Search FQXi


If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).
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

Eckard Blumschein: on 6/25/14 at 4:56am UTC, wrote Pentcho, Why do you stubbornly ignore the possibility that the second...

Pentcho Valev: on 6/24/14 at 10:22am UTC, wrote Real and Global Time in Einsteiniana "Many physicists argue that time is...

John Merryman: on 1/6/14 at 17:11pm UTC, wrote Akinbo, Think in terms of just energy in all its forms, moving about in...

Akinbo Ojo: on 1/6/14 at 12:20pm UTC, wrote John, Is the future then an already present destination, only yet to be...

John Merryman: on 1/6/14 at 10:51am UTC, wrote Akinbo, The point I keep making about time is that it's not so much the...

Akinbo Ojo: on 1/6/14 at 8:28am UTC, wrote What do others in this community have to say about the Twin Paradox? It...

Pentcho Valev: on 1/5/14 at 18:00pm UTC, wrote Einsteiniana's high priests have all left the sinking ship and are now...

Pentcho Valev: on 1/3/14 at 20:09pm UTC, wrote A Proof That Physics Is Dead "Was Einstein wrong? At least in his...



FQXi FORUM
October 25, 2014

ARTICLE: Real-Time Physics [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

T H Ray wrote on Apr. 4, 2011 @ 20:41 GMT
Hey Kate,

How about some more meat on these bones? :-) Particularly, from Lee Smolin's PI associate Fotini Markopoulou, whose concept of geometrogensis is stunning.

I'm only kidding ... thanks for the article on a truly foundational subject.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 2, 2011 @ 08:04 GMT
T H Ray wrote: "How about some more meat on these bones? :-) Particularly, from Lee Smolin's PI associate Fotini Markopoulou..."

Markopoulou is going beyond the crimestop barrier by (involuntarily) suggesting that the cosmological redshift may be due to slowing down of light as it travels through space:

http://www.sciscoop.com/2003-2-16-152235-209.html "However, if space-time atoms exist, she [Fotini Markopoulou] said, "the photons would appear to not all travel at the same speed"..."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17 George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 10, 2011 @ 18:03 GMT
Kate Becker wrote: "Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite."

Lee Smolin, how can a theoretician reject a DEDUCTIVE theory's implication without even mentioning the postulates (let alone exposing the false one)? Why don't you take part in the discussion? Are you following it at all or, once the FQXi money has gone to you...

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 13:23 GMT
http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp
/0738205257

Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation, Joao Magueijo

p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects. Quantum gravity seemed to lack a dam - its effects wanted to spill out all over the place; and the underlying reason was none other than special relativity."

Were they asked if special relativity should be taught at universities, Joao Magueijo and Lee Smolin would answer: "Of course! We have always taught it and money comes regularly!"

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Apr. 4, 2011 @ 20:44 GMT
There is a far simpler, and more physically-motivated, paradigm for understanding nature than is provided by loop quantum gravity, supersymmetry or string/brane theory.

In terms of pure geometry, nature's geometry is full conformal geometry (no absolute lengths; relativity of scale). However, when matter and dynamical laws are included, the full conformal symmetry is "broken" and restricted to discrete conformal invariance. Space-time and gravitation are fully consistent with General Relativity (actually, GR+EM) at all cosmological Scales, but the strength of the coupling between matter and space-time geometry varies in a discrete self-similar manner.

This results in a discrete self-similar structure and dynamics for nature, as is observed.

This alternative paradigm (Discrete Scale Relativity) has been available for decades:

http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

RLO

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 01:30 GMT
Dear RLO,

I apologize that I haven't read and commented on your ideas over the past couple of years while we were both on FQXi.

I completely overlooked your 2009 FQXi essay, but just reviewed some of your ideas, and realize that you have been working on ideas for the past 30 years that are similar to my ideas from the past year, and Len Malinowski's ideas.

In your 2009 blog thread, Florin said that he thought your three scale numbers were related to the square-root of the gravitational and electromagnetic couplings, and I agree.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Apr. 5, 2011 @ 01:53 GMT
Look in the references below for a description of the reasons why time is absolutely essential in order to accomplish unification of physics. The posted discussions and reports references in the essays are also relevant.

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/942

http:/
/www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/499

report post as inappropriate


Bee wrote on Apr. 5, 2011 @ 05:47 GMT
"Chronodiegetics is the branch of science fictional science focusing on the physical and metaphysical properties of time given a finite and bounded diegesis. It is currently the best theory of the nature and function of time within a narrative space." (Charles Yu, How to live safely in a science fictional universe)

If it doesn't work out with the CMB data, just write a book about it ;-)

report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on Apr. 7, 2011 @ 09:45 GMT
In an Expanding Universe QM are local, with Iime paramiters hard to observe, thus the "local" field of vision, observation, being un-real.

For a Universe that is contracting Relativity becaomes non local, with all the paramiters of time being unchanged, also "un-real".

If QM and Relativity are theories based on the Universe's "state" ie expansion or contraction, both can be reversed into opposite scenarios, with equal paramiters slotted as is now.



One would therefore think, or imagine that Time is really a separate and fundamental Universe quantity?..with the state of Universe condition having no baring at all?

report post as inappropriate


J. C. N. Smith wrote on Apr. 8, 2011 @ 13:04 GMT
I'd like to propose a new rule for FQXi articles which talk about the topic of time: nobody gets to talk about whether time exists or not or about whether time travel is possible or not until after he/she has defined what he/she means by the word "time." Is this such an outrageous suggestion? Apparently it is, because this typically is not done in the many learned discussions about these topics, here as well as elsewhere.

I have offered what I believe is a useful definition of the word time. My definition may be found in an essay titled 'Time: Illusion and Reality: An unconventional but constructive look at the fundamental nature of time.' This essay, which is dated June 2008, may be found here. If a person were to Google the phrase 'fundamental nature of time' this essay might be discovered among the first few hits.

I believe that this essay could be, at least, a useful starting point for discussion by others who might like to offer their own definitions of the word time. Should it be surprising that our discussions about time often seem to go in circles or into cul-de-sacs (or culs-de-sac if you prefer) when we've not clearly defined what it is that we're talking about?

report post as inappropriate

Dan T Benedict replied on Apr. 8, 2011 @ 14:34 GMT
Hello J.C.N. Smith,

We have conversed in the past and you gave me some good advice. I just wanted to invite you to read my essay from the third essay contest. It was probably better suited for the first contest, which I unfortunately missed, but I was somewhat able to make my ideas fit the topic. If you would like, you could leave any questions or comments on my forum. It's good to hear from you.

Best Regards,

Dan

P.S. I have explicitly defined time (twice) in my essay. :-)

report post as inappropriate

Re Ality (Facebook) replied on Apr. 19, 2011 @ 10:19 GMT
Dan

I have no background to understand, let alone comment on, your essay, but can you please ponder this thought (I posted a view on here Monday at around 20.00 GMT):

There is always a delay factor in any experience based on sight, due to the speed of light. Different relative speeds result in different delays, with very large relative differences amplifying the delay differential. This effect is called ‘time’. That is, as in the rate of change (as opposed to the general progression of events which has acquired the term Arrow of Time).

So, in sight experience, the delay factor caused by light speed should (technically) always be accounted for in every experience, ie in order to extrapolate from the individual experience and discern the original state. In that sense, the notion that we live in a ‘space-time’ world is correct. But that is a measurement issue to allow for variables in the sight experience process. The differential is the function of spatial considerations, ie distance that light travels. Time, or more accurately, the rate of change, is not an intrinsic dimension of our reality.

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Apr. 10, 2011 @ 03:13 GMT
Julian Barbour is pretty much into the notion that time does not exist. This is based largely on the Wheeler DeWitt equation HΨ[g] = 0, which is a quantum version of the Hamiltonian constraint in ADM relativity.

I could well enough imagine presenting how time exists, but space does not. We could presume there is some one dimensional space, a line or curve, and there is a fibration...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Apr. 10, 2011 @ 14:13 GMT
Does time really exist? The real question is in the question itself. If clarified, it leads to two questions:

1) does time exists as an experience? Sure it does. As such it is part of our everyday experience, physical and metal) as well as a fundamental part of physics a.k.a. the study of how the universe as we experience things.

2) Does time really exist outside our experience, physical or mental. This question is right into ontology. If we say yes, we have to give it the status of `substance` and study it as such and using tools and method for such study. If we say no, we still have to prove there is no such substance, still, using the same tools and methods.

The answer is always in a well understood and defined question. The rest is the usual humanity hurdle....So much of it.

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

J.C.N. Smith replied on Apr. 10, 2011 @ 14:50 GMT
What we perceive as "the flow of time" is nothing more and nothing less than the evolution of the physical universe (an evolution which apparently is governed by rules that we strive to understand and which we refer to as the laws of physics). We refer to various observed configurations of the universe as being various "particular times."

For example, the *only* difference between the particular time which we refer to as being a million years ago (i.e., the particular time when the Earth had made a million fewer revolutions around the sun) and the particular time which we refer to as "today" lies in the arrangement of the various parts of the universe relative to one another at each of these two particular times.

jcns

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Apr. 10, 2011 @ 21:02 GMT
JCN,

So basically it's. an effect of motion and it's not the present which moves along a theoretical narrative dimension, but that the configuration of this present is constantly changing, thus the events come and go, from being future potential to residue of past configurations.

Essentially it is similar to temperature, which is also quite real, if one were to touch a hot stove, or investigate a damaged nuclear power plant. time is the change and configuration and rate of change, as temperature is level of activity.

report post as inappropriate


J.C.N. Smith wrote on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 01:26 GMT
John,

Yes, you've basically got the idea I'm attempting to convey.

We begin to run into complications, however, when we introduce the notion of "rate of change." This concept requires us to introduce some sort of clock. The way this typically is done is to look at the changing configuration of some subset of the universe, a clockwork mechanism involving a pendulum or an oscillating cesium atom, for example. We then define the change we observe in this clock as being our "time standard," and we compare changes in other parts of the universe with the changes in the part of the universe we've chosen to use as our clock.

If we have chosen our clock wisely we will find that it is a useful tool; changes we observe in our clock can be correlated in predictable ways with changes in the non-clock parts of the universe. In essence, our clock affords us an economical shorthand with which to convey information about changes in the configuration of the larger, non-clock portions of the universe.

It is important to recognize, however, that there is nothing magical about our clock. No matter how wisely it was chosen, our clock is still just a subset of an evolving universe. In the final analysis, the clock that ultimately matters most is the universe itself.

As the universe evolves, its configuration changes; various portions of the universe are displaced relative to other portions. As sentient beings we are able to observe this evolution. We refer to it as the flow of time. The various evolving configurations we observe equate to what we call particular times. A change from one particular time to another requires a change in the configuration of the universe, which in turn requires a displacement of some portion of the universe relative to some other portion. Thus, measuring a change from one particular time to another ultimately involves measuring a displacement of one sort or another.

This is why questions such as "Is time real or is time an illusion?" are not helpful. The answer to this sort of question depends on how one chooses to define time. Time is what it is; it involves changing configurations of the universe. We observe that the configuration of the universe does indeed change; it evolves. Therefore, in that sense the flow of time is indeed real, but in another sense, the sense of time being something separate and distinct from evolving configurations of the universe, it is an illusion.

jcns

report post as inappropriate

Re Ality (Facebook) replied on Apr. 19, 2011 @ 10:30 GMT
jcns

Everything is a 'clock'. As with all measurement systems the reference point chosen is ultimately arbitrary, it is just a matter of useability. Time is our experience of the rate of change in any given entity.

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 01:59 GMT
John, JCN

You both consider the "time" that is the scale of changes or the X axis of any graph representing spontaneous events; object falling, nail rusting etc. This representation is accepted because we trust (implicitely) that we can`t rush time and that time itself is spontaneous. Every clock is based on a spontaneous process. A clock indicates 1) the PRESENCE of time passing and 2) that it does so at a certain RATE 3) it INTEGRATES its passage under the name “duration”. (I agree with JCN; There are many concepts associated with “time” and if none is specified, it effectively means nothing (specific).)

Because all our clocks are based on the rate of a spontaneous process, we could say that the local rate of passage of time, as indicated by a clock, is a measure of the local rate of evolution of spontaneous processes. As such, the passage of time is not a silent witness, just conveniently provided for our graphs, but actually the principle cause for spontaneous processes to happen at a certain rate.

The clock indicates time passing only/only because time makes it works. If time stopped, the clock would stop. Still think the passage of time is not real???

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 02:56 GMT
JCN,

A large part of the problem is our mental functioning needs to integrate all the various aspects of reality into a larger whole, in order to integrate our sense of identity, both individually and collectively. A very good example is the calendar. Months no longer correlate to cycles of the moon because we add 2 or 3 days to most of them, in order to match the solar cycle of the year....

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

J.C.N. Smith replied on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 12:06 GMT
John,

You wrote, ". . . if we consider ourselves as occupants of the present and it's alot of things moving around and changing the scenery, it seems much more like thermal activity, like molecules of water moving around in a jar. There are no past or future copies of that jar strung along a fourth dimension, like pages in a book, because the same water is still there, just in a different configuration. It is the different configurations which come into being and then are replaced, thus moving from being the future to being the past."

Yes, what you've described here is exactly what I believe is a constructive way to view the nature of time.

I know we all have much to read and precious little time in which to do so, but I'd urge you to read (or to re-read, as the case may be) my essay from the second FQXi essay competition, 'On The Impossibility of Time Travel,' which may be found here. In that essay I attempted to spell out as clearly as possible the very same idea you were expressing above. And it is this notion which ultimately precludes the possibility of time travel, aside from the sort of time travel you're doing as you read this.

jcns

report post as inappropriate


Jim George Snowdon wrote on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 02:11 GMT
The following is quoted from the thread on my essay in the first essay contest on the nature of time.

"Time is a measurement system that actually measures duration elapsing. It`s measurement baseline is the duration that elapses while the planet rotates.

Duration elapsing, is an accurate description of reality. Time passing, is a description of the illusion that people normally hold of reality."

report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 02:12 GMT
John, JCN,

...and by that I mean that the process of the passage of time and its local rate are real (ontologically). Everythings else we derive from relation with it, like perception, before after, duration, measurements are all relative and subject to relativity. This is the (my) answer to the question.

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 02:40 GMT
Jim,

The illusion “thing” is a common mistake. In our reality, the passage of time is real because we have no choice about its perception. This absence of choice is a sign of “truth” and so it is in real in our reality (which includes physics). So, in our reality it is NOT an illusion. If you consider the universe outside the realm of our everyday perception, the “moment” in time, as a plane or volume made of points all at the same moment (no time between them) does not exist.( It would mean instantaneous communication is possible between any two points! )

To call the passage of time an illusion is to take a concept from one realm and apply it indiscriminately onto another one, where it does not belong.

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 03:01 GMT
Time is not an illusion. It is an effect. The question boils down to whether it is foundational to motion, or an effect of it.

report post as inappropriate

J.C.N. Smith replied on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 03:14 GMT
The following is cut and pasted from my essay, 'Time: Illusion and Reality,' for which I provided a link in a previous post:

"It is important . . . to recognize and, insofar as possible, to 'internalize' the notion that the configuration of the universe does not change as a result of time advancing; rather, time changes (as we say, 'advances') because the configuration of the universe changes. The importance of grasping this subtle, admittedly perhaps counterintuitive, distinction can hardly be overstated in terms of furthering our understanding of time. Failure fully to comprehend and appreciate it has led, I believe, to many unfortunate intellectual detours and cul-de-sacs over the course of history. The evolution of the physical universe is what we perceive as the flow of time."

If the configuration of the universe did not change there would be no flow of time.

jcns

report post as inappropriate

Jim George Snowdon replied on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 03:53 GMT
The following is quoted from the thread on Amrit Srecko Sorli`s essay in the second essay contest, date entered on September 10th, 2,009.

"Events do have duration. We have duration and motion in our timeless universe. In our conscious experience of duration, we assume time is passing.

We move at a surface speed in excess of 1,600 kilometers per hour. The constant physical changes that this planetary motion creates, supports the illusion of time passing. Our clocks are in concert, since we use this same motion as the measurement baseline for our time keeping systems.

For most intent and purpose, time exists on a rotating planet for it`s conscious inhabitants. Had we evolved on the moon, it would be easier to see that time passing is an illusion, that it`s really a case of duration elapsing, that there is no such thing or force as time, in reality."

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 16:55 GMT
I think the basic fallacy which causes all the conceptual problems is thinking of time as going past to future. It seems incredibly obvious and how could any rational person question it, but a thousand years ago, someone questioning the movement of the sun across the sky would likely have their sanity questioned as well.

When we think of it as past to future, then it is the present which moves along this dimension. If we think of it as the changing configuration of what physically exists, it's not even a dimension, but a process. We don't project events out along a narrative timeline, but see it as a constant unfolding of the configurations evolving.

The reality is that both directions are valid, just as we still perceive the sun moving across the sky, even though we recognize it is an effect of the rotation of the earth. It is just that when we are considering a physical explanation, in terms of the changing configuration of what physically exists, it is those events which come and go, not the present which moves.

report post as inappropriate

J.C.N. Smith replied on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 17:31 GMT
John,

Yes, you've got it! Exactly! Bravo! Once you see it, it seems so obvious.

As you may recall, my essay 'Time: Illusion and Reality' begins with the following quote:

'The task is not so much to see what no one yet has seen, but rather to think what no one yet has thought about that which everybody sees.' -- Erwin Schrödinger

jcns

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 18:06 GMT
jcn,

There is a small boogyman there though. When you break apart the spacetime geometry, you will find that all of modern cosmology is built on this idea. So once anyone whose paycheck depends on being part of the physics mainstream thinks it through for more than a minute, they run off with their hands over their ears, yelling something about, "It's all the math! It's all the math!"

I'm afraid we will have to put op with warpedspacetimewormholesblocktimemultiworldsmultiversesinfla
tiondarkenergyetc, until a sufficiently large chunk of verifiable reality falls on it. Like finding evidence of galaxies further than 13.7 billion lightyears. Although considering all the other evidence, falsified predictions, anomalous data, etc. that has been ignored, or patched over with even more fanciful theories, I suspect some concoction will be proffered up. Probably something along the lines of it being due to the warping of space, we are just seeing reflections of closer galaxies, bounced off the edge of the universe. The possibilities are only limited by imagination.

report post as inappropriate

J.C.N. Smith replied on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 20:14 GMT
John,

You might have a point here, but I'm the eternal optimist. I believe that although it may not happen as quickly as we'd like (or perhaps even during our lifetimes), better ideas typically win out over the long run. I'm especially encouraged in this case, because no less of an eminence than Lee Smolin himself (didn't we see his name mentioned somewhere up near the top of this blog?) appears to be not only receptive to hearing new ideas about time, but is actively seeking them out.

In his book 'The Trouble With Physics,' Smolin wrote, "More and more, I have the feeling that quantum theory and general relativity are both deeply wrong about the nature of time. It is not enough to combine them. There is a deeper problem, perhaps going back to the origin of physics." (p. 256) This is precisely the point I have made explicitly in my essay 'Time: Illusion and Reality,' and I have explained there how I suspect the problem arose.

Until we get this sorted out I expect that a variety of intractable conundrums will continue to gum up the works in physics. I also recognize, however, that "getting it sorted out" is no trivial matter. Unfortunately, this task exceeds my own capabilities or I would have sorted it out long ago. After all, a Nobel might add a much-needed bit of luster to my resume.

In the meantime, John, let's keep trying to kick this can down the road as best we can until someone with more clout decides to pick it up and run with it. When that day arrives it will be fun to stand on the sidelines and watch and cheer, knowing that we perhaps had some small role in promoting the idea before doing so was considered cool.

Regards,

jcns

report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 22:51 GMT
JCN,

The universe evolves spontaneously? No one is pushing it? Then, the relation between the spontaneously evolving universe and a spontaneously evolving local process is what we call the passage of time. The passage of time is everywhere in the universe.

But the actual local rate/rate of passage of time depends on many things e.g. like the presence of a mass that would slow it down. How does mass slow down local time ....? By logical substitution....Read my essays..

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate


Jim George Snowdon wrote on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 15:33 GMT
The following is quoted from the thread on Amrit Srecko Sorli`s essay in the second essay contest, date entered on May 10th, 2,010.

"While our planet rotates in timeless space, it`s rotational motion has ceaseless affect on our environment! The motion is real, it`s effects are all encompassing. We use this same motion, as the measurement baseline for our time keeping. Given the constant overwhelming affect of rotation on our planet, it`s understandable that conscious inhabitants would elect to assume time is passing, rather than duration is elapsing.

We are permanently in the present. Everything that has ever happened, happened in the present. Remnants of all those happenings are still here with us, in the present. While it seems difficult to disprove time exists, it is possible to prove it`s unnecessary, and not foundational."

report post as inappropriate


Michael Jeub wrote on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 04:12 GMT
We have not been able to make a clock that will not lose a second in the lifetime of the earth, but we are getting closer with a stimulated aluminum atomic clock. Is practical time primally embedded in Planck terms? It is the most primal thing we can define a scalar out of isn't it? Is time the most local thing conceived? Time also has non-local aspects and c seems to reside happliy in the middle.....between h and t as we experience it every day. I would like to see ct separated out into a c and a t, for they do seem too cozy together. Then, would t have to be related to a scalar boson yet to be detected. I think that time will always have "tree" characteristics as well as "loop" characteristics. The soccer players are stuck in a partially ordered game.

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Apr. 14, 2011 @ 14:58 GMT
Already in 2004, arXiv:gr-qc/0308028 Joy Christian fabricated a synthesis between the non-paradoxical non-monist notion of ubiquitous simultaneity and the mandatory Lorentz transformation. Fig. 2 of his arXiv:gr-qc/0610049v2 (2007) illustrates what is obvious to everybody except for theoreticians.

From Lee Smolin's article I cannot exclude that Lee will check other approaches. I maintain the view I tried to express in my essays 369, 527, and 833. Meanwhile I am seriously questioning the synchronization introduced by Poincaré who was perhaps inspired by his teacher Potier 1874.

When I discussed the twin paradox with Thomas Ray, he tried to explain it away with acceleration. This did not persuade me because the acceleration required for reversal of velocity is independent from the duration of the journey. I will continue the discussion in connection with my topic 833.

In all I collected mounting evidence for the possibility that some cranks were not entirely wrong. Having read e.g. "Special Relativity and Maxwell's Equations" by Haskell I would like to ask for compelling arguments in defense of SR.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Apr. 14, 2011 @ 20:37 GMT
Accleration of the traveling twin in his opposite direction is not reversal of velocity. It implies negative acceleration in the direction of the stay at home twin.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 27, 2011 @ 07:09 GMT
Tom,

Peter Lynds thanked not just Paul Halpern and Roger Penrose but among others also Lee Smolin for valuable comments and suggestions regarding the contents of his paper "On a Finite Universe with no Beginning or End". Therefor I doubt that Lee Smolin will be in position and ready to really introduce reality into the so far tense-less physics.

What about the twin paradox, I would like you to help clarifying the matter. When I was unhappy with the explanations given e.g. by Einstein himself and by Bohm, I was not alone. NPA revealed a lot of mutually excluding explanations. Allegedly none of them has proven tenable. For this reason they wrote a petition that asks for clarification in order to end the bewildering situation that textbooks and lessons are teaching mutually inconsistent tenets.

Maybe, you are in position to make this petition redundant. This would however be a surprise to me because the petition is already signed by a huge number of scientists worldwide. Perhaps it will be best if we both admit surrender and decide to sign the petition too.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Re Ality (Facebook) replied on Apr. 28, 2011 @ 23:30 GMT
The first question is: has anyone flown a twin around the world at x speed for y years, and if they did how could the supposed change in ‘age’ (which needs definition) be measured? Flying clocks, which are engineered objects (cesium-beam or otherwise) is different, ie the latter does not prove the former.

The second question is: what characteristic are we concerned with here? And the answer is: the perceived rate of change of any given entity. A sight experience is dependent on light, which has a speed, which is therefore influenced by distance. Different relative speeds create different relative distances which create different perceived rates of change. What we call ‘time’ is merely rate of change in entities, and differences in ‘time’ are explainable as a function of the variables in the process whereby we experience reality. It is not an intrinsic, separate, dimension of our reality. The delay factor resulting from light travelling does need to be factored into any given sight experience, but that is an entirely different statement.

We certainly experience a constant, all-pervading, change in the entities which constitute our reality. This invokes the concept of time. What is ‘actually’ happening is unknowable since we cannot transcend our existence. But there definitely is a sequence, and rate, of change being experienced. So we have morphed this concept into a measuring tool, its metrics are arbitrary, but its application in sorting information is very useful. Problems arise though if that is reified and deemed to be an intrinsic characteristic of our reality. I would postulate that since we can never know what ‘it’ ‘really’ is (explaining the sequence of change and its rate for any given entity is a different problem, and achievable), and it is all-pervading, it can probably be discounted for most theories/ calculations, indeed its inclusion is probably confusing them.

The Twin Paradox is a non-existent dilemma because the premise upon which it is based is false, ie the effect we label ‘time’ is not an intrinsic dimension of our reality.

Paul Reed

report post as inappropriate


Czeslaw wrote on Apr. 14, 2011 @ 15:31 GMT
According to Haish and Rueda the particle oscillate because it absorbs and emits the oscillation (energy) from the vacuum. It means the Compton wave of the particle creates an information background for the vacuum. Assume each interference between the Compton wave ancodes a Planck time dilation. If we sum all the interferencies we get known equation for gravitational time dilation. Does it mean the Planck length and Compton length has a special meaning for our Universe ?

Is time only a sum of Planck time constant for each quantum interference between the non-local information of Compton waves which create our Holographic Universe ?

I have some simple calculation on website:

http://www.hologram.glt.pl/

report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 14, 2011 @ 16:53 GMT
[Purely] electromagnetically, there is no time. Time is ultimately linked with, and dependent upon, gravity.

report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 14, 2011 @ 17:01 GMT
Time is ultimately dependent upon the size/scale of space, although this is balanced with some inbuilt variability; as gravity is essential. Gravity is key to motion/mobility.

report post as inappropriate


Giacomo wrote on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 10:54 GMT
I think Time is only a measure and if you remove it from E=mc^2 , everything became clear, quantum mechanic and entropy joint toghether because everything will be described by surfaces or surfaces differencies. The energy became E=ll/l(vector) , Energy = (lxl)/lvector . The reality is made of vibrating element . If it is possible produce solids by a revolving surface , also a vibrating surface is capable to produce solids . This concept is similar to string but I foud this result in a very easy way, simply removing time by formulas like E=mc^2 and replacing 'c' EMW's speed in void , with Heisenberg' Uncertainty Principle. With very easy passage it is possible to understand what is Mass, Gravity , force and Energy. In the formula E=mc^2 , m is a multiplyer of a base element 'c^2' ( virtual surface) and so on. The source of what we call Time is the chance to vibrate of the base element 'c^2' better 'l^2' mean the path of two EMW axis. I am producing the complete text for peer view, the problem a good translation from Italian language for the moment...

report post as inappropriate

Re Ality (Facebook) replied on Apr. 18, 2011 @ 19:14 GMT
I wouldn't begin to understand this, which might be a good thing in terms of having an original perspective(?). But I like your opening sentence. I've developed my thoughts on Time over the weekend & just posted them (Monday 20.14 GMT)

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Re Ality (Facebook) wrote on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 15:56 GMT
Time and Space

Space is an intrinsic attribute of the existent entities which comprise our reality, time is not. Time should not be reified as if it is another physical dimension of our reality. All existent entities undergo change, and our concept of time is a function of our experience of that change. By putting similar entities in different situations, its value can be altered, but that is a function of the observation process (which we are able to quantify anyway). It is not an inherent characteristic of time, which only has one value. However, utilising time as a measuring tool helps in everyday life and in articulating scientific observations. As always, contemplations about what happens ‘beyond’ our existence might be fascinating, but are irrelevant metaphysical considerations when developing objective understanding.

© Paul Reed

April 2011

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 20:00 GMT
Quantum space is timeless in a sense that inside Planck volume there is no time as numerical order of material change we measure with clocks. Quantum space is a direct information medium by quantum entanglement and gravity.

yours amrit

Is time real or

is it an illusion?

- Lee Smolin

Time is real but only as a mathematical quantity. - Amrit Sorli

attachments: Description_of_electromagnetic_phenomena_in_3D_space.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Giacomo wrote on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 22:09 GMT
Here my very, very, naif science ideas . In attachment my best! About Time and mass , gravity and some other. Another sheet is in progress, but involves only Energy. Who will read the text can complain about the bad English, I understand very well. I ask sincerely apologize.

attachments: GiacomoAttachement1.rtf

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 22:38 GMT
NTRL,

N*GTSSE MT4 GTRSE. HRD TF SKWU PR 14 UNCZ **

FLB*

KLM-FWL,

report post as inappropriate


Giacomo wrote on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 22:46 GMT
If the square root of ((h / 2π Δp) ^ 2) = i ? . I ask help about this chance. If it is possible to know Δx , regard to ΔxΔp ≥ h / 2π then we have non local area with its square (h / 2π Δp) ^ 2 = (Δx)^2 ?

And a final E=((h / 2π Δp) ^ 2) = i . My idea is : Energy is not clear about its own sign ( minus or plus) as 'i' , because 'E' acts on front - back, with 'unknown' frequencies ... Ok may be Energy use 'imaginary' area to acts its function , but It is possible connect imaginary element 'i' with werner Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle ? Or simplier 'E' acts in both side of mass in too much high frequencies ? (Too much naif for the forum ?)

report post as inappropriate


Giacomo wrote on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 23:41 GMT
So if my idea is good and Energy acts on both side of virtual surfaces may be Energy also acts on every side in a body . So if Energy produce a type of pressure on bodies , (pushing by many directions because of non-locality): when two bodies are enough close, this pressure is disturbed, giving a resulting force ( attractive) .

Because one can be a shield for the other , a shiled for Energy's pressure.

That is why is important for me understand if vacuum is made of

((h /2π Δp)^2)x(massUnit) = (Δx)^2(massUnit) = lxl(massUnit) = E = i, for dt=1.

When I use dt=1, the is to remove time. Sorry for the excess of questions .

PS The 'x' is not for scalar product .

report post as inappropriate


Giacomo wrote on Apr. 18, 2011 @ 12:35 GMT
If l is the smallest linear distance between two bodies, and E = m0 l l = m0 (h / 2π Δp)^2 is a surface that separates those two bodies : the Gravitational Force decrease by this last entity ( m0 l^2 = m0l l )

with separation of bodies !.

When two bodies are separeted we can give them names like m1 and m2 but when they touch toghether there is a new element 'm1 plus m2' to consider and no more those original m1, m2 . Then the Gravitational force continue but we no more see motion .

The force finish and potential begin. So if the local bodies to observe are exactly the smallest in nature (not zero) , two squares , face to face , with distance l and one mass (m1) attracts the other because (m1) is

a kind of schield for the mass (m2) and vice versa.



Then in F=(Gm1m2)/r^2 let me replace r^2 with my m0 l^2 so F=(Gm1m2)/m0l^2 .

This explain why gravitational attractive force is related to the square of the distance . The 'r' is my l

and r^2 is equal to m0l^2 (vacuum). Gravitational attractive force depends on vacuum not distance .

Conclusion: removing time from E=mc^2 is possible find an explaining why r^2 is there into Newton's Gravitational Law.

report post as inappropriate


Re Ality (Facebook) wrote on Apr. 18, 2011 @ 19:09 GMT
I have developed the thought posted a couple of days ago.

Time: What It Is and What It Is Not

Existent entities, which comprise our reality, all undergo a process of change. The concept of time (both in terms of a general sense of the progression of events, and a quantifiable rate) results from our experience of the sequence of change in the state of any given entity. So, we do not...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


B^2 wrote on Apr. 19, 2011 @ 07:27 GMT
In order to beable to do this our whole ensemble of fundamental ideas about reality will have to evolve. I'm excited to see where Smolin will take this unique solution.

report post as inappropriate

Re Ality (Facebook) replied on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 06:54 GMT
B^2

Sorry, didn't spot this comment and assume it refers to my post above it (I've altered the odd word since then-see Facebook page). I like the word "evolve"!! I am very interested to hear what anyone thinks. I have absolutely no background in this (which might help!). The basic ideas about reality were formulated 40 years ago for an MPhil. I left Stephen Hawking's first book on the shelf but got so annoyed by some of the concepts when reading his latest book that I got motivated to think it through.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

B^2 replied on May. 2, 2011 @ 12:30 GMT
I was referring to the article on real-time physics in my previous post above. I have not read Hawking's new book, but from the synopsis I read on amazon I see why you are annoyed:

"In The Grand Design we explain why, according to quantum theory, the cosmos does not have just a single existence, or history, but rather that every possible history of the universe exists simultaneously. We question the conventional concept of reality, posing instead a "model-dependent" theory of reality. We discuss how the laws of our particular universe are extraordinarily finely tuned so as to allow for our existence, and show why quantum theory predicts the multiverse--the idea that ours is just one of many universes that appeared spontaneously out of nothing, each with different laws of nature. And we assess M-Theory, an explanation of the laws governing the multiverse, and the only viable candidate for a complete "theory of everything." As we promise in our opening chapter, unlike the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life given in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the answer we provide in The Grand Design is not, simply, '42.'"

DON'T PANIC

I read that Adams came up with the number 42 at 'random'. In fact, I noticed 42 is the sum of the sides of two dice. This has always reminded me of the concept of a random variable. The probabilities for the values of the random variable are dependent on the 'uniform' sample space...random tangent.

I started studying physics because I could not accept the more grand claims and conclusions I read about in popular science books. You have mentioned the reification fallacy before and I understand your frustrations. This is Stephen Hawking though he must be right he cites string theory which is the only viable candidate for a complete "theory of everything." What experiments does he propose in the book?

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 2, 2011 @ 21:47 GMT
In 42 (1942) the theorist was born who wrote: "We question the conventional concept of reality, posing instead a "model-dependent" theory of reality." Isn't such utterance cyclic? Wouldn't it be better to start at the indisputable understanding of reality as something prior to all models and theories?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Apr. 19, 2011 @ 16:58 GMT
If you have no memory, time does not exist, our memory places the different quanta of time in a row and creates a "history" a movie constituted of images, we have difficulties in explaining the "arrow" of time, because of the fact that the NOW moment is not existing, time becomes in my opinion more comprehensible if we leave the flow of causal deterministic time and create in our minds a totality of ALL moments (quanta) which means a dimension where ALL POSSIBLE pasts , nows and futures ARE SIMULTANEOUSLY PRESENT, that we call the fifth (for example) we enter in this dimension when we pass the planck time, our consciousness is able to "touch" this dimension and creates the time-lines (world-lines) that form our "real" world, so here I think is one of the possibillities to create a line between the quantum world (here we also encounter the wave function as an addition of possible places, that you can compare with the possible time moments of the fifth dimension) and the reality on the human scale, the human observer who creates (like the consciousness that creates the world lines) his Universe.

report post as inappropriate

Re Ality (Facebook) replied on Apr. 20, 2011 @ 10:02 GMT
Wilhelmus

Memory just logs the experience If you're lucky & not getting old like me!). Our sense of time stems from the continuous sequence of change that we experience. We do not create it, and indeed do not create any attribute of our reality. The arrow of time is our sense of the general procession of events, whilst 'time' is our appreciation of the rate of change of the sequence of change, which is continuous (or strictly, limited by the frequency of the medium conveying the information). The fact that there are two concepts of 'time' gives the hint that current understanding is flawed. What exists before we experience it is unknown, not part of our reality. They are metaphysical assertions on a par with religious doctrines or 'apparently' ludicrous ideas (ie Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy solution)

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Apr. 20, 2011 @ 15:33 GMT
Hi Paul,

Getting old is one of the enigmas that seems to tell us that a lot of time has passed (me too I am retired), but in your mind all the moments that "are" your life are stocked up in your memory in a way that only when you active think of them they form the causal flow of time, but even when you are getting old you still feel young.

What I propose as the "fifth" dimension where all quanta of space/time are simultnaneous present you can compare also with cutting all the characters out of a dictionnarry, and then mixing them up, still all the words are present and can be formed, only you have to form them, all the words present can form all the possible books from the past and the future, you could even say that you only need the alphabeth for this trick, but translating this into a Total Simultaneity is perhaps possible in mathematics,I don't know.

The future is not known to us in this causal deterministic universe, that is true, but all the futures exist already I presume, in this so called total simultaneity (see my essayon the subject Is reality digital or Analog.

report post as inappropriate

Re Ality (Facebook) replied on Apr. 26, 2011 @ 11:40 GMT
Wilhelmus

Been away enjoying the sunshine.

2 'admin' points: 1) I don't understand how to do links & blogs, etc so I've dumped my thoughts on a Facebook page, 2) I have no background, or current context, from which to get my thoughts 'out there'. I ended up here via Craig Callender's comments on Hawking's latest book. Any assistance would be welcomed.

I'll comment on your essay via e-mail, rather than clog this thread up, please send an e-mail to Re_ality@hotmail.co.uk so I can respond.

Paul

report post as inappropriate


B^2 wrote on Apr. 20, 2011 @ 07:58 GMT
Was that post a zen koan?

"we have difficulties in explaining the "arrow" of time, because of the fact that the NOW moment is not existing"

What are the difficulties in explaining the arrow of time that are not already explained by entropy?

This moment right now is the only moment you can affect the real world. If you believe the "NOW" moment does not exist then why are you lumping all of time into the present?

By "fifth dimension" do you mean adding another row to the four vector or is the fifth dimension something mystical?

Lastly, do you believe that "consciousness" collapses the wavefunction?

report post as inappropriate

Re Ality (Facebook) replied on Apr. 20, 2011 @ 10:09 GMT
B^2

I can see how the concept of NOW not existing arises, its a consequence of believing that reality exists before we experience it & by experiencing it we create the NOW (ie reality). But this whole theory that it all exists a priori (whether its all possibilities, a range, a random selection, etc) is all wrong and one of the reasons quatum mechanics gets stuck.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Apr. 20, 2011 @ 16:11 GMT
B^2:

Entropy is a result of causality and so an effect in our universe where the flow of time is in the direction of what we name the future, entropy is only existing on a larger scale as quantum scale, so you are right when you say that the arrow of time is "also" explained by entropy, but with the remark that this is valable in our universe, there may be universes where it is different.

I am not lumping all of time into the present because of the fact that we can not experience the NOW. And why not ? I propose that when reaching Planck Time (5.39121x10^-44sec) and by passing it we enter in this "fifth" dimension, the Total Simultaneity of world lines (String theorists place there their enrolled 10 dimensions). So the treshold of NOW could be placed there, in this total simultaneity all possible moments are lumped together but they make no longer part of our reality.

This "fifth" dimension is as mystical as the enrolled 10 dimensions of String theory, it is just another way of trying to explain OUR reality, you can make it mystical like all the things we cannot explain in our existance.

I think (believe?) that an observation collapses the wave function of a particle, observation needs consciousness (for humans) so that we become aware, if for example we take the YOUNG experiment with the one or two slits, in my vieuw I can explain why the particle becomes a wave when there are two splits, the two possibillities exist in total simultaneity, the definitive "decision" depends on the number of slits that are present in the Planck time , here I don't have to create a paralel world when the "decision" is made, (all possibilities existing already, also the answer to Paul)

The whole idea is worked out in my essay (see link in my answer to Paul above)

keep thinking

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

B^2 replied on Apr. 21, 2011 @ 17:20 GMT
Paul could elaborate on your statement?

Wilhelmus at first I was surprised by you mentioning consciousness and different/multiple universes. Then I realized you were trolling me, that was well played sir.

What did you the two of you think of this article on real-time physics?

report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Apr. 23, 2011 @ 14:39 GMT
B^2:

I think the article on the project of Smolin is interesting, trying to merge Quantum Mechanics and GR with the dimension of time ? okay I will read their findings and if they give me good reasons to change my own view I'll be the first to do so, time is money (the grant of FQXi).

The flow of time from past to future (where we introduce the present as an intermediaire) is I repeat causal, the ultimate rithm of a clock is created by placing "intervals" in a row, the ultimate interval is the Planck time, if you place two units of Planck time in a row it becomes already a "flow", when we have two units of Planck time not placed in a row but just apart from each other (the situation in Total Simultaneity) then they have the "possibillity to be placed one after another to form a causal time flow, in our consciuosness we organise these "flows" and so become aware of a physical process this proces we call "real time". Every where where we are in the universe no matter what speed we have (this speed will always be realtive, and speed involves a "flow" of time, so a row of Planck units) the basical unit will always be the same.

I am very poor in maths but there should be a way to explain mathematically the Total Simultaneity that I propose.

keep on thinking

Wilhelmus.

report post as inappropriate

B^2 replied on Apr. 24, 2011 @ 09:20 GMT
Wilhelmus,

Thank you for the clarification. I am terrible with mathematics as well and I prefer to think in terms of examples, concepts and principles. Once I feel comfortable with an idea I look for the mathematics that I can translate it into. Earlier you wrote:

"What I propose as the 'fifth' dimension where all quanta of space/time are simultaneous present you can compare also with cutting all the characters out of a dictionary, and then mixing them up, still all the words are present and can be formed, only you have to form them, all the words present can form all the possible books from the past and the future, you could even say that you only need the alphabet for this trick"

I hope this does not sound patronizing but this is well studied in a branch of mathematics called combinatorics you may find these links here and here relevant. I should warn you that I have been toiling so long in this subject that I am afraid I may have developed a preferred bias for it.

report post as inappropriate

Re Ality (Facebook) replied on Apr. 26, 2011 @ 12:03 GMT
Wil/B^2

Can you please point out where I can find the article on Real Time Physics that was mentioned please.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Re Ality (Facebook) replied on Apr. 26, 2011 @ 13:02 GMT
Ah ha, it's piece at the start?? Rather 'out of sight' by the string of comments. Is there an essay/article somewhere else?

B^2 (and Wilhelmus) my comments on the article by Kate Becker (as requested by B^2:

Einstein was wrong, is the simple answer!

It is not time, but change, that is real in our reality. For measuring purposes, including 'time' is correct since there is always a delay (and sometimes a relative delay) in our experience of reality. But that delay (in a sight experience) is a function of light travelling (ie distance), it is not an intrinsic, different, dimension of our reality, purely a function of the way we experience it. This is why one can have a theory that works (in measuring terms-'space-time')) but then seems to give rise to problems (because a concept-'time'-has been reified and deemed to be an inherent attribute of our reality). Additionally, it is why one can have two theories that seem to work-almost-because the speed of light is so fast it only impacts on measurements in more extreme circumstances. Furthermore, it explains 'time' (as in rate of change) as distance travelled by light (different speeds= different distances=different rates of change), and 'time' (as in Arrow of Time) as a sequence of change (each successive change of state in any given entity must be experienced in sequence since the medium (light) conveying the information is fixed).

It is very simple once one escapes the existential conundrum that Einstein created.

Paul

report post as inappropriate


B^2 wrote on Apr. 27, 2011 @ 11:17 GMT
Paul and Wilhelmus,

I found this video goes into more depth and highlights the differences between emergent and fundamental "real time". I read this article awhile ago and I'm glad he has received some funding from FQXI to pursue this approach.

This video is much shorter than the first. I had heard of the debate between Leibniz and Newton. When everyone breaks their concepts down to simple ideas they seem to view time as Leibniz or Newton did. Succinctly how do you view time?

As for interpretations of the wavefunction I have found the ensemble interpretation the most satisfying.

report post as inappropriate

Re Ality (Facebook) replied on Apr. 28, 2011 @ 09:24 GMT
B^2

This is as short/simple as I can be:

An independent reality exists. We do not create it, we experience it (note: experience includes logically inferred hypothetical ‘experiences’). What might lie beyond what we are able to experience is an irrelevant metaphysical consideration. That is entirely different from the fact that there are parts of our reality that we may never experience, but they still exist. There are a number of variables involved in the process of experience which interfere with the reality. But as we come to understand the process, we can apply reverse engineering and identify the original. All entities which comprise our reality change. It is a fundamental characteristic of our reality, and in the sense that it is an all-prevailing constant, it can probably be ignored for most theories/calculations. We label this phenomenon ‘time’. However, the interference that occurs in the experience process cannot be ignored, and that revolves around the speed of light/sound and distance. But ‘time’ (ie the rate of change) in this context is an arbitrarily imposed measuring system, and the issue (contrary to what Einstein concluded) is merely a technicality in the process of experience (which just becomes more complicated if the speed of light has varied), not proof of an intrinsic dimension in our reality (ie space-time).

On your specific question about Ensemble Interpretation:

Having invoked a metaphysical assertion that we create our reality, ie that some form of reality (whether it be all possibilities, random states, whatever) exists a priori and our experiencing it results in a ‘selection’, then one can invoke any number of ‘theories’ to explain it. The problem is that the base supposition is null and void. Experience is a complex process, it does interfere with the reality but those effects are identifiable. It might involve some form of ‘selection’, but we can never know. Beyond our experience is a matter for religious doctrines, mystical beliefs, or ‘apparently’ ludicrous statements, as there is no proof so any ‘explanation’ is equally valid.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

B^2 replied on Apr. 28, 2011 @ 17:03 GMT
Paul,

Thank you for the clarification however, at the end of your post I'm not sure if you were describing a falsifiable idea which could be tested or if you were diving into epistemology. I'm a bit dense, my apologies. I believe that time is real and fundamental. The viewpoint that time is an illusion seems to be based on mathemagical tricks that are elevated to eternal truths.

report post as inappropriate

Re Ality (Facebook) replied on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 07:32 GMT
B^2

That there is an incessant change in our reality which implies (at least in our minds) there is a 'space' in which these events can occur is indeed very real. But since it is all pervading and we cannot escape it, I suspect we can ignore it. This is analogous to cancelling out an item which occurs on either side of an equation (I did A level maths 43 years ago!). After that we are faced with sequences, and rates, of change in entities, which are real. We do not sit there thinking a tree to grow, mountain to crumble, etc, etc. We invoke a measuring system, but it is not a constituent of reality. I suspect that the concept that 'time' is an illusion arises because the maths purporting to represent reality is based/influenced by the reification of 'time' into an intrinsic spatial dimension. So there comes a point when the theories get 'stuck' and, inevitably, 'time', as incorrectly defined, looks like the problem that it is.

Paul

PS: I must say as I read around the subject, I get increasingly concerned about the amount of statements (mathematical or otherwise) out there that are metaphysical. I thought science was the pursuit of objective knowledge, not a religion. I noticed a comment on The Twin Paradox above (and put my penny's worth in-guess it's a dime in the US!, but this to me looks like another false thought, like the famous cat which I parody in my piece on reality.

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 09:10 GMT
Dear Tom,

I found the following reply of you merely on top of the recent posts: "Eckard,

I don't know how Peter Lynds entered this discussion. Did I miss something? I wouldn't have anything to say about that paper anyway, since I find it philosophical, and empty of scientific content.

On this petition re the twin paradox (which is not really a paradox)it sounds like an updated version of "100 scientists against Einstein." As much nonsense as it ever was.

In any case, it is quite obvious from the description of the problem that the difference between a..."

Obviously this is not your complete message. I was pointed to the paper by Peter Lynds there , and I wondered why Peter Lynds listed Lee Smolin. I do not quite share your opinion that the Lynds paper is philosophical. I called already the title bewildering. Perhaps the first one who wrote "universe without begin and end" was Thomas Gold, the same who early understood that the passive traveling wave model of cochlea must be wrong, see my

essay "Galilei, Gold, Ren - votes for ultimate reality". A circle has no beginning and no end except for the point on it I might be located at myself. Bewildering to me was something else. The denial of the distinction between past and future.

What about the petition, I suggest you will read that it is not about whether or not the paradox is not a paradox at all but why it is not a paradox. To me NPA was almost like a who is who. I found the names of Lawrence Crowell, John Wheeler, Petr Beckmann, Roland Fritzius, and many others.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 16:39 GMT
Eckard,

I don't understand the problem. On my computer, my total message shows up as the last post in your 14 April @14;58 gmt thread.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on May. 1, 2011 @ 08:20 GMT
Dear Tom,

Having read your message now, I would like to decide. Although the mainstream consensus is that the paradox is not a problem and as such has a definitive solution, there is no agreement as to exactly what that solution is. There are

a) Solutions that claimed to employ only the postulates and methods of the special or restricted theory of relativity in which the differential aging effect is due to relative motion.

b) Solutions that invoke the general theory of relativity and, by implication, contend that there is no solution possible from the principles of the special theory of relativity.

c) Solutions that invoke, often implicitly, different or additional assumptions than used in either the special or general theory and, by implication, contend that there is no resolution possible using either theory.

What category does your solution belong to?

I found among those who signed the petition proponents of SR like Wolfgang Engelhardt and Bruce Harvey as well as interesting arguments against it, e.g. by Thim, Phipps, de Mees, Kalmyrov, and ronald.ray.hatch@gmail.com who is distinguished by 24 GPS patents:

Evidence is presented to show that infinitesimal Lorentz transformations (ILTs) contradict the clock hypothesis that acceleration affects the clock rate only indirectly through the resultant velocity. But the clock hypothesis has substantial supporting experimental evidence. It is also shown that the equivalence principle, upon which the general relativity is based, depends on the validity of ILTs. In addition, a fairly simple Moessbauer experiment on the International Space Station is suggested, which would clearly indicate whether or not the ILTs are valid. However, it is also shown that a careful consideration of clocks on the earth already provides equivalent experimental data, which indicates that ILTs are invalid.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 1, 2011 @ 21:02 GMT
After "...patents:" the text on ILTs from "Evidence" to "invalid" was an abstract copied from an article by Ronald Hatch. It can be found via the name Hatch in the list of those who signed the petition. I apologize for the missing quotation marks.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on May. 1, 2011 @ 16:50 GMT
In my modest opinion trying to devide space and time "ad infinitum", leads us only to paradoxes and non-understandable singulairities.

Why ? because our 4-d Univesre has its limits.

For space : the Planck length, for time the Planck time (10^-44sec, result from putting together G (Newtons constant for gravity), h (Planck's constant and c (velocity of light), the velocity of light being the other (local) limit of our universe.

The ultimate rythm of a "clock" depends so on the minimum length of time 10^-44sec, below this unit of time we enter in non causal non deterministic dimension because there one after another is no longer possible, here we meet the boarder of "digital" tieme and analog (experienced) time.

At the local relative velocity of the speed of light time is not progressing, so there is no more "change", we cannot longer compare one situation with another, in fact we are there entering the same "time" (digital) as we are entering after the Planck time and the "clock" is no longer valid.(no changes)

As for the ILT's, it is the adjective I (infinitsemal) that is in my opinion wrong and not appliccable, it is the same as believing in the Big Bang with a singulairity as the "beginning".

keep on struggling

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on May. 3, 2011 @ 07:19 GMT
I doubt that begging will be enough. I rather see compelling reasons for a unbelievably simple and truly foundational while definitely hurting correction.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Re Ality (Facebook) replied on May. 4, 2011 @ 08:48 GMT
Indeed, back to basics, reverse usual thinking on this subject. I'm 'replying' on this last post but am addressing ones above. Light is just a medium Wil through which we can experience reality. It has properties, eg speed of travel, frequency. These properties mean there is a limit to our ability to see (literally, there are other senses) reality. That does not mean that that part of reality we cannot see descends into some form of chaos/whatever, ie is structurally different from the rest of reality that we can see. We just can't see it. [I suspect that this is the problem with the commodity labelled dark energy/matter]. The ultimate rythm of a clock does not depend on light/time, it (and any entity is a 'clock') has an intrinsic rate of change. Our ability to see the clock (which in this context means a particular movement-ie rate of change- that we have designated to measure 'time') depends on light. One could have the world measured by 'decay rate in the average white cabbage', but that's not a particularly good reference point for the measuring system known as time. Lorentz Transformations are one of proabaly many 'theories' which try to resolve the original fault. To really paraphrase Thim:'if light started here, it cannot have the same shape when it gets over there'. In amongst all the relativity, the assertion that light is isotrophic 'sticks out a mile'. It's a 'convenient' (but probably at the time genuinely held) view to have since that then resolves a fundamental flaw in the argument which stems from attributing relativity effects to an intrinsic dimension of reality rather than an iterference effect in the process of seeing with light. In the Twin Paradox, the perception of different rates of change is real, but it is only a perception, and once the two are back at the same relative spatial point (in order to measure their relative rates of change, ie age) they will again both have the same relative rate of change. Perceptions do not create reality, which is that which exists idependently of our ability to experience it. Doesn't it strike anybody as peculiar that whist nobody subscribes to the notion that we 'think' 'big' entities into existence, suddenly when dealing with elementary particles, etc that seems to be OK?

Paul Reed

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on May. 8, 2011 @ 11:12 GMT
Space-time is a conceptual mistake.

attachments: Is_spacetime_a_conceptual_mistake.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 9, 2011 @ 05:58 GMT
"Time is an illusion" is a consequence of two postulates - the principle of relativity and the principle of constancy of the speed of light - advanced by Einstein in 1905. Anyone who rejects "time is an illusion" should make a suggestion as to which postulate is false. Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Re_Ality (Facebook) replied on May. 9, 2011 @ 10:12 GMT
'Time' is misunderstood, and the proof of its quality, whereby 'either light speed or 'time' must vary', is false. That incorporates a confusion between the experience of reality and reality itself, which leads to the mis-attribution of 'time' as a spatial dimension, when actually the effect which we experience is just a function of light.

Think on this: We do not see the dog, we see a light based representaion of the dog. That is, the experience of reality is not reality, it is an experience of reality.

And so, yes Amrit, 'space-time' is a conceptual mistake

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 9, 2011 @ 14:37 GMT
Penchto,

Both the principle of relativity as found by Galilei and the principle of constancy of the speed of light in vacuum can be correct, and nonetheless time need not to be an illusion.

On the other hand, the round-trip method of synchronization, which was used by Poincarè and tacitly adopted by Einstein, is unfounded. Tom Van Flandern called it perhaps aptly desynchronization. Is here anybody who can justify Poincarè? Obviously no.

Tentative interpretations of some experiments concerning the ether hypothesis and aberration gave rise to what Poincarè called Lorentz transformation.

Subsequently Einstein and Minkowski built further speculations on this primary misconception. Einstein's 1905 relativity is obviously a logically broken relativity.

Being a German myself, I wonder why in particular Germans before the two WWs were prone to admire questionable or even horrible ideologies including Cantor's naive set theory and Minkowski's spacetime. I do not consider just Einstein worth to be blamed for what he largely plagiarized. One hundred years after in France Paul Langevin found the first one of several SR-related paradoxes, and in a situation where some theorists are ready to abandon anything including time and the Euclidean notion of number except for aleph_2 and spacetime, only retired experts are in position to frankly utter criticism.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Re_Ality (Facebook) replied on May. 10, 2011 @ 08:17 GMT
Eckard (Penchto)

Indeed, the fundamental notion of relativity and the constant speed of light can co-exist, if one understands how reality works and what 'time' is. Your notion Penchto that 'time' is an illusion is sort of on the right track. In that, can anyone go and get me cup full of 'time'. Answer: No. And why not? Answer: because what is known as 'time' is the manifestation of something else in reality. Herein lies the flaw with SR.

Eckard, as a Sociologist (well 40 years ago!)I am fascinated by your comments. Over the past month, having got sufficiently annoyed by Stephen Hawking's book to think it through based on stuff I wrote on reality back then, I think there is a very interesting 'back story' here. How did this fallacy arise, what kept it going, etc, etc

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 11, 2011 @ 07:11 GMT
Eckard Blumschein wrote: "Both the principle of relativity as found by Galilei and the principle of constancy of the speed of light in vacuum can be correct, and nonetheless time need not to be an illusion."

"Time is an illusion" is not the best example of absurd consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate. Length contraction absurdities are much more illustrative. Fore instance, the postulate entails that an arbitrarily long object can be trapped inside an arbitrarily short container ant that a bug can be both dead and alive:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/ba
rn_pole.html

"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) ...the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bug
rivet.html

The Bug-Rivet Paradox

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 11, 2011 @ 15:04 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

As the velocity of sound in a given medium is constant, I do not see any reason to doubt that there is a corresponding limit to the velocity of photons. You are quite right, SR caused numerous paradoxes. You asked which principle might be wrong.

Experimental results were misleading. Nimtz "measured" propagation of signals with velocities in excess of c. Michelson-Morley were interpreted as evidence against an ether, and this lead to theoretical constructs by FitzGerald, Larmor, Lorentz, Poincaré, Einstein, and Minkowski. Nonetheless, the special theory of relativity is untenable. Einstein's speculative principle of relativity must not be confused with Galilei's logically founded and experimentally confirmed principle of relativity. Presumably, the mistake arose from evident mathematical flaws, a questionable readiness to resort on Poincaré's round-trip synchronization, and the competition-driven preferences for as difficult to imagine as possible applications of advanced, in particular Riemannian, mathematics.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on May. 12, 2011 @ 05:58 GMT
Eckard Blumschein: "As the velocity of sound in a given medium is constant, I do not see any reason to doubt that there is a corresponding limit to the velocity of photons."

The velocity of sound varies with the speed of the observer. Do you see any reason why the velocity of light should not vary with the speed of the observer?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 12, 2011 @ 07:16 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

Does the velocity of sound really "vary with the speed of the observer"?

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on May. 11, 2011 @ 22:59 GMT
Experimental data of Gravity Probe A confirm that velocity of material change depends on gravity. Clocks rate is faster on satellite than on the surface of the earth. Same is valid for all material change from chemical to biological one.

Experimental data of Gravity Probe A does not give any evidence that clocks run in time and gravity influences time, so clocks on the satellite run faster. Existence of time as a physical reality in which clocks should run is an unproved preposition. What we can conclude out of data of Gravity Probe A is that gravity influences velocity of material change.

attachments: Analysis_of_experimental_data_given_by_Gravity_Probe_A_and_Gravity_probe_B.PDF

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 15, 2011 @ 07:12 GMT
http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue13_Paper_Norton.pdf

John Norton: "It is common to dismiss the passage of time as illusory since its passage has not been captured within modern physical theories. I argue that this is a mistake. Other than the awkward fact that it does not appear in our physics, there is no indication that the passage of time is an illusion."

Which of the postulates of special relativity is false: the principle of relativity or the principle of constancy of the speed of light?

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 22, 2011 @ 12:17 GMT
Kate Becker wrote: "Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite."

Since special relativity is a DEDUCTIVE theory, the above text should automatically trigger the thought that at least one of the two postulates (the principle of relativity and the principle of constancy of the speed of light) must be false. George Orwell explains the absence of any such thought:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17 George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 22, 2011 @ 16:58 GMT
In order to qualify SR as a deduced theory, I would expect Poincaré synchronization and the notion speed of light reasonably defined. The former mingles past and future. The latter was perhaps overlooked by myself so far.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on May. 23, 2011 @ 10:57 GMT
Eckard/Pentcho

The origins of the theory, arguing about its prediction, The Twin Paradox, etc, etc is all irrelevant. This is like trying to treat the syptoms and not the disease. The reason SR is wrong is because it involves a fundamental misconception of both time and reality, which, in terms of time, is explained as follows:

Short Proof: Time

Everything is undergoing continuous change. For any sequence of change, no space is required for the different states comprising it, since only one state can exist (ie the last). Every sequence has an intrinsic rate of change. This is time.

As light travels, there is a delay between the existence of a state and its perception.

The perceived rate of change of a sequence will remain the same, so long as relative spatial position remains constant amongst everything involved. Because, while the value of the delay is different depending on each individual space, it remains constant.

However, when relative individual space is altering, then the perceived rate of change alters, because the delay is ever increasing (or decreasing) at a rate which depends on the rate at which individual spaces are altering.

The variance in rate of change is a perceptual illusion caused by the information medium (in this case light) having to travel in order to enable the experience of reality to occur. The intrinsic rate of change (time, in reality) in the sequence being experienced does not alter, either in order to create this effect, or as a consequence of this effect being realised.

© Paul Reed

April 2011

Extracted from Theory of Reality and Time posted on Re Ality (Facebook, look for the boy with his cat)

report post as inappropriate


Gene T. Yerger wrote on Jun. 2, 2011 @ 14:59 GMT
Kate,

I hope Lee Smolin looks at my book – The Meaning of Time: A Theory of Nothing. In it I propose that the wave-like description of nature is fundamental and that electrons are extended entities consisting of the interaction of negative energy waves moving backward in time at the speed of light and positive energy waves moving forward in time at the speed of light. They interact at what I call the temporal event horizon which is the nominal extent of the electron and represents the particle’s notion of the present moment. This ad infinitum interaction sequence represents the electron’s internal clock and the interaction itself is the phenomenon known as the Zitterbewegung which translates literally to “trembling motion”. It is a yet to be experimentally verified property of the electron first proposed by Erwin Schrödinger in his analysis of the Dirac equation. Changes in the operation of clocks is not some nebulous change in the geometry of space and time whatever that may mean but is rather the result of the effect of motion on the electron’s (and proton’s) internal clock.

Gene T. Yerger

report post as inappropriate


Douglas W. Lipp wrote on Jun. 29, 2011 @ 03:14 GMT
I do not know why or by whom my posts of June 15, 2011 and later were removed, but I would recommend that going forward, either the postee be informed by email of the reason, or, the reason be stated at this site here with time and date of posting. It is not necessary to know by whom it was deleted, as confidentialty should reign supreme lest there be some opening for retaliation (not that I would ever personally resort to that type of unprofessional behaviour). However, my theory and post no longer exist here and for what reason I do not know. The theory itself was in line with the stated topic of TIME, and offered so so much more.

So much less for now.

Doug

Also, missing is a Giacomo post that I was just starting to attempt an understannding of.

I want my post back!

report post as inappropriate


Russ W Otter wrote on Jul. 3, 2011 @ 18:56 GMT
Everything is Nothing and Nothing is Everything

By Russ Otter

Provocative perhaps, weird, illogical: Yes indeed. But that is the paradox, the conundrum that fits into the open box of ideas and ultimate logic, as we ponder the nature of existence, which has no beginning and no end.

To begin this story, I need to address some fundamentals, with a few leaps from the intuitive...

view entire post


this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


Kevin Amin wrote on Jul. 7, 2011 @ 07:50 GMT
Does counting the atomic transitions of cesium or quartz or a pendulum constitute measurement of time or are we just counting something that is moving? Has anyone actually measured time? It appears it does not exist......

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jul. 30, 2011 @ 10:35 GMT
It does not exist, literally. Time is a duration measuring system which enables you to quantify and compare disparate rates of change in reality. The base unit used is irrelevant/arbitrary, all one needs is one that is of high frequency and constant. So the oscillation in quartz is better than relating events to earth's revolution.

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Giacomo wrote on Jul. 25, 2011 @ 12:03 GMT
I have posted 16 april , an attachment. Who has the patience to read it , will discover a foundamental , a new one! "Mz=m2v2-m1v1" . This foundamental it is connected to spin or vortice' properties and not to mass... I apologize for this.



I still studing it too. Also let me remarque : when I remove time by E=mc^2 , it is easy to see E=LL, energy as a surface! But for almost zero masses! So energy is inside geometry of reality? It is look like!!

And LL, wich kind of wave are they ?

Answer : easily gamma rays.

The gamma rays involved into sub-atomic reactions!

So if energy live into geometry and is made of gamma rays...

Geometry is made of gamma rays' orientation!!.

Now when geometry change with gravity also the alignment of those gamma rays change or not?!!

Into my Mz=m2v2-m1v1 it is possible to see : two gamma rays m2v2 and m1v1 , giving Mz . Mz it is a torsion. It is useful to change the sign "=" with chemical" " double arrow. The sense of reaction is reversable ! Exactly, because it is a foundamental! It mean : "Mz" can be a source for m2v2-m1v1. That is why the Ranque effect is not yet explained! Until today!.( It is not possible explain the number "1" , because it is "1" ... it is a foundamental!

It is a "foundamental" explain other smaller arguments!!.

So only removing time, we can access sub-nuclear world! Because, there, "Chemical reaction" sense .., retuns to play and do the show!

In chemistry we can see reactions, with strong equilibrium, where time has no meaning ... The reaction in subnuclear world are "balanced" and time it is not useful...

May be Time will return, but under sub-nuclear reactions! Like into redundant system! So for me Time can be not real... but only for the moment!!

He can back !!

Thank You! And see you next!

report post as inappropriate


Douglas W Lipp wrote on Aug. 9, 2011 @ 00:04 GMT
Time is not an illusion. Time is an interactive part of reality and is present as a vector quantity (forward and reverse). With forward vector time, Matter turns to Space. With reverse vector time, space turns back to matter and in its most condense form, it becomes a Black Hole. Time is Energy.

For more information, please see www.CIGTheory.com

report post as inappropriate


Ron Hughes wrote on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 17:26 GMT
Has the possibility that gravity is a by product of time dilation been considered? An observer located at T = 0 of the BB will measure the speed of expansion as increasing?

report post as inappropriate


John Sulman wrote on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 15:05 GMT
There is nothing absolute or real about time. It is a concept based on a sequence of events involving changes in relative position or condition of observed items according their compliance and resistance to forces acting on them. The measure of the rate of change is any convenient arbitrary standard among the events being observed which appear to be constant, but can there be any guarantee that this has been the case throughout the existence of everything measurable?

report post as inappropriate


Douglas W Lipp wrote on Oct. 13, 2011 @ 02:10 GMT
www.CIGTheory.com

Compare the Meerkat.com

Compare www.CIGTheory.com

Compare Meerkat.com

Compare www.CIGTheory.com

report post as inappropriate


Giacomo wrote on Dec. 27, 2011 @ 19:09 GMT
Sorry for disturb this blog , I can not believe somebody altered the content of one of my post. Now I removed that one. I do not know how much it is important to offend my naif ideas , but someone is using its time to do it. I am very sorry for this .

report post as inappropriate


Douglas Lipp wrote on Feb. 16, 2012 @ 02:47 GMT
Specific to De Broglie (never actually read his paper):

- follow me here please: here, "X" = wavelength because I don't know how to make the wavelength lambda symbol

IF: X=h/p (De Broglie equation) , where X = wavelength, h = Planck constant, p = momentum

THEN: X = h/mv : because p ( momentum ) = mass multiplied by velocity {m = mass, v = velocity )

and, (please confirm my math here )

equivalent equation : m v X = h

equivalent equation: m = h / vX

Then, what I see is that when "v" gets very large, "m" gets very small ! "h" is a constant, and, just for the sake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sake) of it lets assume that the wavelength is non-changing here, for our example.

[Although speed of light "c" does equal wavelength multiplied by frequency]



So, at faster rates of travel, mass gets smaller: m = h / vX [as "v" in the denominator gets bigger, "m" gets smaller] with everything else remaining constant.

At "c" , mass disappears altogether (it has turned to Space (MTS & CIG Theory)

Why are we told that mass gets greater toward it traveling at "c" (Einstein) ????

Here, I see it getting smaller? What am I missing?

About the conflct here - does mass get greater (Einstein) or smaller (CIG Theory) at rates approaching "c" ??

CIG says smaller as Matter actually unfolds into it (mass) becoming Space itself. The mass of Dark Matter is that of a Time nature (read Time Equilibrium in CIG Theory), as opposed to units of grams. The mass has turned to Space with an increase in Velocity, as is apparent in the De Broglie equation: m = h / vX

I am trying to learn Schrodinger's equation, and, if you alreday know it, and you would like to jump ahead, please apply CIG Theory to it as well. So far, as I understanding the probabilty wave function, CIG interprets it as being real, with the "electron" smeared out (into it being newly created Space), collapsing only when it slows down (i.e. the black hole "M" version of the MTS equation)

comment here or to lippfamily@earthlink.net

read theory at : www.CIGTheory.com

Thnak you

the author - CIG Theory

report post as inappropriate


Douglas W Lipp wrote on May. 24, 2012 @ 02:59 GMT
Rate x Time cannot = Distance in an expanding universe

RxT=D is faulty

The equation is: Could you pick up on CIG theory's concepts as to:

What the true equation for distance is, taking into context CIG Theory.

My math is horrible. My physics worse, however, we go forward.

So, Distance = Rate multiplied by Time (Standard equation)

We now add that new spatial manifestation to this distance as follows:

True Distance = Rate multiplied by Time + The % of "c" times the massive quantity in motion, using the atomic mass unit to spatial quantity manifestation in CIG Theory, or, for varying rates of "c", need an exact equation, as my math falls short here.

I quit (bad math).

The result would be the true "Distance" equation and could be used to compare against Red Shift data & predict Red Shift observations, especially anomalies.

Please read CIG in its entirety first.

Note that I don't know how "quickly" a massive quantity turns to a spatial volume.

If instantaneous ( I highly doubt) , then the above notes work as is.

For instance, D = RT + function of % "c" x atomic mass unit to spatial manifestation (per CIG) x MASS of unit underway.

Don't forget that for more than one entity, (think bubbles upon bubbles) receding from one location (say EARTH), and each other, we have to add these two (or more) distances together to obtain the accumulated distance( reason for accelerating Universe). Try finding this equation, please.

Please work on the equation.

You will be obtaining the actual and true "Distance Equation".

Use the CUPI quantification from CIG Theory -- www.CIGTheory.com

THX

doug

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 15, 2012 @ 18:27 GMT
Lee Smolin,

You were given FQXi money to restore the "real and global time" and show what's wrong with relativity:

"Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to differ. (...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi."

What's happened? FQXi money's gone, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity?

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 16, 2012 @ 14:59 GMT
Lee Smolin: "The second postulate of special relativity, which says that the speed of light is universal, appears to be almost contradictory in itself. Why? Consider a single photon, tracked by two observers. Assume that the two observers move with respect to each other. If they measure the speed of that single photon, we would normally expect them to get different answers, because this is the way normal objects behave. If I see a bus pull ahead of me at what looks to me like a speed of 10 kilometers an hour because I am in a car screaming down the highway at 140 kilometers per hour, an observer standing on the side of the road will see the bus moving at 150 km/hour. But if I observe a photon under the same circumstances, special relativity says that the roadside observer will measure the photon to have the same speed that I think it has. So why is this not a contradiction? The key is that we do not measure speed directly. Speed is a ratio: it is a certain distance per a certain time. The central realization of Einstein is that different observers measure a photon to have the same speed, even if they are moving with respect to each other, because they measure space and time differently. Their measurements of time and distance vary from each other in such a way that one speed, that of light, is universal."

But different observers measure the photon to have different frequency, and the frequency is proportional to the speed. So? Isn't it reasonable to assume that, by measuring the frequency, observers indirectly measure the speed? A positive answer was given in my essay:

Shift in Frequency Implies Shift in Speed of Light

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 16, 2012 @ 18:28 GMT
Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, p. 226: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy and universality of the speed of light. Could the first postulate be true and the other false? If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only the second postulate."

Here is the second postulate:

"...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

The gist is "independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" so any non-phony alternative must involve "dependent on the state of motion of the emitting body".

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Zbigniew Modrzejewski wrote on Nov. 24, 2012 @ 21:04 GMT
William H. Cantrell, Ph.D., Time Dilation: "There is absolutely no argument that time-keeping mechanisms do slow down when moving at high speed, and that in most instances, they obey the time dilation formula of Lorentz and Poincaré. (There are violations, as Jefimenko[10] has pointed out.) The dissident argument here is really more of a metaphysical one. A distinction should be made between...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 25, 2012 @ 04:28 GMT
Zbigniew,

It is a direct consequence of Einstein's 1905 light postulate (derived in all textbooks) that the clock on the train runs slower than clocks on the ground. Whether you call this time dilation or clock retardation is immaterial. The only reasonable question is: Does the clock on the train really run slower, in accordance with the formula given by special relativity? If your answer is yes, you are 100% Einsteinian. If your answer is no, you are 100% Newtonian.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 5, 2012 @ 10:05 GMT
Lee Smolin: "Quantum mechanics was not the only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his own theories of relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that the laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the speed of light therefore must always be the same, no matter how the source or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not absolute. Special relativity was the result of 10 years of intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong within two years of publishing it. He rejected his own theory, even before most physicists had come to accept it, for reasons that only he cared about. For another 10 years, as others in the world of physics slowly absorbed special relativity, Einstein pursued a lonely path away from it."

Lee Smolin,

"Within two years of publishing" special relativity Einstein realized the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential:

John Norton: "Already in 1907, a mere two years after the completion of the special theory, he [Einstein] had concluded that the speed of light is variable in the presence of a gravitational field."

It is easy to show that, if the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential, then, relative to the observer, it varies with the speed of the observer. So you are right - in 1907 Einstein did already know special relativity was wrong.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 15:50 GMT
Lee Smolin: "The scientific case for time being an illusion is formidable. That is why the consequences of adopting the view that time is real are revolutionary. (...) Einstein's theories of relativity make even stronger arguments that time is inessential to a fundamental description of the world, as I'll discuss in chapter 6. Relativity strongly suggests that the whole history of the world is a timeless unity; present, past, and future have no meaning apart from human subjectivity. Time is just another dimension of space, and the sense we have of experiencing moments passing is an illusion behind which is a timeless reality. (...) In Part I, I will present the case from science for believing that time is an illusion. In Part II, I will demolish those arguments and show why time must be taken to be real if fundamental physics and cosmology are to overcome the crises they currently face.

Lee Smolin,

Special relativity is a deductive theory so if it makes "even stronger arguments" in favour of something that you do not accept, it does so based on some false postulate. Have you identified it in your new book? In a previous book you did expose the false postulate:

Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, p. 226: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy and universality of the speed of light. Could the first postulate be true and the other false? If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only the second postulate."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jan. 16, 2013 @ 03:24 GMT
Pentcho,

Interesting to see Smolin is writing a book on the topic. Physics seems to be swirling around a black hole of suppositon, since many of the previous assumptions are coming to naught.

He seems to argue time is a foundational vector of events. Not sure how different that really is.

"Time will turn out to be the only aspect of our everyday experience that is fundamental. The fact that it is always some moment in our perception, and that we experience that moment as one of a flow of moments, is not an illusion. It is the best clue we have to fundamental reality."

Why not there is only the moment. It changes shape, so there is nothing external to it.

Minor contradiction:

"Temperature is just the average energy of atoms in random motion, so the laws of thermodynamics that refer to temperature are emergent and approximate."

"In the Standard Model of Particle Physics, which is the best theory we have so far of the elementary particles, the properties of an electron, such as its mass, are dynamically determined by the interactions in which it participates. The most basic property a particle can have is its mass, which determines how much force is needed to change its motion. In the Standard Model, all the particles’ masses arise from their interactions with other particles and are determined primarily by one — the Higgs particle. No longer are there absolutely “elementary” particles; everything that behaves like a particle is, to some extent, an emergent consequence of a network of interactions."

If everything is interconnected, then isn't thermodynamics a manifestation of the "network," from which the properties of the particles are emergent?

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 28, 2013 @ 11:35 GMT
The Missing Part of the Twin Paradox

A train is at rest and a clock on the ground is moving to and fro between two clocks situated at the front and the back end of the train. The speed of the moving clock is constant except for the turn-arounds where the clock suffers sharp acceleration. This is the classical relativistic scenario - relativity predicts that the moving clock runs slower than the two clocks at rest on the train.

In a complementary scenario (which is missing in the relativistic literature), the clock on the ground is at rest but the train is moving to and fro so that the clock on the ground formally commutes between the front and the back of the train as before. Will the clock on the ground run slower or faster than the two clocks situated at the front and the back end of the moving train? What does relativity say?

A clue:

Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p. 105: "In one case your clock is checked against two of mine, while in the other case my clock is checked against two of yours, and this permits us each to find without contradiction that the other's clocks go more slowly than his own."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 1, 2013 @ 08:30 GMT
A clock on the ground is at rest but a train is moving to and fro so that the clock on the ground formally commutes between the front and the back of the train. The speed of the train is constant except for the turn-arounds when clocks on the train suffer sharp acceleration. Will the clock on the ground run slower or faster than clocks on the the moving train? What does relativity say?

First of all it should be noted that the acceleration suffered by moving clocks cannot be responsible for time dilation effects:

Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

It should also be noted that a clock at the front of the moving train coincides with the travelling twin's clock in the classical twin paradox scenario. Accordingly, relativity predicts that the clock at rest on the ground runs FASTER than the clock at the front of the train.

On the other hand, relativity predicts that, ALL ALONG, observers on the moving train measure the clock at rest on the ground to run SLOWER than clocks on the train.

This is called REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM. The underlying postulate, the principle of constancy of the speed of light, is false and should be rejected.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 1, 2013 @ 20:25 GMT
Horrible doublethink in Einsteiniana:

Accelerations are responsible for the youthfulness of the travelling twin:

John Norton: "That inertial observers in relative motion will each judge the others' clocks to run slower is, by now, a quite familiar and readily understandable outcome of relativity theory. It does take a little while to get used to the idea, of course. When you first...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 1, 2013 @ 09:41 GMT
Pentcho,

Your scenario is ok but, 'solution' clearly false. There is a far better one that works, resolving all issues and consistent with ALL observation.

Each clock appears to run faster when it is approaching the detector, because its sequence of emissions is compressed (blue shifted) or 'contracted'

Each clock also appears to run slower when receding from the detector, because it's emissions are dilated (red shifted).

All emissions propagate at c locally.

Please consider carefully as you will find that simple mechanism resolves all issues in physics. Or respond with why you think may NOT resolve them.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Mar. 1, 2013 @ 18:37 GMT
Peter

You may be sayong this, but I am not sure. Nothing is happenng to the emissions (ie light with which the event is observed). Because the light is unaffected by reception (ie seeing). This optical illusion is a function of altering spatial position vis a vis event and recipient observer, and applies to any sequence, not just clocks (time). If the distance is increasing then the time taken for light to reach the recipient will get ever longer, giving the appearance, to the observer, that the sequence is slowing down, and vice-versa.

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 2, 2013 @ 16:37 GMT
Paul,

Ergo; If a detector recedes, the apparent rate of time increases, i.e. 'dilates'.

The 'sample' found by detector APPROACHING a clock then has 'length contracted' waves, so time appears to go faster.

It's not being able to think past the (derived) concept 'frequency' to analyse the real mechanism that has blinded mankind to nature.

Now if everybody stuck to above on their walls and thought about it and it's consequences until it made sense, then science could finally move on again.

An 'inertial frame' is the (relative to a datum) 'state of motion of an 'inertial system' made up of matter. The assignable group 'state of motion' may be like a balloon full of moving gas particles. I've dubbed it a 'virial kinetic entity' (VKE), equivalent to a Hilbert Space, and a 'leaf' in modal logic. The full ontology is the DFM.

QM? ...Yes the detector IS part of the system. Otherwise there would be no detection.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Mar. 3, 2013 @ 07:28 GMT
Peter

“the apparent rate of time increases”

The key word there is “apparent”. That is, what is observed, ie what is received, which in sight is light. But this is not physical existence, it is a physical phenomenon which is caused as a consequence of the existence of the existential sequence (which is what people are normally referring to when they speak of physical...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 26, 2013 @ 20:10 GMT
It seems the official end of Divine Albert's Divine Theory is imminent - hints are seen all over the place:

"The Crazy Drama of Physics (...) Now when a new scientific development comes along, it's as though terms like "light" and "speed" and "time" are characters in a long-running foreign soap opera. They all have complicated backstories, and the multiple costume changes don't help. At...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 9, 2013 @ 15:10 GMT
Disgusting Doublethink in Einsteiniana

"Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says."

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

71:04 : QUESTION: What you did not talk about was time dilation, the myth of time dilation, I think that needs to be blown as well. What do you think of that? LEE SMOLIN: I disagree. This is an important point. Special relativity may be superseded but it is holding up enormously well under experiment. Giovanni Amelino-Camelia is here... and he and various friends of ours have been trying to transcend special relativity for years and we are keeping knocked back by experiment... and the experiments have shown that special relativity is true to tremendous precision... Do you agree Giovanni? Yea!

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 13, 2013 @ 15:00 GMT
The doublethink demonstrated above and the lack of any reaction in the scientific community are unmistakable signs of dead science:

"The End-of-Science Bandwagon Is Getting Crowded (...) Compare the concerns of Simonton and the Edgeheads to what I wrote 17 years ago in The End of Science. I argued that "given how far science has already come, and given the physical, social and cognitive...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 16, 2013 @ 09:00 GMT
Another unmistakable sign of dead science:

The Albert Einstein Institute teaches that the speed of light relative to the observer (receiver) varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of special relativity:

Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."

That is, the motion of the observer cannot change the wavelength ("the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected") and accordingly the speed of light as measured by the receiver is (4/3)c.

Of all the physicists all over the world not one could think of a reason why this remarkable conclusion of Albert Einstein Institute should be discussed.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 18, 2013 @ 17:00 GMT
In 2001 Jos Uffink, a famous expert in the foundations of thermodynamics, informed the scientific commmunity that the second law of thermodynamics (the version stating that the entropy always increases) is "a red herring". Uffink also quoted Clifford Truesdell's statements that thermodynamics, in its present state, is "a dismal swamp of obscurity" and "a prime example to show that physicists are...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Apr. 18, 2013 @ 17:16 GMT
It looks to me like an opportune time and place to mention that Clausius did discover something named entropy. It is the case that physicsts do not know what Clausius discovered. Instead, the word entropy has been transferred to other entities that are not Clausius' discovery. I have produced the work necessary to show what it is that Clausius discovered. Thermodynamic entropy is explained. It is a real property involving heat even though Clausius' definiton relied upon ideal conditions. The solution, even with the ideal conditions, makes clear what is thermodynamic entropy. I will not, of course, be giving that explanation here. My point for mentioning it is to state my position, learned from the solution, that thermodynamic entropy is an arrow of time pointing in one direction toward the future.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 2, 2013 @ 10:40 GMT
Time in Relativity and Quantum Mechanics

Raymond Tallis, The Guardian, Monday 27 May 2013: "In 2010 Stephen Hawking, in The Grand Design, announced that philosophy was "dead" because it had "not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics". He was not referring to ethics, political theory or aesthetics. He meant metaphysics, the branch of philosophy that aspires to the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 15:40 GMT
The Augean-Stable Syndrome in Science

Steve Giddings, theoretical physicist; Professor, Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara: "What really keeps me awake at night (...) is that we face a crisis within the deepest foundations of physics. The only way out seems to involve profound revision of fundamental physical principles."

This view is shared by almost...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 13:40 GMT
Buried under the Augean stables' dung accumulated for more than a century, scientists are unable to react to even blatant contradictions and absurdities in Divine Albert's Divine Theory. So Einsteinians can safely teach that the acceleration suffered by the travelling twin is both responsible and not responsible for her youthfulness:

John Norton: "Then, at the end of the outward leg, the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 06:20 GMT
Einstein's Legacy - Where are the Einsteinians? Lee Smolin: "Special relativity was the result of 10 years of intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong within two years of publishing it."

So where are the Einsteinians? Most of them left the sinking ship:

John Baez: "I also realized that there were other questions to work on: questions where I could...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 08:35 GMT
Kuhn's Revolutions : Do They Actually Occur ?

"Kuhn held that the historical process of science is divided into three stages: a "normal" stage, followed by "crisis" and then "revolutionary" stages. The normal stage is characterized by a strong agreement among scientists on what is and is not scientific practice. In this stage, scientists largely agree on what are the questions that need...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 19:25 GMT
The Problem with Deductive Science

Jos Uffink, Bluff your Way in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, p. 94: "This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained attempts of Planck, to give up...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 06:33 GMT
Pentcho,

Are Borrill's helicity eigenvalues the solution to the enigma? I don't think so. I prefer to trust in an Anti-Wheeler thesis: No wheel rotates forever, and I would like you to comment on my last reply in "Faster than light".

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 05:20 GMT
The Problem with Deductive Science II

In DEDUCTIVE science, a single false premise can ruin everything, including the career and business of high priests. Yet some time ago Einsteiniana's high priests did not know that and used to launch fierce attacks on Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:

Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, p. 226: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 07:15 GMT
Pentcho,

You reminded us of Smolin's project in 2011. I am not aware of a result, and I was skeptical because Smolin, instead of dealing with basic fallacies, focused on desired solutions solving "the problem of quantum gravity, which is the problem of unifying the physics of the quantum with the physics of spacetime, the problem of the interpretation of quantum mechanics and the problem of...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 12, 2013 @ 18:25 GMT
Doublethink in Divine Albert's World

John Norton knows that, according to Maxwell's theory, the speed of light relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer:

John Norton: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

John Norton teaches that the speed of light relative to...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 15, 2013 @ 05:25 GMT
Doublethink in Divine Albert's World II

The acceleration suffered by the travelling twin is responsible for her youthfulness. The turning-around period is essential:

John Norton: "Then, at the end of the outward leg, the traveler abruptly changes motion, accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial motion directed back to earth. What comes now is the key part of the analysis. The...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 19, 2013 @ 14:40 GMT
Lakatos' Protective Belt : Justification of Dishonesty

Theoreticians don't abandon false postulates (core assumptions, axioms) in the face of refuting experimental evidence - rather, they surround them with a wall of ad hoc hypotheses which "serves to deflect refuting propositions from the core assumptions". Imre Lakatos described the phenomenon and called the wall the "protective belt":...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 19, 2013 @ 20:11 GMT
Pentcho,

Michelson's 1881 and 1887 experiments disproved Maxwell's idea of an aether relative to which the earth was imagined to move. However, they did NOT confirm what you are stubbornly reiterating, and it is NOT a false assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter. Read the endnotes of my current FQXi contest essay.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 18:46 GMT
Regarding the Ballad of Pentcho and Eckard (8/19/13) Einstein related his epiphany of SR as time stopping at light speed. While this is true for an observer at light velocity it cannot be true of time itself. Rather the Equivalence Principle must be interpreted as the faster an observer goes, the more closely he-she approximates the limit velocity to which time can extend. Otherwise EMR would have to create more time to be able to continue in its propagation.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 21:18 GMT
Hi John Cox,

Isn't Epiphany a Christian festival held on January 6th which commemorates the arrival of the three wise man who came to see Jesus Christ? I wonder, why did you write epiphany instead of Epiphany? Did you intend ridiculing Einstein?

A ballad is a long song which tells a story in simple language. Why did you use this metaphor in connection with my rather short post of Aug. 19?

I don't share Einstein's (and your) opinion that time is stopping for a hypothetical antenna/receiver which is thought performing a relative motion away from an antenna/sender.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Aug. 22, 2013 @ 03:00 GMT
Yes, Eckard.

Webster also defines epiphany as (2) a manifestation, esp. of divinity. The Eureka moment if you will. Pardon my quip of 'Ballad' referring to the disagreement between you and Pentcho Valev, There is an old country-rock song about a deal in Mexico that went way south, titled The Ballad of Poncho and Lefty.

As I said, I do not agree with the metaphor that Einstein employed, time 'stops' for no man. It is independent of the emitter. My point I seemed to have failed to make is that light velocity is that specific velocity and an observer approaching that limit would experience time seeming to extend less quickly. Fitzgerald remarked that the speed of light was 'astonishingly' low, which given a common Newtonian belief of it being instantaneous, the M&M results and the calculated distance to the sun would have been astonishing to many at the time.

The gist of my remarks were that time is local to any discrete mass, and our human experience is a second order effect in aggregate. But also that time itself in relation to gravitational domains apparently has an upper limit to the rate of its extension. Corrections to synchronization for SR and GR effects in Global Positioning satellites * Peter Galison; Einstein's Clocks, Poincare's Maps - Empires of Time pp287-89* are more proofs of both theories. An observer, human or otherwise, cannot exceed the upper limit of velocity to which time can extend but that does not mean that time always extends at equivalent light speed. The common joke that the speed of time is one second per second is true enough in any gravitational reference. That said I'll risk outcry by suggesting that some value might be found in a mathematical construct where the 'speed of time' is equivalent to escape velocity of the local gravitational reference.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 22, 2013 @ 07:59 GMT
Thank you for your explanations, John.

Poncho does hopefully not remind too much of Sancho Pansa. Being a lefty (in the sense of left-handed) is something that I share with Einstein, and, if I recall correctly, also with Obama, Clinton, Bush, and others.

I do not imagine time propagating.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Aug. 22, 2013 @ 15:56 GMT
My Bad, Eckard,

I do tend to be glib among a few friends with eclectic tastes, but must apologize for not thinking. This site is so generally well spoken that I forget that it is a truly international audience and what might be quickly grasped as a playful use of words culturally for me, can be gibberish to others. Also I'm an old dog and computerized communication is a really new...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Aug. 22, 2013 @ 17:14 GMT
John,

We experience time as a sequence of events and in its mathematical reductionism, physics treats it as a measure of interval. It might seem little different whether you simultaneously measure between the peaks of waves/distance, or as they pass a marker/duration, but with the first, you are measuring space and with the second, you are measuring action.

Is time the frame of action, like space, or an effect of it, like temperature?

Does duration transcend the point of the present, or is duration simply what is present between the occurrence of events?

Now ask yourself, does the earth travel this duration from yesterday to tomorrow, or does tomorrow become yesterday because the earth rotates?

People spent a long time trying to figure out how it is that the sun moves across the sky, before realizing it was the earth moving the other direction.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 23, 2013 @ 05:07 GMT
John (Cox),

Let's be careful in thinking rather than in the choice of marginal words. You were musing about the question whether time "was like a river carrying us along with it, or was it like a static state which we move through". Admittedly, I don't consider such metaphors. When I was teaching EE students for more than four decades, I used the notion of time as a measure how distant from moment of consideration something will be in the future with the option to arbitrarily shift the point zero of reference. When I dealt with auditory perception, I got aware that only data from the past are available in the moment of consideration. Accordingly I mimicked the auditory function with reference to the (moving relative to the usual scale) "now" because the ear does not know our agreement on Christ's birth midnight in Greenwich. It works based on elapsed time instead.

Let me try and explain why I prefer only one ubiquitous time everywhere instead of a different local time for every inertial system:

Well, I meanwhile distrust the ideas by Lorentz/FitzGerald and fellows because they tried to rescue a guess that was disproved by Michelson. However, there is a compelling reason too:

The measure time is only valuable if it correctly reflects the relationship between earlier and subsequent events, in other words: causality. Any cause precedes its effect. There is no preferred origin in space. Any spatial distance between two locations is positive.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Aug. 23, 2013 @ 02:51 GMT
Thanks, John Merryman,

for the specificity of argumentative questions you pose. I would qualify my response by referring to your preface that "physics treats (time) as a measure of interval". I do not reject that but neither do I accept it as exclusively so. It is the prevalent paradigm in assignment and generation of values in quantitative analysis, but imposes a number line on all such...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Aug. 23, 2013 @ 10:52 GMT
John,

I think I get the gist of it.

When I say the "point of the present," it is open to interpretation. I only see the essential reality as energy in space, so if it exists, it is "present." This is difficult to define as a point, because a point in time implies instantaneous and if we were to actually freeze the action, there would be no change and thus no time.

I recall...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Aug. 23, 2013 @ 12:33 GMT
"Time is to temperature, what frequency is to amplitude."

John, I think because I am myself dyslexic, I continue to be fascinated with how you go on creating logically coherent narrative from false premises. That's what Pauli meant, I suppose, by "not even wrong."

Wave frequency and amplitude are independent. Frequency is actually the inverse of time . That is, a time unit is defined by counting a number of wave cycles, oscillations between up and down amplitudes. Amplitude describes the energy content of the wave. We can have high frequency/low energy waves and low frequency/high energy waves.

Yes, I know you'll have some explanation to follow that makes sense to you. It won't make sense to physics, however, because it's very fundamental logic that if "time is to temperature what frequency is to amplitude," the only possible conclusion is that time and temperature are independent.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Aug. 23, 2013 @ 15:39 GMT
Tom,

I really would like to say; Oh wow! I see your point! But I just don't.

When did I ever say frequency and amplitude are not independent? Turn up the volume on your radio and it raises the amplitude, but doesn't affect the frequency.

You also seem to be agreeing that frequency is the basis of how we measure time.

The "energy content of the wave" is a scalar measure of energy. Yes, temperature isn't a single wave, but I'm not saying amplitude is temperature, I'm saying time is to temperature what frequency is to amplitude. Frequency and amplitude are characteristics of wave action, while time and temperature are far more generalized effects. We can certainly have change and thus the effect of time, without there being any regularity to it. In fact, if it was only regular frequency, there would be no "arrow of time," only a metronome.

And one reason I like you is because I know you will never agree with anything I say. If you did, it would likely kill the conversation.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Aug. 23, 2013 @ 10:53 GMT
Like temperature is a scalar measure of action, it is simply a measure of change caused by action.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 23, 2013 @ 16:30 GMT
John M and John C, respectively,

Temperature has an absolute point of reference: zero.

CF v. Weizsaecker referred to Aurelius Augustinus when he wrote the sentence you quoted. He argued that there was no time before God created the universe. Mockers added: Before He made the Big Bang, He made the hell for those who are rising insubordinate questions.

I consider only the duration of an already finished process, i.e. the time that has already elapsed, as an unchangeably fixated measure, as something that can be measured, in principle. The usual notion of time has been an abstracted, flipped and arbitrarily shifted measure.

It is certainly tempting and possibly rewarding for theoreticians to conjecture that the measurable duration of oscillatory elementary processes relates to expectation values and the transfer between kinetic and potential energy and return. However, I did not came across to any fertile and provably consistent suggested mechanism. I doubt that we need such speculations at all.

On the other hand I am sure that it is not necessary to integrate from minus infinity to plus infinity as to calculate the frequency spectrum of measured data. Future data are not available in advance. Expected future influences did not yet become real. Nice theories by Descartes and Fourier (who were still on search), Einstein, Hilbert, Minkowski, and many others do not overrule that experience.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Aug. 24, 2013 @ 02:22 GMT
Eckard,

Nor did we need those cosmic gear wheels to explain the motions of the sun, planets and stars.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Aug. 23, 2013 @ 14:46 GMT
We all know what time is until we try to explain it.

report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Aug. 23, 2013 @ 17:14 GMT
We've been circling our wagons around measurement of time, rather than the thread from Lee Smolin's book. Is time existential or emergent? "GO!"

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Aug. 24, 2013 @ 03:43 GMT
John C,

I just don't quite know what to make of your seeming request to push the reset button on this discussion. Personally I think I make a very basic and elementary argument that we are too focused on the sequence of time/past to future and incorporate it into elemental theories of nature, rather than the dynamic by which future becomes past. You are certainly entitled to disagree. I'm sure Tom would like the company, but for me to reset, I would simply have to repeat the same points, since you give me no clue as to what you do or do not understand and what you agree or disagree with.

Admittedly I tend not to engage some of the more abstract debates over the nature of time, for the simple reason I feel most of them are efforts to correct flawed initial premises, but I don't think this is an overly complex point, so it really shouldn't be difficult to engage, if one is willing to consider the logic.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Aug. 24, 2013 @ 18:12 GMT
John M.

I quite agree that we can become too focused on heuristic definition of the transitional aspect of time, and your comments make a good point of departure.



Smolin's book argues for a return to treating time as existential and I very much agree. Too often I read partial quotes out of context to support arguments for one or the other preference for relativistic or...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Aug. 24, 2013 @ 23:00 GMT
John C,

Think how the brain processes information, by taking very small snapshots of perception, much like a movie camera taking a series of still shots, then projecting them by shining a strobe light through each in turn. So the brain has to do something similar, in order to extract information from the flood of sensory input. Otherwise it would quickly melt into white noise. Then it...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Aug. 25, 2013 @ 01:18 GMT
John M.

I think we're on the same page. As in the George Ellis article *Flow of Time* The crux of the problem is in the time reversibility inherent to modern formulations of physical laws. QM+GR=0.

At the outset of Relativity the proponents of 4D Spacetime decided that to keep it simpler they would just assume the scale of length to be the same for both time and space! Hey! Why not... space ain't time anyway! So now we have a 'block universe' without compasses or clocks.

"...cats in purgatory..." Mary will love that!

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Aug. 25, 2013 @ 10:45 GMT
John C,

"The crux of the problem is in the time reversibility inherent to modern formulations of physical laws."

That goes to the issue of treating reality as only information. As energy manifesting information, since the energy is both conserved and dynamic, it is constantly creating new information by dissolving the old, ie. "Can't have your cake and eat it too." So reversing time...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 13, 2013 @ 16:25 GMT
The Ultimate Catastrophe in Physics

Neil Turok: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all."

The catastrophic view is shared by almost all theoretical physicists and philosophers of science (although most of them prefer to remain silent):

Mike...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Sep. 14, 2013 @ 12:18 GMT
Hi Pentcho,

An interesting compilation.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 14, 2013 @ 14:07 GMT
Pentcho,

A well-but approach might be more promising than your attack on c.

Well, Michelson disproved the existence of a light-carrying stationary frame of reference in space; but this did merely preclude the existence of a natural point zero in space not relative distances in space.

Well, if Einstein's second postulate was wrong then this could explain a lot; but shouldn't those who are unhappy e.g. with SR and reversibility of time also try and question the first postulate? Are covariance and invariance justified?

Well, individual perspectives are different from each other; but does this imply that there is no common structure to some extent?

Eckard



Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 14, 2013 @ 14:34 GMT
Pentcho,

If only they and you looked in the right direction for the solution they would find it appearing before their eyes.

If all ions re-scatter light at c, yet they can be in 'systems' which can move relatively, then light speed c is continually spontaneously localised (CSL) to be c with respect to all matter it encounters. The quantum mechanism also includes the LT. Earth's bow...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 16, 2013 @ 12:10 GMT
Einstein's 1954 Death Prognosis

Einstein made a prognosis in 1954: Physics was going to die if, and Einstein considered it "entirely possible", "field concept" and "continuous structures" turned out to be the wrong basis of physics:

Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 17, 2013 @ 05:10 GMT
Einstein teaching his worshippers that, according to the travelling twin, the sedentary twin's clock runs slow all along but "this is more than compensated" when the traveller sharply turns around and experiences acceleration in the process. In other words, the turn-around acceleration is responsible for the youthfulness of the travelling twin:

Dialog about Objections against the Theory of...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 19, 2013 @ 17:25 GMT
Special Relativity Incompatible with Doppler Effect

Roger Barlow: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 21, 2013 @ 23:00 GMT
Any Frequency Shift Is Due to a Shift in the Speed of Light

Paul Fendley: "First consider light shined downward in a freely falling elevator of height h. (...) By the time the light hits the bottom of the elevator, it [the elevator] is accelerated to some velocity v. (...) We thus simply have v=gt=gh/c. (...) Now to the earth frame. When the light beam is emitted, the elevator is at rest, so earth and elevator agree the frequency is f. But when it hits the bottom, the elevator is moving at velocity v=gh/c with respect to the earth, so earth and elevator must measure different frequencies. In the elevator, we know that the frequency is still f, so on the ground the frequency f'=f(1+v/c)=f(1+gh/c^2). On the earth, we interpret this as meaning that not only does gravity bend light, but changes its frequency as well."

Substituting f=c/L (L is the wavelength) into Fendley's equations gives:

f' = f(1+v/c) = f(1+gh/c^2) = (c+v)/L = c(1+gh/c^2)/L = c'/L

where c'=c+v=c(1+gh/c^2) is the speed of light relative to an observer on the ground or, equivalently, relative to an observer in gravitation-free space moving with speed v towards the emitter. Clearly the frequency shift is due to a shift in the speed of light - the speed of light varies with both the gravitational potential and the speed of the observer, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 16:47 GMT
Special Relativity Incompatible with Doppler Effect II

Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift..."

If the frequency measured by the stationary receiver is f=c/L (L is the distance between subsequent pulses), the frequency measured by a receiver moving towards the light source with a small (so that the relativistic corrections are negligible) speed v is:

f' = f(1+v/c) = (c/L)(1+v/c) = (c+v)/L = c'/L

where c'=c+v is the speed of the light waves relative to the moving receiver. Special relativity is violated.

In this scenario the wavelength of light is replaced by "the distance between subsequent pulses", and the Albert Einstein Institute clearly states that this distance is not affected by the motion of the receiver (it would be too idiotic to state the opposite). That is, if L' is the distance as measured in the moving receiver's frame, and L is the distance as measured in the stationary receiver's frame, we have L'=L. By combining this with f'=c'/L' we come to the conclusion that "the speed of the light waves relative to the moving receiver" is the only possible interpretation of c'=c+v.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 7, 2013 @ 05:50 GMT
Twin Paradox and Doublethink

According to special relativity, time dilation is mutual so each inertial observer sees the other inertial observer's clock go slower. This implies that, if the effects of the turn-around acceleration suffered by the travelling twin can be ignored, the travelling twin returns both younger (as judged from the sedentary twin's system) and older (as judged from the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 7, 2013 @ 22:40 GMT
Initially the exercises in doublethink are accompanied by some internal struggle in scientists' minds:

"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 9, 2013 @ 19:30 GMT
"The Farce of Physics" by Bryan Wallace

Bryan Wallace: "There is a popular argument that the world's oldest profession is sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely that the oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is still alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that long before sex had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 9, 2013 @ 22:38 GMT
Pentcho,

Your Wallace seems to be wrong. The Newtonian corpuscular theory does not postulate that the velocity is c+v relative to the observer. It refers to the velocity of the emitter, not of the observer.

While there are indeed emitter theories, aether theories, and SR, I prefer another idea: The speed of light refers to the distance from the location of emitter at the moment of emission to the location of receiver at the moment of arrival. In other words, it does not at all refer to a velocity.

There is no objectively preferred resting point of reference in space. Superposition of waves does not add their velocities.

Best,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 17:50 GMT
Einsteiniana : The Perihelion of Mercury Hoax

The mythology: Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century:

"This discrepancy cannot be accounted for using Newton's formalism. Many ad-hoc fixes were devised (such as assuming there was a certain amount of dust between the Sun and...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 19:33 GMT
On the perihelion advance of Mercury, and "This discrepancy cannot be accounted for using Newton's formalism. Many ad-hoc fixes were devised (such as assuming there was a certain amount of dust between the Sun and Mercury) but none were consistent with other observations (for example, no evidence of dust was found when the region between Mercury and the Sun was carefully scrutinized)...

In Newton's, Le Verrier's and Einstein's era, the evidence we now have for invisible "dust" called dark matter was non-existent. Today, to a large extent, we can almost be certain that in moving at 225km/s about our galactic centre, our sun is just a tiny speck being carried around and following the moving invisible "dust" called dark matter. It is also Newtonian that since this dust interacts gravitationally, its density will be many times enhanced in the sun's vicinity.

Question for 'Einsteiniana' apologies to Pentcho: Could that unseen mass, we now call dark matter be Planet Vulcan?

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 20:50 GMT
If calculations based on Newton's gravitational law give a wrong prediction, then either:

(A) the law is wrong and should be fixed

or:

(B) some mass is either unaccounted for or assumed to be in the wrong place

No third alternative exists except in Divine Albert's world where the problem is "solved" by changing and fudging equations.

Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud suggests that, in the perihelion of Mercury case, the apparent deviation from the Newtonian prediction is due to the non-spherical sun:

"En effet, des scientifiques soupçonnent que le Soleil pourrait ne pas être rigoureusement sphérique et un "aplatissement" réel introduirait une correction supplémentaire. La précision actuelle deviendrait alors le talon d'Achille compromettant le bel accord de la théorie."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 14, 2013 @ 14:43 GMT
References explaining how Einstein "predicted" the precession of Mercury's perihelion by changing and fudging equations:

Michel Janssen, "The Einstein-Besso Manuscript: A Glimpse Behind the Curtain of the Wizard"

Stéphane Foucart, "Einstein-Besso, duo pour un eurêka !"

"L'erreur d'Einstein (la deuxième)"

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 15:45 GMT
Logic in Divine Albert's World

"Emission theory (also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light) was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Emission theories obey the principle of relativity by having no preferred frame for light transmission, but say that light is emitted at speed "c" relative to its...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 17:14 GMT
Valev, if you actually read and understood any of the references you spam across these boards, you could have earned a PhD, maybe even three or four.

One of my favorites, Mitchell Feigenbaum, writes aside from your tendentious quoting: "In conclusion, it is important to know that the foundations of our present kinematics don't rely on the properties of light. Should light, photons, turn out to be composite, they must then acquire some mass. This could be true with 1/c^2 of relativity still being a limiting constant of Nature, but now without a palpable physical entity directly expressing it. There is no particle that innately is Plank's constant. It is perhaps worth recalling that the neutrino, crafted as two-component by virtue of its masslessness, seemed necessarily thereafter to be massless. But, it turns out to have a negligible, but very nonvanishing mass, so that it can no longer be conceived of as moving at c. Surprises are always possible, but they need not overturn, yet, Galileo's brilliant vision. They did so a century ago for Newton. Such is the pure world of human thought."

He is saying that if photons had mass, the speed of light constant would only apply in the limit of action on the Planck scale. Then relativity would be a far *stronger* principle in classical physics than it is now -- which should give you reason to be even more hysterical, if that's possible.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 27, 2013 @ 15:00 GMT
Doppler Refutes Einstein, Confirms Newton

A light source emits a series of pulses the distance between which is L (e.g. L=300000 km). A stationary observer measures the frequency of the pulses to be f, their speed to be c and the distance between them to be L:

f = c/L

Let the observer start moving with speed v relative to the source (v is small so that the relativistic corrections can be ignored). The moving observer measures the frequency of the pulses to be f'=f(1±v/c)=(c±v)/L, their speed to be c' and the distance between them to be L':

f' = c'/L'

The crucial questions are:

c' = ? ; L' = ?

Newton's emission theory of light gives a straightforward answer:

Newton's answer: c' = c±v ; L' = L

Einstein's special relativity says that c'=c but Einsteinians are usually silent about L'. Still f' and c' determine L' unequivocally:

Einstein's answer: c' = c ; L' = Lc/(c+v) when the observer moves towards the source ; L' = Lc/(c-v) when the observer moves away from the source.

Clearly Einstein's answer is absurd. Special relativity predicts a miraculous length contraction (which has nothing to do with the length contraction of the Lorentz transforms) when the observer starts moving towards the source and an equally miraculous length elongation when the observer starts moving away from the source.

Conclusion: The speed of light is c'=c±v, not c'=c.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 28, 2013 @ 21:35 GMT
Doppler Refutes Einstein, Confirms Newton II

A stationary light source emits a series of pulses the distance between which is L (e.g. L=300000 km). A stationary observer measures the frequency of the pulses to be f, their speed to be c and the distance between them to be L:

f = c/L

Let the source start moving with speed v relative to the observer (v is small so that the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


James A Putnam wrote on Oct. 28, 2013 @ 22:18 GMT
"In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity—the notion of "now"—is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation."

Newton was correct about time. There is a universal ticking clock. Its magnitude of 'tick' is not invisible. The 'tick' is already in use in physics equations. I introduced the 'tick' in my essay The Absoluteness of Time.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 15:45 GMT
Singularities in Divine Albert's and Big Brother's Worlds

For all waves (light waves included), when the observer starts moving towards the wave source with speed v, the speed of the wavecrests relative to him shifts from c to c'=c+v, and the frequency he measures shifts, accordingly, from f=c/L to f'=c'/L=(c+v)/L, where L is the wavelength.

In Divine Albert's world, when the observer starts moving towards the wave source with speed v, the speed of the wavecrests relative to him shifts from c to c'=c+v for all waves but light waves. For light waves the speed of the wavecrests relative to the observer does not shift at all and Einsteinians clearly see that c'=c, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. This singularity, c'=c, does not affect the frequency - even in Divine Albert's world, for all waves (light waves included), when the observer starts moving towards the wave source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L.

In Big Brother's world the singularity equivalent to c'=c is 2+2=5:

"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 22:00 GMT
The current rallying cry in Einsteiniana:

"Brothers Einsteinians, let's somehow get rid of the consequent, Einstein's idiotic concept of time, and preserve the antecedent, Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate!"

"Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to differ. (...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 1, 2013 @ 14:30 GMT
Fierce doublethink in Einsteiniana:

Lee Smolin, November 1, 2013: "I argue that temporal naturalism is empirically more adequate than the alternatives, because it offers testable explanations for puzzles its rivals cannot address, and is likely a better basis for solving major puzzles that presently face cosmology and physics. (...) Temporal naturalism assumes there is an object observer...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 2, 2013 @ 08:02 GMT
Pentcho,

I much resonate with Smolin's temporal naturalism. Thank you.

I just wonder; he wrote: "I am a Leibnizian, which I take to mean that I find the following of his principles to be very helpful to frame the search for a correct cosmological theory. ...

• Principle of reciprocity: if an element of nature, A, can influence change in an element B, the reverse must also be the case" and

"The principle of reciprocity was introduced by Einstein as part of the motivation for general relativity. I will widen its application to criticize the idea that laws of nature are immutable if they act to cause events to happen but in turn cannot be changed or modified by anything that happens inside the universe. However, note that I will allow an important exception to this principle as I will posit that the past influences the present and future, but the reverse is not true; no event in the past can be affected by anything that happens in its future."

Is reciprocity at all really a general principle introduced by Leibniz?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 2, 2013 @ 11:16 GMT
If Lee wants to change from Saul to Paul, I think he should be encouraged and helped on his way to Damascus...

If it is not late to ensure the $47500 grant comes out with something concrete answers to the questions below and not a nebulous conclusion. We should ask and know:

Whether there is any notion of a 'moment'?

Is there a shortest possible moment?

Is moment and...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 2, 2013 @ 14:06 GMT
" ... when you marry two things, Space and Time, against their will."

Nonsense. Space and time are one continuum, not two things.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 2, 2013 @ 14:34 GMT
" ... when you marry two things, Space and Time, against their will."

Thomas Howard Ray: "Nonsense. Space and time are one continuum, not two things."

Says who? Divine Albert? Minkowski?

"Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce. (...) Physicists of the 21st century therefore face the task of finding the true reality obscured by the spacetime mirage."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 2, 2013 @ 20:59 GMT
"Says who? Divine Albert? Minkowski?"

And the math. And the experimental results that correspond to it. And the rational science you and the rest should acquaint yourselves with.

report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Nov. 4, 2013 @ 09:42 GMT
A question for Einsteiniana and the 'crackpots' wanting to bring down the house:

Space-time around Earth is said to be curved by earth's gravity.

When Earth moves does it carry this curved space-time along with it or does it newly curve space-time in its new position, while the formerly curved space-time left behind becomes uncurved?

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 4, 2013 @ 12:42 GMT
Akinbo,

Think on Wheeler's informal description: "Space tell mass how to move; mass tells space how to bend."

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Nov. 4, 2013 @ 13:51 GMT
Tom,

Very apt. Out of the two, who tells Time how to run and out of the three who speaks first? That is is there a cause and effect?

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Nov. 4, 2013 @ 17:29 GMT
Akinbo,

What would space be, if it had no physical features to bend, limit, or move it? It would have two characteristics; One, lacking bounds, it would be infinite. Two; lacking motion, it would be inert.

Now what are the main characteristics of the matter and energy occupying space? Energy expands out, to infinity, or the closest it has potential. Matter balances energy into increasingly inert formations. So these two features of space set the parameters of what occupies it. Now neither reaches these goals, but ultimately what stops them is the cycle back in the other direction. Energy eventually becomes so diffuse, it becomes just background radiation, likely eventually coalescing into elemental forms of intergalactic gases, while mass is continually breaking down in its effort to become ever more dense and stable, thus radiating back out and what does fall into the center of galaxies, appears to be ejected across the cosmos as jets of cosmic rays, seeding other processes.

Time and temperature are just measures of change and microscopic kinetic energy.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 13, 2013 @ 08:39 GMT
"Nature ... is indifferent to the distinction [between past and future]"?? This statement by Tom distinguishes mathematical physics from real-time physics.

Tom himself also wrote: Nature is not engineered. Isn't the common notion of time a mental construct as also are for instance Georg C's naive set theory and spacetime? Engineers know that their creations must never be believed identical with nature. The< may at best try to reverse-engineer it in the sense of approximating some selected properties. Strictly speaking, virtual reality cannot truly be animated.

Future time cannot be measured in advance, not even in principle. That's in what I consider Tom Ray and Albert Einstein fundamentally wrong. At least the late latter admitted being seriously worried.

I would like to ask those who resort to the stupid excuse that the distinction between past and future may be an illusion or may be a matter of perception:

How can physiology explain such speculations? Isn't it obvious that future processes cannot act back on the past. There are traces from processes that are much older than I or even mankind can remember. Traces in reality do definitely belong to the past. Tom simply lacks awareness that his theoretical perspective, where time can be shifted at will, is not his own actual one.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 13, 2013 @ 11:04 GMT
""Nature ... is indifferent to the distinction [between past and future]"?? This statement by Tom distinguishes mathematical physics from real-time physics."

Sorry to inform you that real time physics is also mathematical.

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 13, 2013 @ 12:03 GMT
"Tom simply lacks awareness that his theoretical perspective ..."

Eckard, naive realism is attractive to those like you and Pentcho and John and James who only wish to have their personal sensory experience validated by others whom they hope share that experience. You all end up arguing with one another over the "real" experience, which should be "obvious" to anyone.

Physics isn't about my awareness or yours, however. It is about that theoretical perspective that allows objective knowledge, which is our only truly shared experience. It is anything but obvious.

report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Nov. 13, 2013 @ 13:38 GMT
Tom,

You still do not understand what it is that I do:

"...and James who only wish to have their personal sensory experience validated by others whom they hope share that experience."

Your choice of the words "personal sensory experience" instead of "empirical evidence" is inaccurate.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Nov. 14, 2013 @ 10:35 GMT
I suggest as has been done before that before making any mention of "Time" that all reflect on J.C.N. Smith's advice on this blog on Apr.8, 2011 @ 13:04 GMT and his article which I just read. Reflecting on this may reduce argument on the topic as we will be clear what it is exactly we are all talking about.

To quote one paragraph, "...It is important at the outset to recognize and, insofar as possible, to “internalize” the notion that the configuration of the universe does not change as a result of time advancing; rather, time changes (as we say, “advances”) because the configuration of the universe changes. The importance of grasping this subtle, admittedly perhaps counterintuitive, distinction can hardly be overstated in terms of furthering our understanding of time. Failure fully to comprehend and appreciate it has led, I believe, to many unfortunate intellectual detours and cul-de-sacs over the course of history. The evolution of the physical universe is what we perceive as the flow of time. [2] If the configuration of the universe did not change there would be no flow of time.".

The question for Smith and others is: How many configurations can the universe change into? What makes the configuration of the universe to change? Is this in obedience to some law? Noting that configuration of a system can be mathematically given a meaning in the form of S = k logW, is the second law of thermodynamics, dS = dE/T the law related to these questions?

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Nov. 15, 2013 @ 22:49 GMT
Akinbo,

Having discussed it with JCN and our seeming agreement, one way to think of this is that rather then time being the present 'moving' from past to future, it is the changing configuration of what is, that turns future into past. For example, it's not the earth traveling some dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, but tomorrow becoming yesterday because the earth rotates.

As energy is presumably ultimately conserved, it just keeps changing, since it is the nature of energy to act. Keep in mind that the second law refers to a closed system, but if the universe is infinite, then any energy radiated from one area moves to another and any area is surrounded by others radiating energy toward it. Energy naturally coalesces as positive and negative attract, but this leaves a vacuum of empty space, which then attracts surrounding energy, pulling on those particles...

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 16, 2013 @ 18:08 GMT
Akinbo, John M,

Do we really need to know the reason why a reason precedes its effect? Sorry John, I dislike your statement that tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. Why should just the motion of our earth something that rules the whole universe? According to current knowledge the rotation of earth does not provide the most accurate measure of a timespan.

Akinbo, in that you are certainly quite right: As did JCN Smith in the paper you pointed to (BTW: It was easily available to me after I corrected the link), one has to distinguish between what he called "the notion of a particular time and the notion of elapsed time". Smith already understands that only the latter is measurable. I am trying to convince you all that the usual alias particular time was created by abstraction, reversal, and continuation of the positive by definition elapsed time.

I even appreciate Tom's as fierce as helpless resistance against any distinction between past and future. He tries to defend a position that is intrinsically linked with Einstein's special relativity and Minkowski's spacetime. Tom is correct in that the currently tense-less physics contradicts to the inclusion of the now into it. Such consequence seems to be missing in papers by George Ellis as well as JNC Smith and even in some of your utterances.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Nov. 16, 2013 @ 19:30 GMT
Eckard,

I only use that as an example of how we perceive time, vs. how it is caused.

On a related aspect, consider how civilization has altered the length of the month, from the natural cycles of the moon, to units of the year. It is a consequence of our desire to universalize and synchronize the passage and measures of time, yet it further divorces it from the underlaying basis on all the various motions and actions.

It's bit like how we have to synchronize our lives to those around us and our environment, in order to function. Think how jet lag throws off that biological clock. Not to mention trying to function in another society that has other views on time. Consider how much our religious and political traditions are a function of narrative. It has been my impression that monotheistic cultures have a much more linear concept of time, while eastern cultures have a much more cyclical concept of time.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate