Search FQXi


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

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

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Shaikh Raisuddin: on 5/31/17 at 9:07am UTC, wrote TIME IS MEASURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS ...

John R. Cox: on 6/7/13 at 17:43pm UTC, wrote While reading in recent years about the conundrum of 'dark energy' it...

Eckard Blumschein: on 8/10/11 at 22:01pm UTC, wrote Dear Pentcho, Thank you for your hint to Gift. While I am not familiar...

Pentcho Valev: on 8/10/11 at 14:51pm UTC, wrote Eckard Blumschein wrote: "Hence the first premise is untenable. Yes, if...

Author/expert Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 8/9/11 at 19:50pm UTC, wrote The key is distance in/of space as it relates to the consequences of...

Anonymous: on 7/30/11 at 10:47am UTC, wrote The central question is whether there is 4D. And there is not. I will give...

JOE BLOGS: on 7/29/11 at 9:46am UTC, wrote Lets chat. https://www.sendthisfile.com/Dsi1UcAS1T4nqej4a0zxk1TB My clock...

Alberto Gómez Corona: on 7/22/11 at 14:03pm UTC, wrote "Arrow of time determined by life´s easier direction for computation in...



FQXi FORUM
November 25, 2017

ARTICLE: Evolving Time's Arrow [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Dan T Benedict wrote on May. 9, 2011 @ 21:53 GMT
Anil,

The question: "Could the story of the cosmos have been told sideways rather than from past to future?" is meaningless. We are able to look at the history of the universe only diagonally, since the information that we receive is always tied to both the distance and time of the emitting object. We can only make mostly vague inferences for the states (past, in the spatially present, and future) of all objects in the universe at any specified time other than the time of observation. Unless Craig Callender possesses some omnipotent power, how is he going to get the data he needs for his construction, let alone evolution, of the east-west slice? And, how does he propose to vary time only, without varying space as well?

Dan

report post as inappropriate

Dan T Benedict replied on May. 9, 2011 @ 22:24 GMT
I suppose he could vary "time only" if he was proposing supercomputer simulations similar to those of Carlos Frenk, etc. But, since Craig is a philosopher, I not exactly sure what he's proposing.

report post as inappropriate


J.C.N. Smith wrote on May. 9, 2011 @ 22:03 GMT
At the risk of being seen as "old-fashioned" and/or of belaboring what should be obvious, it is worthwhile at the outset of this (or any) discussion to ensure that all participants in the discussion share a common understanding of the terminology involved. So would it be correct to assume that the definition of time being used in this article is the so-called "operational definition of time," i.e., "time is that which is measured by clocks"? And, if so, would it be correct to further assume that a clock is defined as being "a device which measures time"?

If so, let the discussion proceed. If not, please clarify how the terms being discussed in this article differ from the above. Thank you.

Please note that what we refer to as "the flow of time" is nothing more and nothing less than the evolution of the physical universe, as discussed further here and here. This view of the flow of time goes a long way toward explaining the various "arrows" of time.

Regards,

jcns

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on May. 9, 2011 @ 22:08 GMT
There is an excellent and almost sufficient book by Zeh on the arrow of time, not in time. "Almost" refers to what I consider the necessary blunt rejection of the belief which was uttered not just in the mentioned letter of condolence.

Claude Shannon expressed more clearly what is wrong with anticipatory tense-less physics: While the past is known, in principle, but can definitely not be changed, the future can be influenced, in principle, but not for sure be predicted.

I do not see this distinction attributable to subjective perception. There are objectively no traces of future events. If we restrict to physics, i.e. to the consideration of measurable data, then there is of course no genuine symmetry and not even asymmetry but a clear-cut one-sidedness. In reality, there is no negative elapsed time, as also is no negative spatial distance.

I do not expect anything of value from Craig Callender's effort as long as he is not ready to accept that the usual notion of time is just an extended abstraction from the unilateral scale of already measurable traces.

On the origin of apparent symmetry I wrote an IEEE paper and three FQXi-essays.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Roy Johnstone wrote on May. 10, 2011 @ 03:15 GMT
I agree with Eckard & J.C.N.

What we call time is generally considered to be that which we measure with clocks, that is, regular physical processes, evolving configurations. The thermodynamic "arrow" is due to the physical laws which enable this motion combined with statistical mechanics (entropy), as per Boltzmann. The causal arrow is I believe due once again to the physical laws , which enable "events" to take place, combined with the constraint of the absolute speed of light.

The end result of the above is that we can only observe processes occurring as governed by the laws of nature in a particular order, including the thermodynamic "statistical" order in a lorentz frame structure. This has nothing to do with a separate entity called "time". I feel that too many people draw a direct correlation between entropy and "time", an example being Sean Carroll in his recent book "From Eternity To Here". If we saw an apple falling upward to re-attach to the tree, we would think it very strange, but we would not think that time was going in reverse. There are many examples of entropy reversing/decreasing due to gravity for instance. I believe that when considered globally, the formation of a star is an entropy lowering process. We would not consider time to be *running backward* when we observed this process!

If an observer were able to "freeze" the universe while remaining conscious, the observer's "psychological arrow" would still give the sense of "duration" and "moving present" due to brain processes, whilst the frozen universe would appear "timeless" only in the sense that there would be no means to "measure" a "time" interval. I believe it is more helpful to think of what we call time as being emergent from these underlying processes purely as a way of " measuring" them, in the same way that temperature "measures" kinetic energy but is not itself fundamental.

Viewed in this way "time" can be thought of as actually being "energy potential" when talking about time operators in our theories and a "magnitude of change" when measured by clocks.

Roy

report post as inappropriate

B^2 replied on May. 10, 2011 @ 06:30 GMT
"If we saw an apple falling upward to re-attach to the tree, we would think it very strange, but we would not think that time was going in reverse. There are many examples of entropy reversing/decreasing due to gravity for instance."

If you are considering a closed system then you could expend energy to decrease the system's entropy, however, the universe would still have a net gain of entropy increase.

report post as inappropriate

Roy Johnstone replied on May. 10, 2011 @ 10:58 GMT
"If you are considering a closed system then you could expend energy to decrease the system's entropy, however, the universe would still have a net gain of entropy increase."

The point is though, that the reversal of entropy does not mean a reversal of "time" and the example of the apple is a reversal in the *order* of physical processes not of "time", as we could just as well calibrate our clocks by regular processes where gravity is repulsive for instance.

Your statement I think refers to the "Maxwell's Demon" principle where the energy expended to decrease entropy (or it's information content), must be accounted for as additional entropy and that is right. I don't think that applies in the case of gravity however if you consider the "closed system" to be the universe. Gravitational fields are considered to contain negative energy, hence the cosmic energy equation of state E = 0. When gravity acts to form a star I view that *cosmically* as a lower entropy macrostate. (Which contains the most useful energy that can "do work", the star or the hydrogen gas cloud that formed it?). The energy required to increase the entropy or restore the cosmic entropy number is stored in the star and is slowly radiated back out and eventually fully returned by supernova for example.

I guess it depends on your definition of information and how you quantify the energy content of gravitational fields. Black holes are a whole other case!!

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 10, 2011 @ 05:33 GMT
Callender clearly rejects special relativity's conclusions concerning time but these conclusions are RIGOROUSLY DEDUCED from two premises: the principle of relativity and the principle of constancy of the speed of light. If the approach is honest, rejecting the conclusion leads to hinting (at least) at the false premise.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 10, 2011 @ 16:00 GMT
The fallacy is indeed not very obvious. As a schoolboy I was cheated by the teacher who explained Galilei's flawless principle of relativity and attributed it to Einstein. Most textbooks derive the Lorentz transformation from postulated equivalence of all inertial reference frames. Actually, Poincaré's LT predates what Einstein in 1905 on p. 891 called "principle of relativity".

Seemingly a shift in time must not matter. So called laws of physics remain apparently unchanged. I came to the insight that this invariance only holds on the level of abstracted and extrapolated time scale. This usual notion of time must not be confused with the already elapsed time of reality. The latter has peculiarities: It cannot at all be shifted at will, and it only excludes the past. The usual notion of time is in this respect unphysical, and Poincarè's round-trip synchronization includes something that does not yet exist at the moment of consideration.

Hence the first premise is untenable. Yes, if Callender is honest then he has to hint at the false premise.

By the way, mathematicians also considered Cantor's naive set theory rigorously deduced, and Hilbert fought for this belief in a paradise by replacing it with the method of axioms which were ambiguously enough designed as to hide Cantor's mistake and avoid obvious paradoxes.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 10, 2011 @ 14:51 GMT
Eckard Blumschein wrote: "Hence the first premise is untenable. Yes, if Callender is honest then he has to hint at the false premise."

The second premise (Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate) is untenable:

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/artic
le/download/10410/7432

Applied Physics Research Vol. 3, No. 1; May 2011, One-Way Light Speed Determination Using the Range Measurement Equation of the GPS, Stephan J. G. Gift

"In particular the one-way determination of light speed using the range measurement equation of the GPS establishes in (7) that a signal sent eastward travels at speed c minus the rotational speed of the Earth v at that latitude giving c - v. The GPS data also shows in (13) that a signal sent westward travels at speed c plus the rotational speed of the Earth v at that latitude giving c plus v."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 10, 2011 @ 22:01 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

Thank you for your hint to Gift. While I am not familiar with the matter and he did not give error bars, the values 14ns for the distance NY SF and 207ns around the equator might be realistic. Doesn't the ECI frame move during the light travel by several meters? So the c+v westward and the c-v eastward correspond to smaller and enlarged, respectively distances. This reminds me of Foucault's 1852 pendulum. Incidentally Foucault was also the first one who measured c by means of mirrors.

Following Maxwell's theory of light as an electromagnetic wave and in agreement with Van Flandern, I see the GPS data rather a confirmation of c as the speed of light but at odds with SR. I read several books on SR. We cannot deny that high energy accelerator experiments confirmed c as a limit which is to be expected for waves. So I am naively ready to accept electrons as waves but not SR as correct.

Electrodynamics is obviously not covariant under Galilei transform. Incidentally, as Schroeder wrote, Michelson said to Einstein in 1931, he regrets that his work gave rise to the monster of Einstein's theory of relativity (G. Holton, Am. J. Phys. 37,968(1969)

Perhaps, SR cannot be rescued unless one restricts the consideration to closed systems that are free of uncertain or unseen influences which I consider the essence of reality in contrast to theory. This explains why Einstein necessarily admitted to Popper sharing the (abstruse) philosophy of Parmenides, and why he, Hilbert, and others denied any role of the now and even of the arrow of time. Science is still suffering from this implication.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on May. 10, 2011 @ 07:10 GMT
This gravity probe B

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-gravity-probe-einstein-t
heories.html

proves following:

-cosmic space is 3D - because all the angles are measured in three directions X,Y,Z

-cosmic space has granular structure - frame dragging

outcome is that time we measure with clocks cannot be the 4th dimension of space:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dim
ension.html

report post as inappropriate


B^2 wrote on May. 10, 2011 @ 07:19 GMT
The human brain has evolved a frontal lobe which is what allows us to care about the future. Most other life only reacts to the stimulus in the present moment. I would like to see a physicist or philosophers take on entropy/fitness.

report post as inappropriate


Roy Johnstone wrote on May. 10, 2011 @ 10:27 GMT
I don't think Callander "rejects special relativity's conclusions", only the "block universe" interpretation of them, quite rightly too in my opinion. It is possible to formulate a relativistic spacetime model which evolves. Two notable attempts are George Ellis's "Evolving Block Universe" (which I think is a misnomer and a mistake to use the word "block", perhaps a better word might be "hypersurface"?) and Joy Christian's "Relative Becoming" model. These have the nice advantage of allowing free will also!

report post as inappropriate

J.C.N. Smith replied on May. 10, 2011 @ 12:06 GMT
"If physics can explain how a causal arrow of time emerges, then biology will do the rest, says Callender."

If the flow of time is viewed (correctly, in my opinion) as being nothing more and nothing less than the evolution of the physical universe (an evolution which is governed by rules that we strive to understand and which we refer to as the laws of physics), then there is no way for "a causal arrow of time" *not* to emerge!

jcns

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 11, 2011 @ 08:20 GMT
Dear Roy,

Can a reform of SR and spacetime overcome all paradoxes? To me, the wording Evolving Block Universe by George Ellis illustrates the calamity. It sounds to me like a cruciader in his burka or like communist free market economy. Did Joy Cristian's attempt resolve the problems? Will Lee Smolin achieve the impossible?

I would rather prefer a honest clarification on the fundamental level, no matter what hurting implications are to be expected. When Hilbert defended Cantor's paradise against Brouwer, he also warned of a huge heap of rubble. This was exaggerated.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on May. 10, 2011 @ 22:13 GMT
time arrow has no physical existence, time does not point anywhere, time is a numerical order of change

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on May. 11, 2011 @ 00:03 GMT
There is a bit of confusion apparent. There are a number of ways of looking at this. Group theory is a good way of looking at this. Relativity is given by the group SO(3,1), which is a set of transformations that can be thought of as rotations. The group SO(3) describes the set of rotations in three dimensional space. The group SO(3,1) has this indefinite metric, where the one separated by a comma reflects the pseudo-Euclidean metric. This group can be decomposed into SU(2)xSU(1,1). SU(2) is related to SO(3) by a double cover, and is a set of elliptical rotations. SU(1,1) is a hyperbolic variant of SU(2). SU(2) contains 3 rotational matrices (often represented by Pauli matrices) and these are pure spatial rotations. SU(1,1) has 3 elements which correspond to Lorenz boosts.

If we think of pushing a spatial manifold in time this can be thought of changing elements that transform under group SU(2) according to elements which construct time and the hyperbolic SU(1,1). We may similarly think of trying to transform a manifold with two spatial dimensions and one of time according to the SU(2) elements. This will result in a noncommutative algebra. This is then equivalent to saying that pushing a slice of space through time is different from pushing a 3-dimensional spacetime through a spatial distance.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on May. 11, 2011 @ 11:39 GMT
Lawrence,

What an excellent, clear and wonderfully concise description of spacetime geometry.

My own model turns the kinematic on its head. That is, instead of assuming that space coordinates construct time, I assume without loss of generality that the time metric constructs space. Then the pseudo-Euclidean metric of SO(3,1) by analytic continuation over n-dimension Euclidean manifolds (n-dimension sphere kissing) accounts for non-commutativity of the metric in d >= 3 -- while preserving classical time reverse symmetry. (For dimensions < 4, we need the complete C* algebra.)

This works all the way from the hyperbolic 2 dimension manifold SU(2) where string theory lives, through n dimensions. It has an important added advantage: because all even dimension spacetimes reduce to 0 + 1, we have the smooth extension of general relativity to n dimensions. Einstein's model -- being finite in time and unbounded in space -- becomes finite in space and unbounded in time, without sacrificing any of the physics we know, and without introducing superfluous assumptions.

I then show from this result, that gravity is entropic over n dimensions, and that our 4 dimension horizon is equivalent to the 10 dimension (9 + 1) limit, due to information loss.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

J.C.N. Smith replied on May. 11, 2011 @ 13:38 GMT
LC and Tom,

Would it be possible for either (or both) of you to express your ideas about space and time in non-mathematical terms? How do your ideas relate to the human experience of time and space?

In a post in another FQXi blog (Breaking the Universe's Speed Limit) LC wrote: "A[s] for block time being contrary to human experience or intution, those do not really count for much. The non-block time is just a system of spatial geometries which are related to each other by a diffeomorphism group. The notion of time is actually somewhat lost in this picture."

To which I replied: "Regarding whether human experience and intuition count for much, I simultaneously agree with you and disagree with you. Certainly, everyone must agree that human experience and intuition have proven to be extremely fallible. This fact is perfectly illustrated by the pre-Copernican belief that the sun revolves around the Earth.

On the other hand, however, human experience and intuition must count for something, because our empirical observations comprise the very bedrock foundation of science! If we dismiss empirical observations as unimportant (not really counting for much), then what are we left with as the basis for doing science?"

So how do your views of time and space relate to empirical observations which we humans might make, fallible though such observations might be? Which is simply another way of asking, how can we test your concepts experimentally? Are they falsifiable? If so, how?

Thank you.

jcns

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on May. 11, 2011 @ 17:05 GMT
jcns,

I'll try, though I don't think (and I expect Lawrence will agree) that one can fully appreciate spacetime dynamics without understanding the mathematics. As Lawrence notes, there is more than one way to write the equations that lead to the same physics. We choose our models for their ability to explain current phenomena and to make additional novel predictions.



Classical physics is the domain of human experience. Even our quantum mechanical experiments are designed within classical parameters. What we've learned over the past three centuries or so, though, is that not even classical results are intutive. For example, one cannot intutively connect the falling of an apple from a tree with the falling of the moon toward the Earth without Newtonian mechanics. Even Galilean physics (as I discovered to my surprise recently, by the varied responses to a simple projectile problem) is not immediately intuitive even among people who should know better.

What all classical physics has in common is the mathematics of continuous functions. In other words, Newton's apple does not stop falling at the Earth's surface, but continues falling in principle -- just as the moon's orbit is continuous. Continuous functions are evident to the limit of classical physics, i.e., relativity.

Most of what we know of physics, objectively, is counterintuitive. Lawrence is quite correct that human experience and intuition play an insignificant role.

Quantum mechanical functions are algebraic, i.e., discrete. The basis is the analysis of probabilistic quantum events in a Hilbert space, which means a complex model -- because quantum mechanics does not allow space collapsed to a point (singularity), and the complex plane is fundamentally two-dimensional.

So far as experimental results go, and remembering that all are designed within classical parameters -- I offered a quasi-classical model in my FQXi 2008 essay ("Time counts") in which I constructed a complex analog to Kepler's second law. Because it is based on the (non) conservation of angular momentum using escape velocities between gravitating classical bodies, if each point of spacetime is characterized by a unique escape velocity (it is), the principle is already experimentally verified. What the mathematics shows is a very slight loss of information among bodies.

Point is, to get to these models where Lawrence among others can speak of group theory and noncommutative algebra to model physical phenomena, we have to go through what we know about the classical and quantum worlds and then follow the path where it leads without contradicting previous results. Intuition isn't much help.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 11, 2011 @ 07:41 GMT
Eckard Blumschein wrote: "Yes, if Callender is honest then he has to hint at the false premise."

Impossible. George Orwell calls this "crimestop":

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. 11, 2011 @ 14:29 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

It took centuries for the Vatican to rehabilitate Galileo Galilei who had to recant relativity. I hope the community of physicists will able to eventually admit the correctness of his following insights:

- Salviati: The relations smaller, equal to, and larger do not hold for entities of infinite quantities.

In other words, infinity is a property, not an exhaustible quantity.

Accordingly we may distinguish between potentially infinite and actually uncountable, but Cantor's cardinality has no logical basis. Already aleph_2 has proven nonsense without any application.

- Galileo Galilei made a careful study of the laws of falling objects. He realized that the velocity of any object relates to a chosen point of reference. Galilei as well as Newton, who was born in the year 1642 when Galilei died, assumed the space unchanging and the universe like a big clock. The belonging addition of velocities and ubiquitous synchronism of remote processes are foundational in technology.

So called relativism has been based on the not always appropriate suggestion to synchronize remote clocks A and B by means of a round-trip measurement. This works well as long as there is no motion between clock A and clock B because in this case the measurement is subject to the Doppler effect to be considered. Poincarè's round-trip method averages the past and the future (with respect to the moment of reflection) time of flight. As a first resulting paradox, the Lorentz transformation is independent of the sign of velocity.

I see stupidity behind the reasoning of those who were misled to ignore Galilei. Many mathematician from Dedekind and Cantor to Cohen agreed on that there must be more real than rational numbers because the latter are a subset of the reals. Most physicists were not ready to accept that the Michelson-Morley did not confirm the existence of an ether.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Re_Ality (Facebook) wrote on May. 11, 2011 @ 08:21 GMT
The question as to why the 'arrow of time' is one directional is very easy to answer, if one understands what reality and 'time' actually is, which I would suggest is a very good start point.

Since light travels at a speed that does not vary from one wave to the next, then each state of any given entity, can only be seen (by human and non-human)in the sequence of change in which it occurred. Otherwise you would see flowers blooming before the buds had formed, etc. This statement works for any medium that coneys experiential information to our senses. It also works if the speed of light has changed historically (that just makes calculation of the original state manifested in the observation a lot more difficult). Our sense of 'time' is actually a perception of real change. And yes we have instigated a man-made measuring system called time, but don't let that confuse the underlying issue, which is about change in reality.

Paul Reed

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on May. 11, 2011 @ 19:26 GMT
Time is an epiphenomenon of change

Change is the fundamental property of material world. Time that we measure with clocks is the numerical order of change, i.e. motion in space. In physical world time exists as the numerical order of change in space. In physics time is a mathematical dimension used for description of change in material world. It is an utter misunderstanding to think time is part of space and change run in time. On the contrary: time is an epiphenomena of change, time we measure with clocks is the numerical order of change.

report post as inappropriate

Re Ality (Facebook) replied on May. 12, 2011 @ 08:59 GMT
Amrit

Correct, just about.

Love the word epiphenomenon, the best I could come up with was conceptualisation.

Paul Reed

report post as inappropriate


Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on May. 12, 2011 @ 22:03 GMT
How about:

Physical causality only operates in one temporal direction: crack the egg, mix it up with a bit of milk, cook it, eat it.

It can NEVER go the other way.

Wait for an eternity - the eggs won't unscramble.

Thus, the direction of physical causality defines the temporal order.

End of story.

Robert L. Oldershaw

...//www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Discrete Scale Relativity; Fractal Cosmology

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 13, 2011 @ 07:20 GMT
Dear Robert Oldershaw,

Yes, there is no reason to doubt that in any PROcess time lapses from cause to effect.

You quoted Galileo Galilei who mentioned "honest reasoning". Doesn't such honesty demand to realize that a tense-less physics with symmetry between past and future cannot be correct?

I didn't expect you supporting Einsteinian relativity. Having looked at your paper on "Discrete Scale Relativity", which exclusively refers to General Relativity, I do not exclude that you are aware of the intrinsic link between the tacit denial of the arrow of causality in SR and the usual notion of spacetime while the GR might be nonetheless justified to some extent.

When I was a schoolboy, I was told that SR might be correct while GR is questionable. Could it be the other way round?

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 16, 2011 @ 22:48 GMT
Dear Robert Oldershaw,

Did you overlook my question? I am curious.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on May. 15, 2011 @ 04:15 GMT
2011-05-14

Time does exist and is a local property as can be seen by the GPS corrections required to match satellites and Earth’s time rates..

I met Callender in 2004 ( http://www.spacetimesociety.org/conferences/2004/attendees.h
tml ) at the (first) spacetime conference in Montreal. His presentation was much about the biophysical perception of time as an argument against real time. I think it was the usual mix-up between two different domains. We judge all things by what we believe to be true. But unless one defines what truth means, this judgement is or can be really wrong. Truth is an absence of choice. Since we have no choice but to experience time in our reality ... it is true! Past, present and future is our lot. But physics shows us a bit of what the underlying universe is really like. And it is true for the underlying reality. Why do we always feel compelled to compare the truths of our very subjective reality with the truths that physics gives us about the underlying reality? They are two different and non-comparable domains! There is no need for comparison and there is no comparison possible.

Craig is doing physics to answer philosophical questions. He is not about to get a straight answer...

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 15, 2011 @ 08:18 GMT
Marcel,

Craig wrote: "There is no special now, just as there’s no special here."

The reason for me to deal with time was a practical one. What you are calling physics is obviously rather awkward if compared with audition. Should we really absolutely deny a better physics? I prefer purifying mathematical foundations of physics from inappropriate ontology. Let me claim: Physics must obey causal thinking in terms of here and now.

While negative distance is unconceivable we must not infer that imaginary numbers are useless. On the contrary, they are often superior. However, every scientist should know how to correctly interpret mathematics. I see a main mistake in the assumption of closed systems. We are not forced to believe in Gods, the Big Bang, Spacetime, Aleph_2, Quantum Computing, Antiworlds, etc.

We might be better off humbly accepting that there are several questions that cannot be reasonably answered at least for now. Let's rather listen to the way we listen and not shy back from logical consequences.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on May. 15, 2011 @ 16:59 GMT
To Tom and Lawrence,

What do you perceive to be "intuition?"

It seems to me that while your understanding of math might be 21st century, your understanding of neurology is not. Intuition is simply that store of non-linear knowledge our minds can access without having to consciously consider it. I suspect you both have great stores of knowledge which frame your understanding of the world. That is your intuition. Someone in another profession, or another time would have different stores of knowledge and so would have different responses to new situations, or information.

Basically what you are saying is that anyone who does not share your understanding of reality is naive and shallow, but that's okay, because they just don't know how dumb they are.

I live in Baltimore, which is home to Johns Hopkins University, a prominent medical school, as well as being notable in other fields. Occasionally the local public radio station invites faculty on to discuss their areas of expertise. Some years ago the host had a neurologist on, discussing the mind/brain relationship. I happened to have the time to call and made the point I frequently make here about time. I described it by saying that if you have two physical objects and they hit each other, it creates an event. While the objects go from past events to future ones, the events go from being in the future to being in the past. The relationship between the brain and the mind is that while the brain is a physical object that goes from past events to future ones, the mind is a record of these events which are going in the opposite direction. His immediate response was, "That's deep." Then he started to launch into a description of how physics explains time as part of four dimensional spacetime. At which point the host cut us both off and went onto the next caller.

I suppose that by your reckoning, this neurologist's initial response would be "naive intuition."

My problem is; Why does the discipline of physics have the right to totally dominate the discussion of the nature of reality, insisting the rest of us are basically dumb, then project these vaunted "non-intuitive" mathematical models into multiworlds, wormholes, m theory, inflationary cosmology, multiverses and various other nonsense? Then if anyone questions what they are doing, the response is some form of, "Well, you just don't understand the math. Here, take this conceptual Rubik's Cube and when you figure it out, then you have the right to discuss reality."

Not to be rude, but to paraphrase the French anti-establishment economics, it's "Autistic Physics."

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on May. 15, 2011 @ 17:59 GMT
"Why does the discipline of physics have the right to totally dominate the discussion of the nature of reality ... "

Why would one come to a physics site to try and argue that it doesn't?

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on May. 16, 2011 @ 04:44 GMT
Tom,

I suppose I could have worded that a little more effectively. Though I don't suppose I have to explain my thoughts on the subject to you, as you are likely aware of my views.

That is a rather selective observation though. Does physics describe reality as effectively as possible, or have various schools of thought monopolized the conversation to the point that any idea which supports their models, no matter how outlandish, are considered valid proposals. While any idea which questions those models, no matter how rational, is considered quackery?

If evidence of galaxies at least as old as the presumed age of the universe, 13.7 billion years, was discovered, would you be more likely to consider the possibility of fundamental flaws in the entire concept of a temporally finite universe, or would you accept whatever conceptual patch is applied to this "anomaly" as a viable solution?

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on May. 16, 2011 @ 10:35 GMT
John,

If you're right, why do you care who considers it "quackery?"

Rational, as in scientific rationalism, is another matter. The models you criticize have exact correspondence to physical phenomena (not necessarily 1 to 1 correspondence as a wholly deterministic theory requires) and so are rational, whether you understand the correspondence or not. It is not rational to imply that such models are merely "conceptual patches."

I don't know why you ask _me_ about the possibility of a temporally finite universe being an incomplete model. I've already rigorously argued that Einstein's finite but unbounded (finite in time and unbounded in space) model can be extended to one that is finite in space and unbounded in time. Galaxies more distant than the present esitmated age would not falsify the theory, however.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 16, 2011 @ 05:44 GMT
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-time-an-
illusion

Craig Callender in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: "Einstein mounted the next assault by doing away with the idea of absolute simultaneity. According to his special theory of relativity, what events are happening at the same time depends on how fast you are going. The true arena of events is not time or space, but their union: spacetime. Two observers moving at different velocities disagree on when and where an event occurs, but they agree on its spacetime location. Space and time are secondary concepts that, as mathematician Hermann Minkowski, who had been one of Einstein's university professors, famously declared, "are doomed to fade away into mere shadows." And things only get worse in 1915 with Einstein's general theory of relativity..."

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

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on May. 16, 2011 @ 15:59 GMT
Absolute simutaneity cannot exist in our 4-d relativistc universe, the principle of relativity in our causal deterministic universe is in my opinion still standing, in my essay "Realities out of Total Simultaneity" I am proposing that in a NON causal dimension (after Planck length and time) there is an absolute simultaneity of all possible moments and places from where our diverse "world lines" are esthablished by our consciousness.

Regarding the velocity of light : the "local" speed of light will always be c, but the speed of light can and will exeed c when it is in another locality, for example after the Hubble horizon the velocity of galaxies that speed away from us will be greater (much) as c.There are galaxies that are having a redshift of 1,5, this means that they move away from us at the speed of light, the cosmic background radiation has a redshift of about 1100 !, which means that "we" move away from the point of the early hot plasma at the speed of 50 times c.

Furthermore SR is appliccable for objects that move in space, not for space itself ,

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate


Michael Jeub wrote on May. 17, 2011 @ 04:03 GMT
If the hertz is cycles per time, time per cycle some wavelength. Mr. Callender will explore what that experimental wavelength is to various interpreters. If this length is off by 120 orders of magnitude or whatever in the total expansion of space as we may know it, then certainly some valuations of what that length will fall off the traditional relativistic order of time in Lorentian-Minkowsy iso-spin space and stuff. As pertaining to kinship, I value the beginnings which have mystified me: the now that was. The baggage along time's wayside is undervalued, so I hope that the experiment fails in this extension to kinship. Long term evolution and inheritance are drivers that shape and maximize the footprint of the future.

Here's another related idea. What does it mean for an investment or security to "mature"? It must mean to follow some life cycle without being recharged or reinvested, but there are so many ways of resecuritizing and recapitalizing that one loses the small incoate pieces from which the thing sprang. So everything ends in the future with maturity of some asset, but the engendering of that future vector looks back to its first expressions, and not narrowly to kin. We, by ourselves, be befriended, as someone once told me and I have not forgotten.

In computing, there are signed and unsigned variables. We need both for our clocks to sync and pulse, so it should be with the pointers to past and future. In each case there is a reset marker.

Congratulations on the grant, Mr. Callender.

Michael Jeub

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 17, 2011 @ 15:14 GMT
Michael Jeub, You wrote: "In computing, there are signed and unsigned variables. We need both for our clocks to sync and pulse, so it should be with the pointers to past and future. In each case there is a reset marker."

In case of computing on the level of abstraction, you were correct and able to support Callender. However, analog as well as real-time computing are bound to reality, and that's why they do not in principle need negative elapsed time. Even if Strauss-Kahn, Berlusconi, etc. might desire a reset button. It is not available.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 17, 2011 @ 08:31 GMT
http://www.fqxi.org/grants/large/awardees/view/__details/201
0/callender

Craig Callender: "Physics sees time as like space."

Physics does not "see" time as like space. Rather, it DEDUCES a space-like time, from two postulates: the principle of relativity and the principle of constancy of the speed of light. If Callender believes that "time in physics is surprisingly different than space", then he should expose the false postulate. That is the only honest approach.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on May. 18, 2011 @ 05:37 GMT
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Simultaneity-Routledge-Cont
emporary-Philosophy/dp/0415701740

Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy): "Unfortunately for Einstein's Special Theory, however, its epistemological and ontological assumptions are now seen to be questionable, unjustified, false, perhaps even illogical."

Craig Callender, you are one of the authors of this book. Which postulate of special relativity is false: the principle of relativity or the principle of constancy of the speed of light?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on May. 18, 2011 @ 12:13 GMT
Your dichotomy is false.

To treat time like space and vice versa, is to convert units of one into the other. The invariant speed of light in vacuo allows semi-rigid geometrical transformations of mass points; it doesn't possess the power of a postulate, since c is a measured value.

The authors in your source are dealing with a far more subtle issue -- in the philosophy of science, not in the operational meaning of relativity theory.

It has to do with whether a theory need be justified in its assumptions or not. Einstein, like most scientists of his day, was influenced by the school of Logical Positivism in Vienna, where Ernst Mach was a central figure. LP denies any physical reality to phenomena that cannot be directly measured (Mach never accepted atomic theory, e.g.).

Even though Einstein is known for "relativity," Mach was the true relativist. That is, the inertial state of any body is relative to the state of all other bodies in the universe. Because Einstein recognized that all measurements of motion (changes in position among bodies) are taken between mass points and not between points of space, he agreed with Mach in principle -- in fact, he coined the term "Mach's principle" to help explain general relativity -- while disagreeing on the action at a distance that Mach's philosophy implied. Whether Einstein knew of the Michelson-Morley result at the time he wrote his paper is in question, but it really doesn't matter. The invariant speed of light in relativity supports the positivist philosophy while eliminating the "spooky" part of classical physics that Einstein didn't like.

Mach rejected relativity because it gave a role to space (Minkowski space-time) whereas his own philosophy (and all classical physics preceding) assigned no properties to space at all. Einstein acknowledged (in an appendix to _The Meaning of Relativity_) that "From the standpoint of epistemology it is more satisfying to have the mechanical properties of space completely determined by matter …" yet it was apparently even more satisfying to have a way to determine rest states of matter, because it led to mass-energy equivalence, the startling conclusion of special relativity.

Today, most theorists favor some form of metaphysical realism as conceived by Karl Popper, rather than to try and justify assumptions as required by positivism. Any good guess supported by real results is good science. So whether Einstein is justified or not from an epistemological-ontological standpoint, or just made the right guess, is a question for philosophers to ponder, while science moves on.

I expect that if Einstein were alive today, he would feel freer to make conjectures, justified or not.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

J.C.N. Smith replied on May. 18, 2011 @ 14:42 GMT
Tom,

"Any good guess supported by real results is good science."

Well said.

jcns

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on May. 17, 2011 @ 18:10 GMT
I am not sure whether the wave physics in the paper by
ov_WaveMotion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf' target='new'>Christov involves quantum mechanics. The dissipative equation has a solution with a complex frequency. An instanton or tunneling state has a frequency or wave number that is imaginary, eg multiplied by i = sqrt{-1}. However, a complex frequency ω = α + iβ means...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on May. 18, 2011 @ 03:01 GMT
Lawrence,

Thank you for taking the time to work that out. Obviously I'm not able to follow your analysis, but it is obvious it did contain food for thought for you. Necessarily reality will always be more complicated than we can perceive, as our powers of perception are a component of reality.

One question; Is there a mathematical distinction between the expansion of space containing light and the expansion of light in space? It seems to me that the treatment of light in relativity is only a function of distance, not volume. Yet the further light travels, the greater the volume it must encompass and this would quite logically reduce its energy. Yes, I know we measure light in terms of photons and assume they are particles of light that have traveled individually from the source, no matter how far away it is. Yet we also know quantum particles are fundamentally entangled, so it would seem that light being emitted from a source amounts to one large quantum entity and the particular quanta we measure are largely a function of the mass structure of our measuring devices. As Christov points out, those "wave packets" are not single spectrum entities and as you observe, it does make it far more complicated.

Otherwise our current model does require quite a number of interesting additions in order to function. As I keep pointing out to Tom, even Paul Steinhardt is starting to raise questions about inflation.

The stability and strength of the models are not a function of our belief in them, but their irrefutable logic and this requires constant probing for the weaknesses, not trumpeting of the strengths.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 18, 2011 @ 20:34 GMT
The major distinction is that a quantum theory of waves that have them dissipating this way would not be unitary. This causes lots of damage to basic concepts in physics. It is actually at the heart of the problem with quantum gravity. If space expands the energy of a photon is then taken up by the gravity of the universe, here the “gravity” being the Einstein dynamics of the expanding spatial manifold.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on May. 19, 2011 @ 02:42 GMT
So the wave aspects of reality are ignored because it messes up the theories?

Wouldn't the energy also be taken up by expanding volume of space and you end up with redshifted light, until all that's left is that black body radiation we see emanating from the edge of the visible universe.

What if they don't find the Higgs? Then everything can't be explained by particles.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 19, 2011 @ 12:33 GMT
The point is that quantum waves need to evolve by unitary quantum mechanics. Unitarity is preserved with cosmological red shift by expanding space. This is not the case with a nonlinear wave equation.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on May. 19, 2011 @ 13:15 GMT
John,

One has to study classical mechanics in order to understand quantum mechanical unitarity. I tried to make the point as simply as possible in my FQXi 2008 essay, that volume preserving is energy conserving.

Seriously, if you would please just get a good grasp on the basics, theorists would not seem as wacky as you imagine. Your intuition cannot fill the gaps in knowledge.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on May. 19, 2011 @ 16:17 GMT
Tom,

I agree I'm an idiot on the subject, but the gaps I keep having problems with are those which keep popping up between theory and observation, that get filled in with increasingly bizarre ideas, supposedly supported by ever more complex math.

While you keep telling me I have no idea what I'm talking about, you seem to have no recognition that it is a fairly classic social phenomena for belief systems not to question core principles when reality does not cooperate, but to blame the problems on everything else, rather than reconsider those core assumptions.

I don't doubt that reality is far more strange than our basic, normal human perception thinks of it as, but it does seem as though physics is also susceptible to making up answers when it really doesn't know, then not being able to let go of those fabrications as they become ever more imbedded in the network of knowledge.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 19, 2011 @ 06:00 GMT
Craig Callender suggesting, very carefully, that Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate might be false:

http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5237I.pdf Craig Callender: "We think it's impossible that photons go faster than relativity claims. Why? Because our most powerful theories, the theories upon which we base our explanations and predictions - upon which we even stake our lives - say so. (...) We don't have to be too strict about this. Scientists are free to devise models of the world wherein (say) the absolute speed of light is not constant."

If Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false, then the Michelson-Morley experiment says that the antithesis of the postulate given by Newton's emission theory of light, the equation (c' = c plus v) showing how the speed of light varies with v, the speed of the emitter relative to the observer, is true:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on May. 20, 2011 @ 05:36 GMT
In 1954 Einstein confessed, in a somewhat enigmatic way, that his 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate was both false and fatal for contemporary physics:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-
2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf

EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."

The analysis showing that "physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures" is equivalent to "physics cannot be based upon the 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate" is not difficult to perform.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 20, 2011 @ 23:04 GMT
While I cannot see from Stachel's presentation that Einstein gave up constant speed of light, the late Einstein did indeed explicitly utter that the NOW worried him seriously.

As indicated by Stachel, several physicists already looked for ways out of some problems by elaborating the idea of discrete spacetime. Such approach seemed to be promising because it could be declared a legacy of the idol.

I wonder if someone was courageous enough as to create a non-tense-less physics which will presumably indeed render a lot of "contemporary physics" a "castle in the air".

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on May. 19, 2011 @ 15:45 GMT
A huge population of unbound planetary-mass objects was predicted in the Astrophysical Journal in 1987 [vol. 322(1), pgs. 34-36]. Pulsar-planets were also later predicted in a published paper.

A discussion of this form of dark matter ,and its detection via microlensing was published in:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0002/0002363.pdf

[Fractals 10(1), 27-38, 2002]

It is a great pleasure to see this population finally being revealed to us. The stellar-mass MACHOs and the planetary-mass unbound objects discovered via microlensing may constitute the galactic dark matter, and its specific two-peak mass spectrum was predicted definitively almost 25 years ago. It has been a long wait, but better late than never.

Robert L. Oldershaw

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

Discrete Scale Relativity; Fractal Cosmology

report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on May. 21, 2011 @ 02:23 GMT
TH,

I was recently trying to work out what maths means for the universe by opposition to what it means to us. For example, if I have $5 in the bank and $5 in my pocket and “have” a total of $10. This is about adding some knowledge. But if we look at planets, they increase or add mass by getting matter closer to their surface. So, I figure that the natural equivalent to addition is grouping or getting things closer together. Subtraction would be the reverse, again distancing two things apart. But what happens is we increase the distance between all the parts of a group? We dilute its concentration and that would be a “natural” division. A multiplication would amount to a general volume reduction or concentration.

How could one make some sense of this kind of maths? First, it would seem that natural maths is intrinsically tied to geometry. In our minds we may make calculations, but in the real world of real stuff ... addition of things that exists requires a place for those things to exist before we get to add them.

Secondly, my earlier exploration was meant to explain why nanometre size light photons have “more energy” than kilometre long radio photon... In that context, it was explained that both photons have the same “energy”, the Planck. Their real difference was their power. The nanometre photon just delivers more quickly its Planck than the radio photon. In other words, in a universe where time passing is the basic canvas, how quickly something happen does matters. So, a grouping could be associated with an increase of power of the whole group... ?? Power of what? Power of existence? Maybe (for whatever it means). Because the background is passing time, existence (matter existing) is not state! It is an actual dynamic process that can therefore be associated with a time rate and a kind of power of existence, of sort. ...

Strangely, while the universe is expanding (in division), everything existing in it is in a grouping mode (multiplication a.k.a. universal gravitation.)

Just having fun!

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 23, 2011 @ 05:36 GMT
Anil Ananthaswamy wrote: "Unfortunately, physics treats time rather differently. Einstein's theory of special relativity presents us with a four-dimensional spacetime, in which the past, present and future are already mapped out."

Equivalently, Anil Ananthaswamy could have written, referring to Banesh Hoffmann's text below: "Unfortunately, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas":

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hof
fmann/dp/0486406768 "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd... (...) And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 26, 2011 @ 17:52 GMT
Our tense-less time scale from eternity to eternity is a mistake that can be attributed to the bible and maybe Descartes rather than to Einstein. Already Oliver Heaviside introduced the fictitious split of the not yet existing future into an even and an odd component. Not just Tom and LC are still convinced to solve the most foundational imperfections by means of mathematics. I do not share this attitude.

Among the first who admired Einstein's SR was a coworker of Max Planck: Max von Laue. He was born in 1879 as also was Einstein. He discovered compelling evidence for radiation to be an electromagnetic wave, he supported SR, and he got the Nobel price in 1914. Why did he not realize or at least not admit that Poincarè's synchronization is logically flawed?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on May. 27, 2011 @ 11:53 GMT
Eckard Blumschein wrote: "Our tense-less time scale from eternity to eternity is a mistake that can be attributed to the bible and maybe Descartes rather than to Einstein."

Let us only concentrate on the properties of time that deductively follow from Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate. Craig Callender, Lee Smolin, John Norton seem to reject those properties without questioning the postulate, an approach that is not very fair. If you don't accept the consequences, you should declare the premise false, no matter what catastrophe in mainstream science might occur.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 27, 2011 @ 22:33 GMT
A Nobel price winner of Polish origin, I forgot his correct name, maybe Wilczek or so, called my essay to long and boring. Perhaps, my reasoning is too simple as to be taken seriously. My starting premise is causality of reality. In reality, future processes did simply not yet have any effect. I see this a strong argument against Einstein's first postulate.

His constant-speed-of-light postulate is the second one, and I do not see any reason for sharing the widespread doubt on the correctness of his second one. If light has the same properties as have other waves than this includes a maximal speed. I do not overvalue the attempts to enforce an interpretation of failed experiments for pinpointing a hypothetic ether relative to which the earth was thought to move. The speed of electromagnetic waves can be measured, and propagation of signals faster than light proved impossible.

On the other hand, apparently nobody objects against the seemingly reasonable first postulate. I may be the first one who disagrees: Even if we do not question that the differential equations of physics will remain valid in future processes too, the reality corresponds to cumulative influences from the past, and the belonging integral relationships cannot be shifted. Future processes do not yet exist.

Accordingly, Poincaré's method of synchronization is not fair. With reference to the moment of reflection, the moments of emitting the signal and of receiving the reflected one are located in the past and the future, respectively. Hence, such procedure is not always correct in reality.

Paradoxes may be valuable indications of mistakes. It would not be honest if I signed the petition concerning the interpretation of the twin paradox. I see it one of several indications for the inconsistency of Lorentz transformation.

Incidentally, while Tom referred to "Olber's paradox" I consider Olbers' mistake simply an indication of naive thinking.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on May. 23, 2011 @ 23:33 GMT
I am answering this in a new text box.

An infinite universe is plausible. The RxR^3 topology of the universe may not have the same vacuum structure everywhere. There may be these zones where the vacuum energy Λ_0 >> Λ, where Λ_0 and Λ are the bare vacuum and the broken vacuum cosmological constant. So our observable universe may have a sort of barrier, where...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on May. 24, 2011 @ 01:42 GMT
Lawrence,

Presumably photons can be entangled. Doesn't it seem reasonable to assume that all photons radiating away from a source are entangled and that it is only when encountering a mass substance, such as that which would manifest a photon detector, that we would observe the "individual" photons?

This goes back to that paper by Christov, where he points out that what generally occurs in nature are multi-spectrum photons/light packets.

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on May. 24, 2011 @ 11:17 GMT
I find it much easier to accept many worlds, than an infinite R^3 universe.

Infinite red shift freezes observation on the horizon, so even though the horizon is not a barrier, it is a boundary. If we want a continuous model with boundary conditions (I do), to me it seems more plausible to fix the radial length 1 of R^3 on the S^2 manifold embedded in the S^3 topology. /\ can retain its value of very near zero, and quantum mechanical unitarity holds on all time scales calculated in R^2 (in other words, quantum configurations in the Hilbert space can be shown to have correspondence to physical space without regard to locality). This boundary condition allows an R^n universe with no assumption of infinite distance from the origin -- a complete inversion of the general relativity model from finite in time and unbounded in space, to one finite in space and unbounded in time. It makes Einstein's quasi-Euclidean model fully Euclidean.

The only reason I think that /\ is not exactly zero, is the necessary condition for dissipation of thermodynamic information over n-dimension manifolds. Necessary, because continuation of the time metric over S^n implies exchange of energy and therefore entropy production. /\, then, is the universal gravitational constant in a sphere kissing model.

This model also answers the sticky problem you raised:

"So to prevent some problems the Linde pocket universe idea (eternal inflation etc) is a better candidate. However, the whole R^3 contains an infinite number of these pockets expanding out at an extremely rapid rate. So in some sense we have pushed the problem out to another level. So this R^3 might have started out as a three sphere S^3 where a point was removed and that topological information is involved with quantum information of these bubbles that are finite in number."

Indeed, the S^3 topology in an S^n model, by the generalized Poincare conjecture and Perelman's proof, eliminates singularities. The "other level" is then continuation of the time metric over S^n, asymptotic to length 1.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on May. 24, 2011 @ 18:24 GMT
Tom,

That seems more like a statement of preference, rather than an argument against infinite space. With many worlds, you just kick the can down the road, with infinite numbers of bounded spaces. Presumably they are connected.

Just as practice, wouldn't it be possible to consider what a universe of infinite space, subjectively bounded by horizons, might look like?

Yes, it might make a lot of current theory superfluous, but if it works, it would provide a more solid foundation for further mathematical modeling.

report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on May. 25, 2011 @ 03:57 GMT
I have to accept somehow the many word hypothesis. Ours is a Planck value universe. There are most likely other universes with h+n h-n Planck values

n being any number .. with which we do not interact, like our neutrinos living on the fringe of our Planck universe....

Is there a quantized n values/step between universes? and what is this number?

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate


Gene T. Yerger wrote on Jun. 1, 2011 @ 14:02 GMT
Anil,

In my book – The Meaning of Time – A Theory of Nothing I introduce a new source for the arrow of time. I call it the intellectual arrow of time. The intellectual arrow of time is closely related to the idea of consciousness. The word consciousness is derived from the Latin conscientia, which may be literally interpreted as shared knowledge. The intellectual arrow represents our insatiable, relentless desire to understand the universe and our place within it. In other words, it represents an intellectual curiosity that, in spite of setbacks that have sometimes suppressed the shared knowledge of humanity, seems at all times to increase towards the future. There are three critical issues involved in defining this arrow of time.

The first issue is that the intellectual arrow of time may be associated with the liberal thinking that manifested itself in Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. It is this author’s view that although purely governmental solutions to societal ills have their limitations, this philosophy represents a relentless trend in history toward the achievement of a more just, more tolerant, and more inclusive society. The future must lie in the direction of advancing ideas that expand the concepts of fairness and justice ─ not in the direction of their suppression.

The second issue is that there are forces in society that would like to stop or slow the intellectual arrow of time – sometimes with good reason. Change can be a destabilizing force in society, and not all change is beneficial or should receive widespread support. At darker times in history, however, the desire to suppress the expression of just ideals has been reactionary. During the Dark Ages, for instance, all the rich culture that had been developed by the Greeks, the Romans, and other nations was repressed by the ruling elite in an effort to control society. There have also been times when the forces of change have been fundamentally immoral. In recent history, for example, the actions of one demented madman led to the senseless death of millions; his agenda was essentially an effort to rewrite history in a way that justified these evil deeds.

And finally, as it ages every generation in some fashion laments the forces of change. This is particularly true in today’s society. On the one hand, the ever-quickening pace of technological innovation has led to a more productive and prosperous society. On the other hand, this largesse has not come without a cost. Rapid change seems to leave in its wake the innocence of our youth. But there is no turning back; there is no way to return to an earlier time when events did not happen so quickly and everything seemed to be less complicated. We can influence the future but we cannot change the past.

Gene T. Yerger

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 1, 2011 @ 22:20 GMT
"We can influence the future but we cannot change the past." Isn't the direction of causality always valid in nature in general? Just the so called laws of nature are invariant against shift and reversal of time.

I have to admit having confused Nobel laureates. Actually it was a Wilczek who avoided any comment while a 't Hooft pretended having not read my boring essays.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Alberto Gómez Corona wrote on Jul. 22, 2011 @ 14:00 GMT
Craig,

I just read your article in Scientific American 2010. It is very interesting. I fully agree. I´m a physicist. IMHO, I believe that life computes, and does it in the easiest direction. And I think that it is possible to demonstrate that this direction is from lowor to higer entropy. I wrote time ago a short presentation that, thank to your article now I´m extending. Most of the reasoning is paralell to your article here, and IMHO add some additional points realted with how life works. If this add a little clarification I would be very happy.

"Arrow of time determined by life´s easier direction for computation in space-time"

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd5rm7qq_
142d8djhvc8

report post as inappropriate

Alberto Gómez Corona replied on Jul. 22, 2011 @ 14:03 GMT
"Arrow of time determined by life´s easier direction for computation in space-time"

report post as inappropriate


JOE BLOGS wrote on Jul. 29, 2011 @ 09:46 GMT
Lets chat.

https://www.sendthisfile.com/Dsi1UcAS1T4nqej4a0zxk1TB

My
clock converts a circular earth orbit into an eliptical one.

And the result is six minutes difference from sidereal time per year.

Approx we take this figure to 10,000 digits of pi accuracy as the formula uses Pi.

A cicular orbit can be in as many as 11 dimensions but these are unstable when an orbit is converted to an elipse it becomes stable in three dimensions plus one of time.

Thus you can reverse the equation to convert Einsteins 4D space time to 11 dimensions.

So you can convert String theory to Einsteins thoery and EInsteins theory back into string theory.

Some scientists believe Einsteins thoery cannot be expressed in 10 dimensions.

Others believe EInsteins thoery can be expressed in as many dimensions as you want to use...................

What do you believe can my thoery work to unify Einsteins thoery and string theory.

And is my clock time more accurate or just an error of six minutes per year rather than a more accurate measurement of time..........................................

Please help me with this problem.

Steve..................

Iam not answering the question myself what I have provided is background to the problem.

The central question is whether Einsteins 4D space/time can be converted to ten dimensions or not.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jul. 30, 2011 @ 10:47 GMT
The central question is whether there is 4D. And there is not. I will give you a clue, here is a quote from Lorentz 1892 (para 5), this is how it started:

"I have sought a long time to explain this experiment without success, and eventually I found only one way to reconcile the result with Fresnel’s theory. It consists of the assumption, that the line joining two points of a solid body doesn't conserve its length, when it is once in motion parallel to the direction of motion of Earth, and afterwards it is brought normal to it. [The factor being] p2/2V2 . Such a change in length of the arms in Michelson’s first experiment, and in the size of the stone plate in the second, is really not inconceivable as it seems to me".

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Author/expert Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 9, 2011 @ 19:50 GMT
The key is distance in/of space as it relates to the consequences of touch/motion in (and with) time. The extremes of size, motion, and energy/force have to be equivalent/balanced in conjunction with space manifesting as gravitational/electromagnetic/inertial energy -- as inertia, gravity, and electromagnetism are all key to distance in/of space. (This is the prescription for quantum gravity too.) Fundamentally balanced/equivalent inertia and gravity (both at half strength/force) balances attraction and repulsion.

I have demonstrated all of this in/as dream experience; and, moreover, I have shown the dream to be a linked center of body experience as well. All of us originate at/from the center of the HUMAN body.

report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 17:43 GMT
While reading in recent years about the conundrum of 'dark energy' it occurred me that since Minkowski it has conventionally been simply assumed that the metric of scale of time to be same as for space. While we cannot look to anything in particular to establish a universal system of scale as absolute, it is quite arguable that as real physical properties the length of a span of duration in the dimension of time is covariant with a commensurate length of a span of directional dimension in space. As illustration, any intersection of time and space would establish the relative scales of length of each for that dynamic locality. In an intersection of a shorter dimension of time with a longer dimension of space, time would be induced to extend producing a corresponding expansion of space in leap-frog fashion until the extensional covariance produces a self-replicating proportion, such as the Golden Mean. If time and space were invariant in scale time would not need extend at all but exist as a static appearance of space. An intersection of a longer span of time with a shorter one of space would induce time to contract with a corresponding dynamic wherein that locality would diminish out of existence. Thus the 'arrow' of time is one of only extension as a physical property.

This is conjecture, of course, as it is difficult to imagine any experimental protocol to support it as hypothesis. Conjecture is therefore a dangerous thing if it satisfies, but not outside the legitimate realm of philosophy which is the discipline of Prof. Callender.

report post as inappropriate


Shaikh Raisuddin wrote on May. 31, 2017 @ 09:07 GMT
TIME IS MEASURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS

https://www.linkedin.com/groups/3091009/3091009
-6273368359073615873

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.