy’. - - -

More detail:

1a) Time has two elements: a stress/strain on space and its contents, and as such is a ‘dependent’ variable. The stress aspect is the cause & vector of change (time’s arrow) and any active strain is the illusion of flowing time. While there is only Now, not a duration, flow rates and duration depend on the space environment working on the present integral of its physical past with the future being mere propensity for further change. The Entropy trend is not relevant . Now is synchronous throughout space by ‘default’ eg. a singular value and consequently, any event is commensurate in reciprocity between multiple observers. In infinite set would yield a unitary Now manifold.

report post as inappropriate

amrit replied on Jul. 9, 2010 @ 11:27 GMT
Yes Noel

the only time is now

yours amrit

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?p
rog=normal&id=PHESEM000023000002000330000001&idtype=cvips&gi
fs=yes&ref=no

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Jul. 3, 2010 @ 09:49 GMT
Noel,

I'm in agreement with you. The point I keep trying to make is that the constant is what is physically present, ie. now, the effect of time is one of turning potential into actual and then residual information. In other words, it is the future becoming the past, as opposed to the perception of the present moving from the past into the future. Clearly, it is not that the earth travels the fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, but that tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates.

The problem is that the narrative effect is at the base of our linear rationality, so that we try incorporating it, first as the "flow" of time and now as a geometric dimension, into our understanding of its existence.

If you can't put your ideas in some mathematical formula though, they probably won't get much traction. If the Mass isn't in Latin, it's not real religion.

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 3, 2010 @ 10:31 GMT
John,

Every mathematical statement can in principle be expressed in natural language. The reason that we use the numerical precision of mathematical language in science, is to plug the gaps of reason that colloquial language often leaves -- so that we don't have to unnecessarily invoke ineffable causes, and we can demonstrate that we understand a subject to the extent that the state of current knowledge allows. That we can formalize our knowledge.

Not everyone thinks that mathematical language is infinitely progressive, however. Some, like Lev Goldfarb, say we have already hit the wall. He is working on a whole new formalistic system.

Come to "The destiny of the universe" article forum, and you will find support for your basic idea of the future becoming the past. The idea, however, is only where the serious work begins.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Jul. 3, 2010 @ 16:05 GMT
Tom,

I understand math is a form of language, a system of symbolic communication used to express and develop understanding and that like all language, it is constantly growing and evolving. Also, that since it is trying to model an incredibly complex reality, must also be quite complex and often inventive. The problem I see is that as a discipline, it is subject to the same self referential myopia as most other disciplines, as the efforts to formalize the structure starts to conflict with the necessity of both expanding on it and keeping it relevant to a larger reality. As with everything from philosophy, to economics, to politics, there is a tendency to detach, rather than adapt. It usually only becomes apparent the profession has gone off the tracks when it becomes overwhelmingly obvious that something is wrong. I'm referring to both physics and mathematics here, but it should be noted that math is not really the platonic model it is often assumed, but is really an extension and abstraction of physics.

I've read through the Destiny thread, but haven't yet time to fully consider it.

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 3, 2010 @ 16:59 GMT
John, you miss the point. There isn't anything expressed in mathematical symbols that cannot, in principle, be expressed in natural language. So when one goes off on "what's wrong with math," my trigger finger itches. Unless or until we communicate telepathically, we're stuck with formal language if we want to say anything meaningful at all.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 4, 2010 @ 10:00 GMT
The relevancxe of these words are so important.......thanks dear John

you said ....there is a tendency to detach, rather than adapt.

Indeed indeed ...unfortunally for the evolution and the short moment in a specific locality....here the Earth system and its intrinsic parameters of course....

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Wilton Alano wrote on Jul. 4, 2010 @ 20:51 GMT
.

We have not been right when thought we have found the "whole thing". Nothing authorizes us to think our backyard-Universe is - that time - the whole. As long as we know, cosmic fabric has no starting point and that IS his exact nature: energized matter. Our Universe can be a very diminutive particle of an true infinite tissue.

Once the cosmos have not an start, time can not have start eighter. So, time is just a measure of movement of eternally energized matter.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Jul. 6, 2010 @ 13:11 GMT
Dear Wilton,

I once thought that our Universe was everything that there is. After having found scale invariance in my TOE models, I'm now convinced that our Universe is only a fractal fragment of Cantor dust.

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

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Jul. 6, 2010 @ 15:13 GMT
Dear Wilton,

Are you Brazilian? If so, I can cross-post:

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunto_de_Cantor

Ha
ve Fun!

report post as inappropriate


Wilton Alano wrote on Jul. 6, 2010 @ 22:40 GMT
Ray,

All of us were educated to think that our neighborhood-universe were all that existed. Perhaps we live badly together with the idea of an infinite cosmic fabric because we (unconsciously)desperately need the sensation of womb-like protective boundaries.

Unfortunately, ee have never found any boundaries and I am afraid we will never...

Yes, I am from Brazil. Thanks for your attention and Wikipedia address!

Cheers,

report post as inappropriate


Wilton Alano wrote on Jul. 8, 2010 @ 23:10 GMT
For a bacteria, glued to a sand grain, deep one meter in a large beach, dreaming about understanding the entire coast is as foul as we trying to understand the entire cosmos.

But we are something more intelligent...

:)

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 9, 2010 @ 12:17 GMT
Wilton,

Bacteria or prokaryotes are not that dumb. In point of fact they really run this planet in a network that is a sort of biochemical internet. Eukaryotes are assemblies of prokaryotes, such as the mitochondria with their own DNA, and they evolved in some molecular biological response to the increased role of RNA (sRNA etc) in molecular pathways. We might see eukaryotes as assemblies of prokaryotes that increase the energy flow through in the planetary eco-system, primarily for the benefit of prokaryotes. For every somatic cell in our bodies there are 10 prokaryotic cells --- we are walking micro-ecosystems of prokaryotes.

On the other hand prokaryotes are not conscious, and I doubt there is any consciousness in this prokaryotic planet-net. So we have a transient advantage in that sense. In the end Homo sapiens is a very brief blip on the unfolding evolutionary tapestry of life.

As for the discussion of time, or ideas that time does not exist, it might be worthwhile to consider the opposite perspective. Maybe time, or some quantum process of elementary events that define time, is truly fundamental. If so then everything else emerges as a consistency condition. For instance, if there exists a discrete hyperbolic group system which defines time, then a non-signaling requirement that prevents some violation of that group (eg backwards time looping) requires the existence or emergence of unitary or modular transformations in a space. So not only might space emerge this way, but the gauge fields and their potentials that generate unitary transformations emerge as well.

Food for thought

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Jul. 9, 2010 @ 13:35 GMT
Nourishing food for thought, indeed.

In every context I can think of, Nature informs us that her redundance of simple elements self-organize into novel forms. As you point out, the overwhelming proponderance of single celled organisms and their constituents leads to higher forms that can be described as corporations of cooperating cells.

Likwise, out into the cosmos, we find that over 99% of matter is in its two simplest forms, the remainder of elements created in the crucible of star furnaces and scattered by exploding stars to self organize into the novel life that we know.

So it is only natural to push back a little further, to ask what happens when we consider evolution from space and time alone.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 9, 2010 @ 19:13 GMT
Tom,

With all this talk about time not existing, maybe the opposite view should be at least entertained. Maybe time is some elementary quantum effect, upon which all else emerges.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Jul. 9, 2010 @ 20:06 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

I was reading Constantinos' papers yesterday, and although I think he simply rederived some existing Hamiltonian and/or Lagrangian mathematics and physics, his papers do bring an emphasis back to action.

The Planck unit is the minimum change in action. If space (and its conjugate variables momentum) are "REAL" enough to cause changes in action, and if time (and its conjugate variable energy) is "REAL" enough to cause changes in action, then time must be as "REAL" as space, momentum and energy.

I'm getting tired of this no-time-trend. Perhaps we can describe geometrical gravity with space curvature, but I think it is a joke to try to use relativity to describe black holes and the quantum gravity that most likely exists there. In one of my models, a time-like dimension prevents the collapse of the black hole "singularity". Without that time-like dimension, we might all collapse into a super black hole singularity, instead the "singularity" is effectively truncated.

What do you think of AdS_5~CFT_3?

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jul. 9, 2010 @ 21:21 GMT
The point of AdS_n ~ CFT is that the boundary of AdS_n, a space E_{n-1}, is equivalent to the CFT on a sphere S^n. The result is a holographic principle, where the boundary or horizon of a spacetime holds all the information in that spacetime. In this case it is this hyperbolic space AdS_n with a group O(n-1, 2). There are some subtle issues of the conformal completion on a patch of the AdS, and the boundary space E_n is this conformal completion. This is found with a discrete group on the O(n-1,2) that acts properly on AdS and then on the E_n it acts as a discrete conformal group.

The nature of time is rather odd, for it does not really have a conjugate variable relationship with energy. All that we do have is the Fourier transform result, which in quantum theory is the uncertainty principle. However, from a physical perspective the idea that "if energy exists then so must time" is not half off the mark. I suppose Constantino posted a website for these, but I don't have that.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 9, 2010 @ 21:30 GMT
Ah, yes, Lawrence. I think there is going to be a great deal of research in the near future devoted to the proposition that time is causal.

After all, when we routinely calculate quantum effects by conjugate variables, and t = 1, can we be far from where it all began? I don't think so. Once we have negative space of 2 dimensions, a modulus squared implies to me that action has bootstrapped itself from imaginary to real. Self organization on the complex plane seems quite logical to me, given the algebraic completeness of C*.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 11, 2010 @ 18:51 GMT
It seems that some people takes themselves to the navel of the world if I can say.

These people, vains, are vary easy to pick.

In fact, you can see their words which do not change their strategies and superiority.

They brag about their super ideas(which are winds in fatc) that are not.

The meanders of their confusions reveal their limitations.

Like frustrateds of system by lack of recognition.

They use small techniques for pseudoscientifics or ignorant public.Like ....you know them .

Respect can be won only by skills, by a generality,by the sincere desire of universal quest ..... but never in these games,irrelevants to the rational scientific community.

Me at my age and with my theory ,I can lost my time here on FQXi before the creation of My INTERNATIONAL HUMANISTIC SCIENCES CENTER but for someones , frankly.......ahahah jalous.

Let's be serious a little and PLEASE THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNAITY....WHERE ARE THE LIMITS AND RATIONALS .....WE CAN4T TEACH THAT AT UNIVERSITIES? IT4S NOT POSSIBLE.

Ps sometimes people take the choice to not answer, not because they think they are superiors, or they try to pass a kind of comportment of wisdom and rationality.......no no dear Friends...they fear in fact, this technic is ok for several but not with me ....

How would they understand, touch their souls, enjoy the secrets of eternity ,...... without a love for their quests.

The generality of this question,which is always in my mind, is a wave oscillating among the stars of evolution.

Some researchs, works are not that....The dimensions of our Universe, tell it like you want, God, the entity, the eternity, the equation, the cause, the entropy, the all, the whole,the unknown.......are in 3D.....this God deosn't play at dices, please respect the uniqueness....and its laws, its aim....its plan.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 12, 2010 @ 17:48 GMT
Ray,

This extension to 28 dimensions from the 27 dimensional J^3(O) would be an F-theoretic extension. The three E_8’s are related by the g_2, which decomposes into su(3)+3+3-bar. The J^3(O) is the hermitian part of the exceptional algebra, and the anti-Hermitian is 38 dimensional. These together form the 45 dimensional complex exceptional algebra. Think of this as a “real plus imaginary” construction. This extends to the 78 dimensional exceptional algebra that is E_6 quaterionic valued. Then of course there is the 256 dimensional octonionic exceptional algebra --- E_8 valued octonions. All of these can be extended to the F-theory.

The Weyl group for E_8 includes a matrix of two H_4’s. The H_4 is the 120 or 600 cell which tessellates a hyperbolic space, such as the O(3,1) in AdS_5. There are other ways to see this construction. The stabilizer F_4 has a B_4 ~ so(9) realization, which is the boundary of a 10 dimensional spacetime. The infinite momentum gauge on J^3(O) reduces this to an SO(16) and E_8xE_8 in 10 dimensional superspace. So the 26 dimensional bosonic string contains this duality between 16 and 10 dimensions. The so(9) is then a “boundary” on the 10 dimensions. The F_4 and g_2 are the centralizers of E_8, g_2 the automorphism. The transformations of g_2 then leave the irreps of F_4 invariant. One of the irreps of F_4 is D_4 ~ so(8). This is contained in the so(16), 120 + 8, and the 120 is the icosian of quaternions or 120/600 cell in the Gosett polytope.

The problem of course is there are a vast number of irreps for this. Yet there does appear to be AdS content here.

The half degrees of freedom stem from the complete sets of commuting operators in quantum mechanics. You can access either position or momentum, but not both simultaneously. As a result you have information of only half of what corresponds to the classical phase space.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 13, 2010 @ 09:50 GMT
hahaha and with E8 and the team, they are going to have the nobel prize ahahah

oh my god this sad business.......

they want the prizes.....team job monney, fear of loosing.....logic to continue in these stupidities.....

With my theory it doesn't exist winners and loosers, only searchers of truth

SPHERIZATION BY SPHERES IN A SPHERE.....

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 13, 2010 @ 09:59 GMT
These algebras do not explain the reality.....we understand thus why it exists stupidities about the constant of time and the utilization of sets and series, bizares, infinites , irrationals where complexs dance in irrationality.

That implies a mathematical and false extrapolation of our pure and real objectivity....all these things are falses physically speaking.

Furthermore in an universal and spiritual and global point of vue, it's our uniquity of all things implying the harmony which is taken on a bizare road of analyzes......

Any sense these multivers and others time reversibilies.......a real mathematician understands how act the series and their limits ...iof not it's a pure creation of the mind without a generality of our universe.

A balance is neceszsary between the hemispheroids of analyzes.

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Constantinos wrote on Jul. 23, 2010 @ 20:49 GMT
To Lawrence, Ray and Tom – the FQXi-MTP Group

Thanks for the invitation to join your discussion from the Free Radical blog here. Keeping up with this conversation is like seeking to understand a movie 'one frame at a time'. A little like understanding the Universe using particles!

Tom you write: "You want to have your cake and eat it too".

I don't even like cake. Such...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 10:47 GMT
Constantinos,

It is trivial that events happen in time, and it is naive to take time as infinitely divisible. As I said -- terms of art. We all think this way, because that is the way we experience events. There's nothing personal in the characterization.

Particle physics, and the statistical and quantum mechanics that describe it, exist because Planck's constant is not zero. We know this not by mathematical models, but by observations of the behavior of particle and energy quanta. The mathematics explains why we _apparently_ experience the world as a classical continuum.

When you go the other way, describing a world without particles that doesn't exist physically, philosophers call it naive realism.

There are many ways to mathematically model worlds that don't and can't possibly exist (consider the Penrose triangle, e.g.) Physics takes the world as it is.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 11:38 GMT
One obvious technical error. In your "temperature of radiation" paper, you say that "'degrees of freedom' seems to be equivalent to 'locally at a point.'" Not true. A point has zero degrees of freedom, except on C* where it has infinite degrees of freedom -- but then you've lost your advantages of real analysis, and the physical influences are nonlocal. Just as quantum mechanics has it.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 18:42 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

You said "Perhaps bosons are conceptual representations of energy propagation while fermions are conceptual representations of energy interactions. It seems the basic difference of ‘all values’ vs. ‘0 or 1’ suggests the same idea of continuity vs discreteness. Just a thought, for whatever it is worth."

I like the concept of continuity (bosons with...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 25, 2010 @ 17:35 GMT
It is good that I checked up in here. After all I think Laura Houghton makes a nicer picture to enter the page with than Burbidge :-) I will have to read some of this exchange. Yet as I recall the issue was whether the time associated with the increase in entropy was t ~ vol(Ω) for Ω the phase space volume occupied by a system. The equation between Et/ħ for a quantum fluctuation and E/kT the generator of a Boltzmann distribution lead to the result that S = k log(t) ~ k log(Ω).

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Gerardus Tros wrote on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 00:31 GMT
With due respect to all the learned people...

Time, forward or backward, does not actually exist. It is an assumed reality in a dream. It is the dream we are all dreaming - the dream of Creation! We are "The Infinite Light" (I and the Father are One) dreaming Creation, in which certain levels are subjected to an assumed forward-time-flow...

Now.. all this becomes very deep amd mystical, but if you are interested read my pages called: ! Gerardus' Grist! / soulwise.net. Go for the article: "Gerardus Speaks". It's perfectly up to date these days...



Only One Candle - Gerardus

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 17:38 GMT
It's really unthinkable to insert a relatively extrapolated vue about a concept so fundamental that is time.

Carnot easily did stipulate that it is imperative to identify the consistency of irreversibility of time.

The increase of entropy is purely linked to this said "evolutionary time",that can't be inserted without the rationality that is required.It's logic.

Fourier and Dirac or London will liaise well to affirm that the uniqueness of this universe evolving exponentially is a main parameter.

The permits to see the maximum of this energy in increasing, and the correlated mass in optimization.Time will be indeed always irreversible.

And it is only through our cernable vizualizations that we can perceive the past and extrapolate the future.

It exists simply a difference between the picture and the reality.We can thus see this past but we can't go in this past...logic and rational.

Between Boyle .Gibbs....Planck..Joule...Clausius..Maxwell....Debye.......

T
he thermodynamics proof all that.The pure irreversibility of time.

It's very important all that for the correct experiments and correlated equations and laws.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Aug. 9, 2010 @ 07:00 GMT
flow of time is flow of numerical order of material change that run in space.

Time is not part of space. Space is 4D.

There is no multiverse and if it would be time would not run "back".

Time does not run "ahead" or "back", time just runs in space.

yours amrit

attachments: 1_BLOCK_UNIVERSE.pdf

report post as inappropriate


kelly wrote on Aug. 9, 2010 @ 18:23 GMT
there is no physical evidence for multiverses nor strings, and there are no sound mathematical nor physical theories predicting such entities.

so why do we use that for which there is no motive nor evidence to help us contemplate time?

$$$$$$?

report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Sep. 5, 2010 @ 14:44 GMT
2010-09-05 FQXI --- Time + Multiverse

Our universe is a Planck (h) value universe. There could be other universes with different values for h. They would not interact with our universe while being essentially in the same place. I believe the neutrinos to be particles with slightly off values for h and that would make them hard to interact with our Planck universe. Neutrinos would come in up (x>h) version or down version (x

report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Sep. 5, 2010 @ 17:47 GMT
(repost of previous)

Our universe is a Planck (h) value universe. There could be other universes with different values for h. They would not interact with our universe wile being essentially in the same place. I believe the neutrinos to be particles with slightly off values for h and that would make them hard to interact with our Planck universe. Neutrinos would come in up (x>h) version or down version (x

report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Sep. 5, 2010 @ 17:50 GMT
(re re-post ... problem with a special character =smaller than..???)

Our universe is a Planck (h) value universe. There could be other universes with different values for h. They would not interact with our universe wile being essentially in the same place. I believe the neutrinos to be particles with slightly off values for h and that would make them hard to interact with our Planck universe. Neutrinos would come in up version or down version . Neutrinos still interact in very rare cases as exemplified by detection. This means that these rare cases somehow represent tiny spikes or incursion of the next universe into our own… Have neutrinos .. will travel…

Just thinking ..

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate


Philip Janes wrote on Sep. 12, 2010 @ 22:49 GMT
I am pleased, at last, to find someone who shares my concept of universes running in opposite time directions. In developing my own Fractal Foam Model of Universes, I have independently concluded that alternate universes in a scale-wise sequence MUST run in opposite time directions. This follows from my concept of how expansion of space in one universe drives the expanion of space in the next larger scale universe.

The cosmic foam of our universe is the ether foam of a super-universe, and the ether foam of our universe is the cosmic foam of a sub-universe. Expansion of our space stretches the bubble walls of our cosmic foam until, one by one, bubble walls (made of galaxies) pop—an event lasting perhaps a billion years. The same happens in the sub-universe, causing our ether-foam bubble walls to un-pop.

A cubic meter is roughly 10^105 Planck volumes, which translates to 10^105 median-size ether-foam bubbles. Until I come up against an unresolvable paradox, I assume that this number is constant. When a bubble wall pops, two bubbles become one, so the number of bubbles is decreased by one. For our space to expand, the number of bubbles must increase. Therefor, the arrow of time must reverse, and our ether-foam bubbles must un-pop.

When a cosmic-foam bubble wall pops, pressure waves radiate thru the cosmic foam. These pressure waves are dark energy of the next universe. Due to time reversal, our dark energy waves converge to a point where a new wall of sub-universe galaxies appears, dividing one bubble into two, and creating a Planck volume of new space in our universe. This must occur approximately 10^88 times per second per cubic meter to account for the Hubble constant.

So our dark energy propagates backwards from effect toward its sub-universe cause. This provides a possible mechanism by which the future may affect the present.

Entropy in the greater fractal universe is constant, as each minor universe exports its entropy to the next larger-scale universe, and time inversion converts it into an input of exergy.

As I am brand new to this site, I am still trying to figure out how to submit my own article and start a new forum topic under Cosmology. The appropriate buttons don't seem to be available to me, yet.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 5, 2010 @ 00:51 GMT
Hi Philip,

Interested to know what the arrow of time running in the opposite direction means for you.

Wouldn't it requires the reversal of all physical phenomena such that potential energy is gained rather than lost, so objects rise rather than fall and objects do not loose heat but gain heat and pushes become pulls and pulls pushes, poles that attract in forwards time repel in...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Philip Janes replied on Nov. 5, 2010 @ 20:36 GMT
Georgina, I found the rest of your Nov 5 post. Due to a software bug, the chronological order of posts is all jumbled. Give me a few moments to respond to the rest of your post.

report post as inappropriate

Philip Janes replied on Nov. 5, 2010 @ 21:05 GMT
Okay; not a software bug. I'm still learning how to deal with this forum's format.

report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Sep. 30, 2010 @ 23:47 GMT
Philip,

I accessed your link. I noticed some comment about gravity. Gravity is so fundamental that its working is based on the simple logical requirements drawn by something that exists.

We look at experiments and at how things interact with each other. There is a more fundamental question hidden in our a prioris. These things exists and they do so so under what conditions? Read my essay within the last essay contest.

Gravity is just things existing more where they stay longer i.e. time runs slower!

As for starting a thread .... well... read the constitution of FQXI. There are members who can start a thread..

Thanks,

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Philip Janes replied on Oct. 7, 2010 @ 07:34 GMT
Marcel-Marie LeBel,

Your comment about gravity is a bit too vague for me to respond to it. Are you referring to the speed of gravity? Prevailing beliefs are that gravity is either instantaneous or propagates at the speed of light. Although I strongly disagree with most of Van Flandern's wacky ideas, I do find his argument on the speed of gravity to be persuasive.

Perhaps you read my comments about the relationship between gravity and the warp of space-time. (Actually, I'm not sure if that is posted on my website, yet.) Elsewhere, I have stated that, in Euclidean space, light has mass and is bent by gravity. Straightening the path of light by definition is the cause of the warp of space-time. The warp is not the cause of gravity.

I certainly do not imply that gravity does not exist.

I don't see your name on the essay constest page. Can you give a link to your essay?

Isn't it about time for someone to start a thread in the Cosmology section?

Sorry for the delay in responding. It's difficult for me to keep track of my topics on this board. I haven't figured out how to use RSS, yet.

report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Oct. 19, 2010 @ 02:03 GMT
Philip,

Same here; problem keeping track of own posts in blogs, forum, articles etc.

- My essay was about physics and metaphysics in the last contest

- What is your angle? What is your interest? Is it the warp drive?

If so, define what the warp drive should do.

Thanks,

Marcel

report post as inappropriate


Philip Janes wrote on Oct. 19, 2010 @ 07:08 GMT
MARCEL-MARIE LEBEL,

I'm a little better at tracking my posts on this board, now. I did a Bing search for ["philip janes" october site:http://www.fqxi.org/community/]. Then I sent a shortcut of that search to the desktop.

I found you essay via a search engine, but haven't made the time to read all of it, yet. I have a bit of learning disability when it comes to reading anything longer than a page.

I haven't commented on warp drive for years, and then only in answer to a question about Startrek. My comment above, re. warped space-time, is intended to debunk the prevailing view that Minkowski space-time is true and Euclidean space is as dead as the flat Earth. That's like saying that log-log paper makes lin-lin paper obsolete. Both have their uses.

I get the impression that you either didn't get very far reading my website, or you are confusing me with someone else. My website is my angle and my interest. What caught my attention, here, is Laura Mersini-Houghton's comments about the arrow of time running in opposite directions in alternate universes. When developing my own model, I independently concluded that the arrow of time MUST reverse from one universe to the next in the scale-wise sequence of sub-universes and super-universes which make up the greater fractal universe.

I later watched a video lecture by Ms. Mersini-Houghton. http://www.pirsa.org/C08022

I see, now, that she is talking about a much greater set of universes. My own fractal universe may be a subset of what she is envisioning. Her ideas are more vapid than mine. She postulates the existence of universes without offering any hint about how they operate or how they might relate to our own universe.

report post as inappropriate


Philip Janes wrote on Nov. 5, 2010 @ 20:26 GMT
Georgina,

Your Nov 5 post is not appearing when I click "read all article comments". I only have the first part (ending at “Spins and ...”, which appears under "Recent Comments". I'll reply to that much.

In my model:

Dark energy pressure waves are caused by the popping of a sub-universe cosmic-foam bubble wall. From a sub-universe point of view, this causes two...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Philip Janes wrote on Nov. 5, 2010 @ 20:59 GMT
Georgina,

In my model:

The physical processes of the sub-universe, which are running in reverse from our perspective, exist at a scale far smaller than anything in our universe. I am talking about galaxies whose diameter, from our perspective, is a small fraction of a Planck length. Those galaxies are made of atoms about 10^31 times smaller still. The spin of a sub-universe electron is so far removed from our reality as to challenge the limits of our intuition. Those processes only affect us via the waves generated by popping sub-universe cosmic-foam bubbles.

I hope this makes you rethink what you thought you knew with certainty.

report post as inappropriate

Kronos II replied on Nov. 27, 2010 @ 05:10 GMT
Cosmic foam bubbles? Can they be measured, observed, investigated empirically in any way? What is the foam and where does it come from?

This looks like another one of those "math creating reality" claims instead of math reflecting testable reality.

How do you know the sub-universe is running backwards if all of your tests run forward, which they must?

Don't forget common sense just because it's not fashionable in the non-scientific quasi-physics world.

report post as inappropriate

Philip Janes replied on Nov. 27, 2010 @ 09:30 GMT
"Cosmic foam bubbles? Can they be measured, observed, investigated empirically in any way? What is the foam and where does it come from?"

-------------------------------

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey has mapped over half a million galaxies in 3D. Of course, there are more gaps than mapped regions. Our view is blocked by the disk of our own galaxy, and we can't see what lies beyond...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Kronos II replied on Dec. 2, 2010 @ 05:08 GMT
"We cannot subject the sub-universe to tests."

Therefore, not a scientific inquiry. Just gibberish disguised in pseudo-scientific terms.

Also, I knew Albert Einstein. Albert Einstein was a friend of mine.

Philip: You are no Albert Einstein.

It appears you also think he is still alive by your present tense claim involving the great scientist who thought creatively inside the box known as the universe. Nice cliche on your part, though, regarding your faulty understanding of common sense. It supports your nonsense claims that just can't be tested or observed, yet you go on and on about certain actions causing this or that to pop, but then they reverse themselves and run backwards and effects precede causes.

Lots of stuff going on that can't be observed or tested. A superb example of mythological fantasy "pseudo-physics."

Thanks for the ride, though. I actually enjoyed reading your dazzling illusions.

KII

report post as inappropriate


Kronos II wrote on Nov. 17, 2010 @ 19:22 GMT
Why are multiverses even discussed and considered capable of all sorts of things when they remain scientifically incapable of being observed in any empirical way? How did such a strange metaphysics begin to hold sway over what is supposed to be objective science?

Please think clearly about the following:

The universe, rightly understood, is the totality of consistently interacting material things. What is meant by totality? This is lost by many.

If "universes" interact with each other in a scientifically demonstrable way, would they not be part of one all-encompassing universe? And if they do not so interact, how could they be scientifically knowable or even discussed in pseudo-scientific garb?

Multiverses, time running backwards, dark flow, infinite universes, etc. are not creative possibilities proposed by advanced scientific minds. These fantasies are the misleading creative thinking manifestations of minds devoid of rationality, especially when they make all sorts of claims that ultimately abolish the difference between something and nothing.

Oh well. $50 Grand down the drain (unless you can get fantasy time to run backward and you can avoid giving a grant to pursue nothing foolishly declared to be something), but if the good people of FQXI want to continue to share their wealth in pursuit of such fantasies which require that which cannot be tested in any meaningful way, I'll be happy to present my infinite cosmic bubble gum theory involving the Dark god Inflatus who blew a bubble from one universe into our universe. The bubble gum flavor was Dark Blow, and knowing this, everything else falls neatly into place,...at least mathematically if not empirically. The price for this theory is only $10 grand.

Yours for the restoration of objective science.

KII

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jan. 31, 2011 @ 14:21 GMT
time t is a numerical order of a material change in a 4d space.............

attachments: 1_Is_Einstein_still_misunderstood.pdf, The_Time_of_Photon_Motion_in_Minkowski_4D_Space___arxiv.pdf

report post as inappropriate


JOE BLOGS wrote on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 12:39 GMT
The computer program to add random physics equations 1+1=2 and 2+2=4 can generate millions of combinations of rules where apples and oranges are added togther.

For 10^500 different universes each having different rules.

But the question of whether these random rules are bable and that real universes need fine tuning to work.

NB. The big crunch may be a universe where time runs backward.

A contradiction.............And a black hole in a Godel type universe may have a penrose equation that can be reversed to give a non contradictory solution to our universe.

attachments: physics2.exe, physics.exe

report post as inappropriate


wilton.alano@gmail.com wrote on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 21:38 GMT
.

By the way, what is time? Time means that a system is energized. What is energy? All kind of energy happen by means of motion. So, energy is always and with no exception,kinetic. Are you in doubt? Think about just ONE kind of energy that don't happens by means of kinetics. Chemical? Electrical? All them are kinetic.

Time is synonym of energy and change. Into an energized system (all are), particles and parts change their spatial position all time. In this case, the position 'before' is different from the position 'after'. Is that change of position what cause "time elapse".

So, when you say 'time elapses', you are saying - first of all - that this system is energized (things change their spatial position).

In an hypothetical unenergized system, at zero absolute degrees, no time could be elapses, because nothing would be energized and - therefore - nothing would change their spatial position.

No movement can be reversed. There is no tool to stop all running particles & parts and say them to run in reverse direction. But, if that were possible, I am in doubt if that could cure the effects of past motion in every aspect.

An unidirectional arrow of time just means that one event succeeds to the next and so on. And it doesn't matter if the spin of particles rotates left or right.

Cheers.

Wilton

report post as inappropriate


wilton.alano@gmail.com wrote on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 22:22 GMT
Joe blogs,

One event succeed the other and no reversion is allowed. What can happen - in fact - is the complexity of a system be dismantled, as happen when a house is burned, a car is cast/melt.

A black hole is such an event, where all matter complexity is reduced to almost none.

The big crunch is the formation of a very big "black hole". It, for sure, dismantle all matter information, and therefore, very fundamental particles are forced to exist in very small space region.

But - lets think together - it does not means time runs backward. Destruction is not a way back. Backward time would be everything walk for the same trail in opposite direction. What we all know is totally impossible, due to the chaotic and fractal nature of Nature.

Cheers,

Wilton

report post as inappropriate

JOE BLOGS replied on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 09:09 GMT
My hypothesis is that a big crunch is like a Godel universe in which time runs backward..................

A black hole in this universe would be a contradiction in time if you reversed the penrose equation for it you would get a non contradictory begining for our universe in terms of the mathematics.

The big crunnch is not a black hole but a reversal of the expansion which doesn't equate to a black hole.

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Sam Gray wrote on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 00:51 GMT
Some fundamental things are discussed here by all persuasions.

However rationality is lauded over imagination, observation over perception, and logic over inanity.

It is as if we must all conform to a single Truth even if that Truth is a lie.

The scienific method is empirical, but being a method it serves as an admirable tool to all of any persuasion who care to use it. What the scientific method does not prescribe or proscribe is the interpretation of the result obtained by its use.

Thus like Newton we may still believe god orders and maintains the universe through angelic administrations no matter how accurate our observations.

Or like Dawkins we may believe in the inherent self administration of the universe, with no God being necessary.

One make these perceptions in varying states of awareness and consciousness, never giving full credit to the interconnected web of dependencies that flow through ones individual subjective and objective understanding, and apprehension.

To talk of time as though it existed in a different way say to water is to unilaterally miss the contribution one makes to the perception itself.

Normally one assumes, by education that light travels in a straight line. but having accepted that idea one does not then question how light bends, or even consider the implications of light "bending" as commonly described.

When one begins the process one obsrves the shifting sands of compromise,ellipsis, obfuscation,bending and general gerrymandering that goes on in constructing a sentence to even describe an empirical experience, and the reliance on hope that exists as a teacher attempts to show a student what he/she has observed.

Ones own views and experiences will never be totally understood by a community of scientists, historians,street gang, or any other conglomeration of animates.

One ha to make do with approximations.

Fundamentally motion is all we have and the observer of motion. From this coupling we may devise all else in our universe.

report post as inappropriate


Darius M wrote on Jun. 22, 2014 @ 18:41 GMT
Time is what Kant called the act of spontaneity which generates the representation 'I think'. This act performs synthesis. I.e. time is mind processing information. Space is the medium where information is processed. Each qubit has its own processing rate (its own time) and is a parallel Universe.

https://www.academia.edu/7347240/Our_Cognitive_Fram
ework_as_Quantum_Computer_Leibnizs_Theory_of_Monads_under_Ka
nts_Epistemology_and_Hegelian_Dialectic

report post as inappropriate


John wrote on Sep. 5, 2014 @ 06:01 GMT
This is so ad hoc its astonishing that there are people who would not shoot it down in seconds.

So because you can make more than one shape out of a 10 dimensional object, there is more than one universe? Really?

So if the shape was 5 dimensional and you would only be able to make 10 to the 250 shapes.. That means there are that many universes? Talk about a pathological leap in logic. Seriously, this is embarrassing. The day I hear someone use a complex example that plainly defeats the nonsense that the arrow time is reversable...like brain waves shooting to a person's ear and going back into my mouth and back into my brain ----is the day someone actually thought deeply about the real world and not some fantasy on paper.

Complex Language coming out backwards of my ear is something I'd like to see Along with photons containing the full signal of the Mona Lisa shooting out my eye. Denying Free Will and prime mover causation is what leads to such abysmal reasoning. If you are willing to pay the price that photons of a beautiful super nova explosion that happened a billion years ago can shoot out of my brain and back to its spatial and temporal location you're welcome to it.

People, understand how Bias has destroyed rationale Once the fine tuning was discovered.

report post as inappropriate

Lyle wayne Moss replied on Sep. 6, 2014 @ 00:02 GMT
@ John : are you J.C.N. Smith?

if so - this is TOO weird

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 6, 2014 @ 01:35 GMT
Lyle,

It doesn't sound at all like JCN.

John,

I certainly agree time reversal is nonsense. Here is my argument for why. I'm not sure why denying free will and "primer mover causation" is what leads to this situation. In fact, I'd argue the subconscious premise of a prime mover, ie. that there was an initial cause, now instituted as Big Bang Theory, is part of the problem leading to this formalization of the narrative, beginning to end, modeling of time, which results in the premise of "blocktime,".

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'B' and 'D':


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