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 blogger 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

songjoong df: on 1/2/18 at 8:49am UTC, wrote jual qnc jelly gamat di magelang jual qnc jelly gamat di mataram jual qnc...

songjoong df: on 12/27/17 at 6:39am UTC, wrote cara menjadi reseller qnc jelly gamat Cara Menjadi Agen Qnc Jelly Gamat ...

Steve Dufourny: on 8/17/09 at 10:53am UTC, wrote Georgina , Thanks for the compliment about my spirituality .It's all my...

Georgina Parry: on 8/17/09 at 0:52am UTC, wrote Steve, I concede that looking at the bigger picture all death and...

Steve Dufourny: on 8/16/09 at 9:40am UTC, wrote Georgina , Thanks ,I understand better your model ,indeed in this article...

Georgina Parry: on 8/16/09 at 3:16am UTC, wrote Steve, further to my previous post, A free fermion is not actually a...

Georgina Parry: on 8/15/09 at 23:32pm UTC, wrote Steve, I am not trying to know the unknown. I am trying to present a...

Steve Dufourny: on 8/15/09 at 12:42pm UTC, wrote Let's take our enzyms ,always a spherical design , a center and a sphere...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "With the “A.I. Feynman” software, Silviu-Marian Udrescu and Max Tegmark..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Georgina Woodward: "Coin toss co-state potentials: With the measurement protocol decided, in..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Steve, Sabine Hossenffelder has written an interesting blog post on her..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "If we correlate with the consciousness, can we consider that all is..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Ian Durham, Maybe still for the rankings and the links with this..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Steve Dufourny: "Georgina,in the past we have discussed about this Fith force after the 3..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "An other point very important considering this nature.Ecology is so..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

janey hug: "Vape Juice Wholesale When it pertains to vape juice, you require to obtain..." in Ed Witten on the Nature...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi BLOGS
October 22, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Does Time Actually Move? [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger William Orem wrote on Apr. 24, 2008 @ 19:46 GMT


Perhaps the most lasting contribution to emerge from centuries of long-winded continental philosophy is the recognition that what nature does is distinct from what brains perceive. A perceiving consciousness is, of course, a perfectly natural phenomenon; brains have evolved to replicate external reality to a high degree of accuracy. I see no need in a modern, post-Darwinian age to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on May. 2, 2008 @ 07:07 GMT
If what Feynman and Wheeler stated:Electrons do not occupy anywhere in the "now" timezone, electrons are always in the "past" or "future". (or statement to that effect?).

Now here is the interesting fact, Electrons in a "past" zone are free, not orbiting any atoms, and as there is not a single Atom, Electrons must tunnel back and forth from PAST>>>FUTURE or FUTURE>>PAST, only being captured by available Atoms in the PRESENT. One can literally state that present-time has to have available Atomic structure to be classed as "present-now-time"? As the electron number increases for ordinary matter, within the standard model, so does the decay rate differ (decay rate is a time dependant signature?), thus a PROTON has no Electron, its an just Hydrogen atom without an Electron.

The proton does not decay, unless one actually classes the proton decays into Hydrogen, by the capture of an Electron? and not the other way around?

The electron tunnelling across a past-present-future changes, the present as it has atomic matter, there is nothing but proton "flux" in the future, and nothing but Electron flux in the past?

All forms of change can surely be classed configuration "creation" change, or "destruction" changes?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Peters wrote on May. 5, 2008 @ 19:39 GMT
Heres my nutty two cents.Our perceived linearity of time can be used to explain the collapse of the quantum wave function. Was it Alan Turing who suggested our chemistry is sequential and thus our consciousness seems to be? Time as defined by the change in energy from one form to another need not sequential at all. But when we tie an event into our sequence of events is when we get the more classical interpretation of that event.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


kev wrote on Dec. 2, 2008 @ 23:08 GMT
Whether or not an observer would notice that time is running backwards, depends on whether the universe is deterministic or not (IMHO). In a deterministic universe the reversal would be perfect and undectable. Memories encoded as physical changes in the brain erase themselves, in the same way notes made in a diary on Wednesday will be erased by Tuesday. Ths requires the observer to run a pen over the diary in a robotic way (as any free will imlplies a non deterministic universe) sucking the ink back into the pen without leaving any ink in the paper. This probably requires violating the second law of thermodynamics. If a vehicle is driven between Tuesday and Wednesday, then in the time reversed process the vehicle would have to suck CO2 and other polutants from the atmoshere into the exhaust pipe and convert the polutants into petrol. In a perfectly deterministic universe it would be impossible to notice that anything unusual has happened. If the universe is not perfectly deterministic and has an element of genuine randomness, then traces of the future would be noticed in the past like the traces of notes in the diary for Wednesday when it it is only Tuesday. In the brain, there might be similar traces of memories of the future giving 'deja vu' type experiences during time reversal, in a imperfectly deterministic universe.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Peters wrote on Jan. 28, 2009 @ 03:16 GMT
The previous post is still considering time as a sequence or in linear terms. I am not sure time acts like this on a tiny scale. Does red light have more entropy than blue light? What we call the superposition of states may have more to do with how we employ time as living creatures than some universal phenomena.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Jan. 28, 2009 @ 10:53 GMT
Paul,

If the energy isn't being processed as a tensor, but as a scalar, then it is temperature or pressure, not time. It is because we are linear entities that we value time over temperature. We use the speed of light to relate time to dimension/direction. We could use the same logic to relate temperature to volume in terms of its effect on a quantity of energy.

You might say our right brain parallel processor is a thermostat and our left brain serial processor is a clock.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jan. 28, 2009 @ 12:16 GMT
Time does not move, energy moves. Motion of energy we measure with clocks (time).

Time as we today experience (past-present-future) is a pure illusion.

attachments: Revision_of_fundamental_physical_terms.pdf, 4_ETERNITY_IS_NOW___Sorli__2009.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Jan. 29, 2009 @ 02:27 GMT
Another concept which might explain what I'm saying about temperature being more fundamental than time is to use the analogy of temperature as a web of energy/activity/relationships and time as a particular thread weaving across that web. Sort of like economic statistics are a temperature reading of the economy, while we are traveling our individual route through it. I bring this up because this article from last week's NewScientist describes the implications this view has for biology;

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-w
hy-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html

I suspect cosmology will also move beyond its current linear description of the universe as a timeline from the singularity branching away to the fadeout.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 29, 2009 @ 08:40 GMT
While the article and Merryman sound reasonable, the title indicates an inappropriate greed for sensation.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jan. 29, 2009 @ 08:55 GMT
Darwin has described evolution from outside, now we describe it from the quantum perspective.

attachments: 3_IIGSS_BASIC_FREQUENCY.pdf, 1_EINSTEIN_MASSENERGY_RELATION_EVOLUTION_OF.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


PSSnyder wrote on Jan. 29, 2009 @ 13:06 GMT
A not well thought out comment from someone who favors Rovelli's approach. Assume that Rovelli is correct and that a fundamental time T does not exist, and that time t is derived from relativity. Is it possible that at some scale less than Planc scale relative positions are fixed and do not change, yielding a rigid quantum framework from which our fundamental physical constants emerge?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jan. 29, 2009 @ 19:06 GMT
William you wrote: The point? Just that if moving forward is phenomenologically equivalent to moving backward, it’s clear that remaining static must be equivalent to *both*. A “block time” universe in which brains not move at all, but simultaneously occupy states Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, would still contain, at every “consciousness-instant,” a consciousness that absolutely experiences itself as moving forward. How could it not? If consciousness is a function of increasing organization, then as long as the circuits are running, it will necessarily perceive itself to be evolving in the direction of increased content.

On above I would like to point out that consciousness is atemporal, consciousness does not move at all. Energy moves, motion of energy we describe with time and measure with clocks. The only universe that exists is NOW and this NOW is in a permanent change that runs NOW. Universe is atemporal. Mind experience that constant change of universe in a linear model of time “past-present-future”. Consciousness by watching the mind becomes aware that universe is now. Enigma is resolved. Mind cannot grasp that. Physics to go ahead needs a consciousness.

attachments: Atemporality__Relation_Between_Time_Mind_and_Consciousness.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Jan. 29, 2009 @ 19:59 GMT
Eckard,

Yes, it's a dichotomy where the two perspectives balance each other out and provide deeper context, but we do live in a society where the linear traditionally prevails over the network, so some drama is necessary to raise the issue.

How it this for sensationalistic headline (and qualifier);

The End of Time (as fundamental dimension)

Amrit,

Quanta do seem to act like nodes in a network and only seem to exist as a function of how we position the network, just as understanding biology depends on perspective.

William's consideration of time does exemplify its linearity.

PSSnyder,

While "now" goes from past events to future events, these particular events go from being in the future to being in the past. So yes, if a fundamental dimension of time exists, we(now) travel(s) along it from the past into the future. On the other hand, if time is a consequence of motion, then each event is replaced by the circumstances of the next and these events go from future potential to past circumstance. The question, then, is whether we travel this fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, or does tomorrow become yesterday because the earth rotates?

If that's too macrocosmic for you, do strings travel along this fourth dimension from one vibration to the next, or is each vibration replaced by the next?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Jan. 29, 2009 @ 21:20 GMT
PS,

And what is temperature, other than vibrations at one scale or another?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jan. 30, 2009 @ 06:52 GMT
John universe is dimensionless and timeless. 3,4, 5…12 dimensional geometries are math models to describe universe. I propose that in all this geometries time is a measure of motion, because time is what we measure with clocks.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Jan. 30, 2009 @ 23:22 GMT
amrit,

I agree dimensions are the map, not the territory. When we mistake the two, we follow our own unconscious biases off the edge. There is a crucial difference between saying the model is all we can know because it is the extent of our knowledge and saying the model is the only reality. One is science. The other is religion.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jan. 31, 2009 @ 17:47 GMT
yes john because of the science need a rigorous examination of basic phenomena science deal with; it has to become clear are mind models only or also describe some concrete physical reality. Do you think space-time exists as a physical reality?

attachments: Fundamental_Physica_Phenomene_under_Examination.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Feb. 2, 2009 @ 01:02 GMT
amrit,

I'd say the only thing which physically "exists," is energy manifesting information. Space is the non-being in which being exists. It is the blank sheet of paper, not the coordinate grid drawn on it. The vacuum fluctuates.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Feb. 2, 2009 @ 15:17 GMT
Yes John, we experience vacuum (blank sheet of paper) as 3-dimensional because with 3 dimension we can describe position of an object in vacuum. But vacuum itself is not 3 dimensional, is dimension less and time less. Dimension and Time are scientific tools to describe motion of energy in vacuum.

See more about that on file attached

yours amrit

attachments: ITT_phenomena_Sorli__2009.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 2, 2009 @ 21:31 GMT
The blog was written before I wrote, in a hurry, my essay 369. Nonetheless, it already made aware, to some extent, of mutually excluding points of view. A time-span necessarily relates to its beginning and to its end, no matter if we are aware of this.

As long as one feels bound to reality, there is no alternative as to have the end too before observing and quantifying the time-span. Nobody can exactly quantify his lifespan to come. Just elapsed time has its reference point t=0 quite naturally at the very moment. Such backward looking perspective is opposite to the usual event-related scale of time. The two scales are steadily moving relative to each other.

In order to perform time travel, one has to ignore his own footing in reality and treat the past as if it could be changed or assume the future as if it was not mere speculation.

Engineers like me learned to predict not only on the sound basis of universally valid laws but also on the strictly speaking risky exclusion of unseen future influences.

Misleadingly we are calling a signal a causal one if it did not exist in the past: f(t

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 2, 2009 @ 22:00 GMT
My comment was mutilated because I used the sign "smaller than".

A so called causal signal is actually a predicted or a prepared one. It equals zero for past time. The past can of course not be predicted or prepared. In my understanding all quantities in the past are causal. So called unit step is a prepared signal. If engineering has some trouble with non-causal systems, I ascribe it to mingling past and future in theory.

I object to the freedom for really moving forward or backward in time. In this respect theory resembles a movie.

Consciousness has in physics no function but causing confusion.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


atomiton1@yahoo.com wrote on Feb. 15, 2009 @ 18:58 GMT
Time does move. Based on the fact that we created it. A frame of refference is the basis to how we percieve it. That and the motion of objects around it. So time is able to change by the perception applied. It could be very confusing if applied on other planets or even near them. So time does move an can even change speed if different frames of refference, and perceptions of motion are applied.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Feb. 18, 2009 @ 13:47 GMT
Eckard you say: Consciousness has in physics no function but causing confusion.

I think opposite is right: Consciousness as a research tool will clear up the scientific process of “perception-mind elaboration-experience”.

Yours Amrit

attachments: 5_6._Consciousness_As_A_Research_Tool_Into_Space_And_Time.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Feb. 18, 2009 @ 20:20 GMT
I attach a file containing an essay written by Howard Bloom. It raises the issue of whether or not our mental perceptions are truly valid. The essay illustrates how elastic our mental perceptions and memories are. It is one underlying reason science requires that observations be recorded, observed by multiple people, and under multiple tests. This helps to remove some of the biases which can...

view entire post


attachments: hbloom.doc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Feb. 19, 2009 @ 12:39 GMT
Time does not move. Objects, stars and elementary particles move in timeless space. Time is merely measure of motion. Garand ma, daughter and grandchild are all born in timeless universe. With clocks we measure duration and numerical order of their lives.

Se more on that on file attached.

yours amrit

attachments: 1_Immediate_Transfer_of_Energy_and_Information_Sorli__2009.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Feb. 19, 2009 @ 14:29 GMT
In a block universe time does not move. The idea of time moving is a bit like the old idea of time flowing like a river. In that perspective you are really talking about time flowing according to a "time."

There are two concepts of time at work here. In relativity a distance ds^2 = -(cdt)^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2, or invariant interval, defines the proper time a clock measures along a path in spacetime. This defintion of time is an invariant. No matter what frame an observer is on this is the same. The other time is the coordinate time t. This does transform under coordinate-frame changes. Things get a bit odd, for one might question how it is that a clock for a particle on that path marks time. If it has a system of springs or some system which jostles electrons around in an atomic clock then there is a dynamical system which depends upon coordinate time. So there is a bit of an odd intertwining of these notions of time. This has something to do with zitterbewegung. Quantum wave equations rely entirely upon the coordinate time, but in general relativity this is a covariant field quantity and not a fundamental evolutionary parameter.

So the problem of quantizing gravity is that you are attempting to formulate a dynamical wave equation, but that wave is defined on configuration variables which are fixed in this block time. Another way of looking at it is that quantum mechanics defines propagators that evolve a field from x to x'. But general relativity does not provide an external frame from which one can do this. This would amount to evolving time with time. So the quantization of gravity is not easy. A correspondence between conformal field theory and anti-Desitter spacetime (AdS/CFT duality), worked by Polchinski, Susskind and Maldacena has cracked the ice a bit. The anti deSitter spacetime is a sort of dual to a cosmology.

Lawrence B. Crowell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Feb. 19, 2009 @ 16:09 GMT
Lawrence you say: In a block universe time does not move. The idea of time moving is a bit like the old idea of time flowing like a river.

There is no scientific evidence that time is still or that time moves. There is no evidence that time exist at all. The only evidence we have is existence of motion. And motion we measure with clocks. Time is a measure of motion in timeless universe.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Feb. 19, 2009 @ 17:43 GMT
amrit,

Amen. We are not moving along an extra dimension from yesterday to tomorrow. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. What this observation means for all the incredibly complex modeling that is modern physics probably tends to limit its appeal to physicists though. Just count the versions of block time in the contest and add up the number of years the people developing those models spent working on them.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Feb. 20, 2009 @ 10:54 GMT
I suppose the basic point of my previous post is that it means reality is fundamentally dynamic, not static, so that information, like time and temperature, is an emergent property of reality, not the Platonic ideal on which it is based. This would probably disappoint mathematicians more than physicists.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Feb. 20, 2009 @ 16:59 GMT
John, tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates in timeless universe. With clocks we measure earth rotation.

Wes universe is in a permanent dynamic equilibrium. No creation, no end. Universe is timeless. Time is merely a measure of material change in universe. You put stone in fire, take it out and measure with clock stone getting cold in space only and not in time. Information move in space only and not in time. Time is a measure of information motion in space. Amen.

attachments: 1_ETERNITY_IS_NOW_Sorli_2009.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Feb. 20, 2009 @ 19:56 GMT
Amrit,

You're right that demoting time to a second order effect, from first order cause, also demotes the concepts of beginning and end as well. It also means the linear dimensionality assigned to time is a construct of our reductionist thought processes as well. We tend to snip off innumerable threads of input and output in order to make sense of linear cause and effect. This is not to say it doesn't exist, but that it is emergent, not primary.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Feb. 21, 2009 @ 09:51 GMT
Thank you John.

This vision will open new perspectives in science in generally.

"Time is a measure of material change that runs in timeless universe."

Yours amrit

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Feb. 22, 2009 @ 04:37 GMT
amrit,

Interesting article in this month's Sciam;

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=was-einstein-wrong
-about-relativity&sc=DD_20090218

"The other recent result, discovered by one of us (Albert), showed that combining quantum mechanics and special relativity requires that we give up another of our primordial convictions. We believe that everything there is to say about the world can in principle be put into the form of a narrative, or story. Or, in more precise and technical terms: everything there is to say can be packed into an infinite set of propositions of the form "at t1 this is the exact physical condition of the world" and "at t2 that is the exact physical condition of the world," and so on. But the phenomenon of quantum-mechanical entanglement and the spacetime geometry of special relativity—taken together—imply that the physical history of the world is infinitely too rich for that.

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

Quantum-mechanical wave functions cannot be represented mathematically in anything smaller than a mind-bogglingly high-dimensional space called a configuration space. If, as some argue, wave functions need to be thought of as concrete physical objects, then we need to take seriously the idea that the world's history plays itself out not in the three-dimensional space of our everyday experience or the four-dimensional spacetime of special relativity but rather this gigantic and unfamiliar configuration space, out of which the illusion of three-dimensionality somehow emerges. Our three-dimensional idea of locality would need to be understood as emergent as well. The nonlocality of quantum physics might be our window into this deeper level of reality."

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Feb. 22, 2009 @ 16:08 GMT
Underlying this is the issue of time. Relativity defines time according to the four dimensional distance in four dimensional spacetime, called proper time. This is the time measured along a certain path in spacetime, and is the invariant of relativity. Coordinate time is a parameter of relativity, really a position-like field of general relativity. Quantum mechanics is given a representation in space and time. The wave equation is a differential equaiton in these variables. So to make quantum mechanics work in special relativity initial and boundary conditions must be imposed on a spatial surface where clocks are choen to be synchronized. This involves imposing data for equal time quantum commutators and what not.

So ultimately there are two notions of time at work here. One time is proper time and the other is coordinate time as the time variables which apply fundamentally to relativity and quantum mechanics. Now this representation of a quantum state with position and time (in a Fourier transform this hold for momentum and energy) is something we impose to give a coordinate spacetime description of a quantum state as a wave. Quantum states are really blind to spatial and even temporal coordinates. This is one reason you can get entanglements across large distances.

Things get really strange if you consider quantum fields in curved spacetime. There the distinction between the vacuum state and a particle state are no longer certain. There is a unitarity inequivalence between quantum states in different locations of spacetime, which is the underlying reason for black hole radiation.

As for 11-dimensions, string and the rest, this is a way of attempting to put the other gauge forces on equal status with gravitation. General relativity removes the notion of a force associated with gravity. Gravity is just geodesic flows on a curved spacetime. To remove the notion of a force associated with electromagnetism, weak and nuclear forces they too involve geodesic flows in higher dimensional spaces.

Lawrence B. Crowell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Feb. 22, 2009 @ 19:34 GMT
John, for Einstein space-time is a math model only, for most of physicists today space-time is a basic physical reality in which material change run. For me and Fiscaletti space itself is timeless and time is a measure of material change that run in universe. In EPR time t is zero. In EPR timeless space itself is an information medium.

yours amrit

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Feb. 23, 2009 @ 02:19 GMT
The issue is time and dimensions are math. Time is described as a dimension using the speed of light as a constant measure. The same logic could use a constant unit of energy and argue temperature is a parameter of volume, much as the CMBR is described as cooling due to the expansion of the universe. The problem with the idea that three dimensions define space is that three dimensions are simply the coordinate system of the center point and what Relativity shows is that different center points view space from fundamentally different perspectives, relative to their positions and momentum in relation to one another. Effectively it shows space is infinitely dimensional, breaking down that classical three dimensional model, even as it attempts to adhere to it.

Time as a consequence of motion, rather than the basis for it, means that all that really exists is the physical matter and energy, for which it is always "now." Although "now" cannot be described as instantaneous, since that would be a cessation of motion and it is motion that time measures. So it is perfectly logical to say there is no such thing as a absolute position in time, or in space for something that is moving and since measurement requires some movement, that means effectively everything.

Relativity defines time as a dimension and tries to measure it as such, thus finding it to vary according to circumstance. QM simply describes the motion of matter and energy, for which the time is always "now" and effectively absolute.

As for non-locality, in the cycle of expanding energy and collapsing mass, if energy is effectively unitary, while mass is necessarily discrete, could the process of measurement be causing distinct points of collapse of the same energy field? What is the logic of insisting units of energy must exist as point particles? It seems we are biased toward points of reference. Since these points, when we try to pin them down, occupy very little space, what is to stop unitary fields of energy from otherwise occupying that space? Then the points are just contact points between the field and the measuring device, like an electrical discharge, that are quantized by the mechanics of the connection.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Feb. 23, 2009 @ 08:07 GMT
John we are close; humans experience timeless space as "now". Material change runs in space and we measure them with time (clocks).

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Feb. 23, 2009 @ 21:38 GMT
Amrit,

Yes, but in space we inhabit entirely different coordinate systems and that's what gives reality its depth and dimensionality. Just as individual consciousness functions as a field effect of billions of neurons interacting, human society is a similar field effect of billions of individuals interacting. Sometimes we all get polarized in the same direction and a grand narrative emerges, though occasionally it marches us off a cliff. Much of the time we just mill around in a thermal equilibrium, with the occasional wave passing through.

I think this reflects on mental function as well, with the awake state involving a mental polarization that creates a serialized direction, while the dream state is a weak polarity barely emergent from and jostled by the currents of the thermal state.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina parry wrote on Feb. 23, 2009 @ 22:35 GMT
In my opinion time can not run backwards.

It is the afore ward motion along the 4th dimension, from higher to lower potential energy, that not only gives rise to the subjective experience of time but also generates all of the the forces that form and hold together the matter of the universe and forms all structures.

Sub atomic particles come together to form atoms, atoms to form dust and gas clouds which then form stars and planets, which then form structured galaxies. Likewise the raw materials come together to form biological structures via chaos in quaternion space but with input from DNA and other control factors that direct the developmental process in certain directions.

These processes progress one way, perceived as development over time, as all matter progresses along the 4th dimension from higher to lower potential energy.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Feb. 24, 2009 @ 19:02 GMT
That last post was perhaps a little ambiguous. I should have said that- All matter and structure forms because of this motion. I did not mean that this afore ward change in position alone gives rise to all forces.

However there is a component of change in position along the 4th dimension that is involved in the he generation of all forces. So taking the electrostatic force as an example, in this case it will be spin. That can be visualised as oscillation of a particle along the 4th dimension or fluctuation in potential energy. That is according to The Prime Quaternion model.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Feb. 24, 2009 @ 19:58 GMT
Georgina,

There is an old description of relativity as asking whether you are moving along the road, or is the road passing under you. The same could be asked of time; Are we traveling along this fourth dimension from the past to the future, or is time going the other way and what is the future will become the past?

Throughout history, in fact the very concept of narrative history, is that we are traveling this path from the past into the future. Of course, for much of history we thought the sun moved and the earth was still. The same conundrum applies to time. Only mass/energy exists and by moving around, it changes shape. Thus each form is replaced by the next. It is these configurations, which are first potential, then manifest, then replaced, that are the passage of time. So it is a consequence of activity, like temperature, not the basis for it. That is why, when Relativity tries to lay it out as a singular dimension and all the clocks run at various speeds, this tapestry of time gets torn up and doesn't fit together very neatly.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Feb. 24, 2009 @ 21:02 GMT
Yes, subjective time can be experienced and described as the result of change in structure and form. However when you say "like temperature" it makes me think that you are thinking of a static universe in which these changes occur rather than one in which there is a unidirectional energy change, which gives rise to both the change in form and the experience of time.

To my mind, it is the change in potential energy, of the universe, that is the same as change in position along the 4th dimension, which has historically been considered the time dimension.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Feb. 24, 2009 @ 23:17 GMT
Georgina,

To avoid long and complex cosmological discussions, I'll make one point; At the singularity, the entire history of the universe was in the future. After it fades away, according to current models, it will be in the past. The arrow of time goes from what comes first to what come second and so the unit of time that is the universe goes from being in the future, to being in the past.

Just as the unit of time that is your life was in the future, prior to your birth and will be in the past when you are gone.

While the hands of the clock go clockwise around the face, relative to the hands, the face and the units marked on it, go counterclockwise.

The question then becomes, what is more fundamental? The energy manifesting the present, or the narrative that energy describes? I would say the energy is fundamental and the narrative is emergent.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Feb. 25, 2009 @ 00:47 GMT
Energy change is fundamental. The future is a state of lower potential energy and the past a state of higher potential energy.

Change in potential energy is, to my mind, motion along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension, that causes the formation of matter, its continuation and development of structure.

Without that energy change there can be no matter.It could not form or if it has formed cessation of that motion would cause it to disintegrate. So energy change is fundamental and the matter which I think you are referring to when you speak of "the present narrative" is emergent.

The history of the universe can not exist in the future before the universe exists. This is imagination. Words like future, past and present are very problematic because they cause confusion.

The 3 concepts of time, historical time(Ht)i.e.past, present and future, subjective time(t)as used and experienced and movement along the 4th dimension must be separated in the mind and treated as 3 very different concepts.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Feb. 25, 2009 @ 03:12 GMT
Georgina,

The issue of what came before the singularity isn't as taboo as it once was. Energy expands. Matter contracts. Whether there is an unremarked cycle in there is another issue, but the singularity as source needs explanation, or it is an incomplete model. Even then, the moment after the singularity, all that constituent energy has yet to form structure, so the structure is in what is colloquially referred to as the future. After it has dissipated, the structure of the universe will be in what is referred to as the past. Like that road sign you drive by, first it is in the future, then it is in the past.

The fourth dimension is ultimately based on the narrative construct, whether it's Newton's absolute flow, or Einstein's relative dimension. That we travel this path from yesterday to tomorrow is theory. That tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates, is factual observation.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Feb. 25, 2009 @ 06:33 GMT
The singularity as a source is derived from mathematics. It may be elegant mathematics but it can not be correct, to my mind. However I accept that sensible people must have their own sensible reasons for believing what I find a nonsensical idea.

The mathematics is founded on assumptions about black holes. If those assumptions are incorrect, then the mathematics may be correctly formulated and elegant but will give a false conclusion about the origin of the universe.

In my opinion the 3+1 dimensions are spatio-energetic and can be visualised as spatial or considered in purely energetic terms. Non are time.

Three vector spatial dimensions and 1 scalar spatial dimension allow visualisation of a hypersphere structure. A quaternion Megauniverse. Existing without time in objective reality. It has no beginning or end. There is no before it existed because there is no time in objective reality.

However it is necessary for subjective time to exist.

The material universe can be visualised as sphere within this Quaternion Megauniverse, if one of its three vector spatial dimensions is flattened. (It is necessary to do this for visualisation.)

The universe is then either one of a series of nested similar universal spheres with an energetic boundary that keeps them separate or a spherical slice of a 4D spatial continuum.

Movement of the material universe along the 4th dimension within the hypersphere gives rise to the subjective experience of time, generates the forces that create and hold together matter and allows structures to form. Therefore within the universe time is experienced.

Imaginary lines can be drawn and discussed but they are just imaginary lines. I can imagine tomorrow (or the road sign I haven't seen yet) and remember yesterday but they are thoughts in my mind. There is no future only afore space and there is no past only aft space. There can be no time travel(outside of the imagination),so there is no paradox.

Perhaps our narrative constructs in relation to time are currently inadequate for separating everyday description of temporal matters from physical objective reality. Which is another reason for having 3 separate definitions of time.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Feb. 25, 2009 @ 17:39 GMT
Georgina,

I'm with you on the issue of the singularity, as I think the redshift is caused by the expansion of radiation, rather than of the universe, but that's another issue and I'm willing to use whatever concepts are accepted to explain the subject of time.

Dimensions are vectors. Scalars are magnitude. You might consider the concept of temperature as the basis for time. Consider that if the level of activity is increased, time moves faster. Since gravity or velocity serves to slow atomic activity, than time is said to move slower.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Feb. 25, 2009 @ 20:45 GMT
There are 3 vector spatial dimensions that allow 3D space and matter to be described. The 4th dimension is scalar because it does not have a single direction that can be ascribed to it from our 3D vector space perspective.

Relativity relates to subjective reality formed from observation and experience. Electromagnetic radiation is intercepted and processed by the brain to give observation. Objective material reality itself, beyond the Prime Reality Interface, can not be observed, because to observe it a subjective reality must first be formed, following information transfer. So relativity does not relate to the underlying objective reality in which there is no time, only matter and energy within 4 spatial(Spatio-energetic) dimensions.

Temperature is kinetic energy. If the particles within a mass have more kinetic energy, the mass will occupy a greater volume in 3D vector space. If a mass is given kinetic energy it can change its position, by moving within 3D vector space. Kinetic energy gives position in observable 3D vector space of particles and bodies of matter. Just considering position and change in position in 3D vector space is not enough to comprehend all forces, creation of matter and structure, and time. In my opinion.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Feb. 26, 2009 @ 00:24 GMT
To clarify my earlier post, where I mentioned change in potential energy.

Potential energy is due to 4th dimensional position of matter, and is how the 4th dimension is manifested within 3D vector space. The 4th dimension has historically been considered the time dimension. However although motion along this dimension gives rise to subjective time, it is not time that is changing in objective reality but potential energy.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Feb. 26, 2009 @ 03:30 GMT
Georgina,

"The 4th dimension is scalar because it does not have a single direction that can be ascribed to it from our 3D vector space perspective."

"Temperature is kinetic energy. If the particles within a mass have more kinetic energy, the mass will occupy a greater volume in 3D vector space."

"Potential energy is due to 4th dimensional position of matter, and is how the 4th dimension is manifested within 3D vector space. The 4th dimension has historically been considered the time dimension. However although motion along this dimension gives rise to subjective time, it is not time that is changing in objective reality but potential energy."

I don't see that you have refuted my point. Is time caused by energy, or is time the basis of energy? Are dimensions mathematical models, or are they the foundations of reality?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Feb. 26, 2009 @ 04:22 GMT
John,

I am sorry if my points did not appear to address your concern. I was attempting to answer, whilst clearly explaining my own position on certain concepts and terminology.



Yes, subjective time is experienced due to change in position of the material universe along the 4th spatial dimension which is equivalent to loss in potential energy, in my opinion. Time is an emergent phenomenon and energy is fundamental.

You requested that I consider temperature in relation to time. It didn't work for me. That was why I rambled on about kinetic energy and its relationship to mass in vector space.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Feb. 26, 2009 @ 04:38 GMT
John,

re dimensions. This is a philosophical question. Can I please say both?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Feb. 26, 2009 @ 05:40 GMT
Dimensions give rise to geometry (foundational)

i.e. different dimensions give different geometry.

and,

Geometry is described by dimensions (mathematical model)

Both please.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Feb. 26, 2009 @ 11:01 GMT
Georgina,

Yes you can say both. That's what Einstein did. I forget the exact quote... "Spacetime tells matter and energy how to bend. Matter and energy tell...."

My point has been that he was still trying to model time as that narrative projection of one event following the previous/cause and effect, that we have throughout history, which upon closer examination starts to break down, as there seems to be no universal clock. This has led to the idea of block time among relativists and the rejection of time altogether among Quantum theorists. My point is if we view time as effect and the stream of events as effect that is created and replaced, then the physical reality of the moment, with a non-existent past and future makes sense. So rather than time as a narrative dimension along which we travel from past to future, it is the configuration of the energy that goes future to past.

You can't have energy without it defining information, so they are two sides of the same coin, but think about it this way, can you have energy without temperature? I would say no. Does that mean the scalar reality of temperature is telling energy how to move? Obviously any one molecule is going to settle to the ambient temperature of all the other molecules, so "temperature" is "telling" it what to do. But that temperature is the collective behavior of all the other molecules, just as the face of the clock is the context in by which any motion is defined and that face is an average of the situation that particular motion exists, so that if you change, say its velocity or gravitational field, it changes the rate of the measured motion.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Feb. 26, 2009 @ 18:58 GMT
John,

You said "Can you have energy without temperature? I would say no."

Here I think we disagree. Potential energy and electromagnetic radiation are to my understanding independent of temperature. In that changing the ambient temperature will not alter the wavelength of light or amount of potential energy an elevated object possesses.

While temperature is important to the structure and volume of matter, it is not the only factor. There are other forces at work which are driven by the change in potential energy of the universe and fluctuations in potential energy of constituent particles. (I would like to call loss of potential energy Promotional energy, because it promotes creation at all scales.) This is the change that can be observed within 3D vector space and interpreted as time passing not temperature change. In my opinion.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Feb. 26, 2009 @ 20:21 GMT
Before I am corrected..

Temperature could affect potential energy if for example an elevated ice cube melts and then flows to the ground as water. So being pedantic, potential energy is not independent of temperature.

So I must qualify my former statement by saying that potential and kinetic energy can (and should) be considered separately. Pure kinetic energy being horizontal motion in 3D vector space and change in potential energy being motion along the 4th dimension.

Since the material universe occupies 4 dimensional space, matter and energy is able to move within 4 dimensions and that motion can be described in terms of potential and kinetic energy changes. Both are necessary and intimately connected.

The potential energy of the universe is being converted to mass energy of the universe, via the intermediate of kinetic energy, since dynamic motion within 3D vector space is a necessary component of the creation process at all scales.

However kinetic energy alone will not suffice

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina parry wrote on Feb. 26, 2009 @ 20:40 GMT
Must just say that I am not confused about what dimensions are or their orientation in relation to one another . It has taken considerable thought to ascertain how the 4th dimension intersects 3D vector space, how this is manifested in 3D vector space and how motion along it proceeds. Though from the above post it may seem that I am confusing vertical motion through vector space with 4th dimensional motion. I am not.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Feb. 27, 2009 @ 01:21 GMT
Georgina,

"In that changing the ambient temperature will not alter the wavelength of light or amount of potential energy an elevated object possesses."

Would radiant light raise temperature? Would a block of iron possess more energy if it was heated to 200 degrees, vs. 50 degrees?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


GeorginaPparry wrote on Feb. 27, 2009 @ 03:03 GMT
Yes electromagnetic radiation can be converted to kinetic energy of particles. That's how the microwave works.

Yes kinetic energy of constituent particles can be increased if thermal energy from an external source is supplied.

I do not see how either of your examples are relevant.

Temperature alone is not enough to explain time.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Feb. 27, 2009 @ 03:51 GMT
John, OK I see the misunderstanding.

I was ambiguous in one of my previous posts. I did not mean that the wavelength of light emitted by an object is not related to temperature because it clearly is, but that the wavelength of light that has already been emitted with a certain wavelength is not altered in wavelength when the room temperature changes,for example.

I am talking about the energy alone not the object that emitted it. I may be incorrect because I do know that there has been some research into slowing light but not the details of those experiments and whether this has any bearing on the point that you are making.I am entirely happy to be corrected if I am in error rather than just misunderstood.

Energy can exist without temperature. Temperature relates to motion in 3D vector space. It is motion along the 4th dimension, change in potential energy, that gives such a large mass energy value. Mass energy is not temperature dependent.

Temperature alone is not enough to explain time.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Feb. 27, 2009 @ 10:58 GMT
Georgina,

You and I are talking past each other because you are sticking to formal meanings of terms, which is all well and good, because it is necessary for communication to be clear in one's language. I am using some terms in a more impressionistic fashion because I see many of these distinctions as rooted in our anthropocentric perspective. So I'm not really distinguishing between such concepts as kinetic and potential energy because for me it is at some deeper level all one and the same. E=mc2. It is simply a sea of collapsing vortices that create bottlenecks of input and output, as the structure breaks down and radiates away, whether it's mass falling into stars and radiating away as waves of light, or the material and information we consumed and eventually shed. It is nodes in the network and the network is the basis, with the nodes as emergent from the sea of interaction. It is essentially a convective cycle, as the essential energy expands, it cools and condenses under the pressure of continuing expansion until it heats back up enough to expand again. The greater the heat, the more the structure breaks down. So while I have problems with the Big Bang model of the universe, it would still fit within this conceptual framework, just as an additional level of collapse and expansion within an even larger context. So for me, the term "temperature" isn't simply the magnitude of molecular activity measured by a conventional thermometer, but is an analogy for this sea of energy of which there can be no objective linear perspective that is not reductionistic and therefore incomplete. We think of this linear cause and effect as fundamental because our brains function reductionistically, otherwise our thought processes melt into chaos.

So back to the specific topic at hand, do we really travel along a fourth dimension from the past into the future, or is this simply a linear construct of our intellectual reductionism and it is simply this sea of energy changing configuration, so that each description is replaced by the next and time is this series of configurations which go from future potential to past circumstance, thus the only physical reality is the current one.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Feb. 27, 2009 @ 12:19 GMT
John,

thank you for explaining your perspective. I am new to this site and may have missed earlier posts when you explained this.

No we don't travel from past to future. But there is "flow" of all matter (which can be considered as a form of stored energy.) That is essential for explanation of time, gravity, creation of matter and structure. Your "sea of atoms" must flow to do its work of becoming.

The "flow" has an orientation in relation to the 3D vector space, that is along the 4th dimension. According to the prime Quaternion model.

Of course this is all just words and intellectual reductionism but it is necessary if accurate explanation and dialogue is to proceed. The names and words and descriptions are how the scientific mind orders, classifies and comprehends.

There are many ways to comprehend but science requires precise definitions and models. These provide a way of intellectually interacting with reality rather than intuitively, spiritually, emotionally or through religious observance or other means of interaction such as meditation or just being in the world.

"The eternal Tao can not be put into words, nor can the unchanging name be given a definition, for words are but symbols and a definition is based on the relativity of things. How can they represent the all embracing, true Tao and the nameless name." Tao te Ching translated by Ch'u ta-Kao.

Well said, but science can not proceed without words.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Feb. 27, 2009 @ 17:40 GMT
Georgina,

"Your "sea of atoms" must flow to do its work of becoming."

Yes.

The "flow" has an orientation in relation to the 3D vector space, that is along the 4th dimension. According to the prime Quaternion model.

What if all that "flow" is around an equilibrium, that ultimately the positive and negative, matter and anti-matter, expansion and contraction, that for every action, there really is an equal and opposite reaction. That reality is simply a fluctuating vacuum? That whatever is given is ultimately taken away. Yes, more complex atomic structure builds up and creates ever more complex chemistry, but complexity has a way of collapsing and if it should really fall into a singularity and emerge out the other side, that all that complexity comes out in the wash, where than is the ultimate flow? Is there some material or model that was created, but will last forever? If it has been around forever and it will last forever, that isn't a direction, that is static.

"Well said, but science can not proceed without words."

Yes, but neither could the Tao be communicated and taught, even though it understands its symbols are the model and not the ideal. Both religions and sciences search for the essence of reality, but reality is wholistic and knowledge is reductionistic. That is why life has no meaning, because meaning is static and reductionistic. It is what is left when you distill away all that is meaningless.....

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgin Parry wrote on Feb. 27, 2009 @ 21:06 GMT
Yes, there is fluctuation we agree.

However if it were just fluctuation around an equilibrium eventually perfect balance would be reached and fluctuation would cease. Everything would cease. Matter would disintegrate, there would be no more gravity, subjective time would stop. There has to be a potential difference that gives a particular orientation of "flow" in relation to 3D space. The "flow" gives the energy for creation and gives rise to subjective time. Fluctuation alone is not enough.In my opinion.

You said "Whatever is given is ultimately taken away" here I also agree. The universe will be recycled. However the structure that gave rise to the universe will not. It remains static in 4 dimensional space without time. It was not created, because that assumes a beginning in time and does not end, because that also assumes a moment in time. It is a geometric (4 dimensional) entity that just exists timelessly.In my opinion.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Feb. 27, 2009 @ 22:58 GMT
Georgina,

What if perfect equilibrium of available energy across given space was unstable? Say above the temperature of the cosmic background, it tended to ripple, collapse, implode and these little storms occasionally built into galaxy sized hurricanes that radiated the energy back out across intergalactic space, causing other ripples and vortices.

This presumes space is ultimately infinite and thus the energy cannot further expand, so it must keep this cycle going forever. My disagreements with Big Bang theory are another topic though.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 4, 2009 @ 07:30 GMT
Why would the equilibrium remain unstable and dynamic forever? Energy is being continuously accumulated as mass energy in matter and structures as the universe develops. If that energy continues to be removed from 3D space, the energy available for creation would be declining. The universe would run down like any other "perpetual motion machine".Until dead.

On the other hand, the energy that drives the development of the universe can be postulated to be potential energy. Available because the sphere of matter that is the universe (a spherical slice of the hypersphere),is itself is in motion in the direction that runs from the exterior of the hypersphere to the interior. This motion would give the energy for creation, as well as giving rise to the changes that enable the perception of "time passing" and the force of gravity. So whilst increasing in structure and complexity in 3D space it is continuously contracting in the way explained above, until it returns to a singularity or critical mass. It could then either re inflate as a new "big bang" within 3D space, if this is indeed the mechanism by which a universe is created or,if mathematically possible, pass through the singularity back to the exterior of the hypersphere. Thus giving instantaneous inflation at the new creation event. This overcomes the problem of how the universe could have reached its inflated state from a singularity so quickly after the (currently accepted, hypothetical) big bang event. The universe is destroyed but a new universe begins. A continuous cycle.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Aug. 4, 2009 @ 15:12 GMT
A few months ago I send one of my articles on time to Prof. Anton Zeleznikar. He wrote me back that my vision of time as run of clocks could be developed into a time as an information. Article TIME IS INFORMATION about is on file attached.

Yours Amrit

attachments: TIME_IS_INFORMATION.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 4, 2009 @ 21:48 GMT
Amrit I have read the pdf that you attached.Thank you for sharing it.It is very clearly expressed.We both agreed in our previous discussions that time is not a physical attribute of the universe but a mental construct to enable processing of information.I think that pedantic formalisation of such ideas is possibly necessary, for those ideas to become accepted by mainstream science. It is my belief that the concept of time has been the biggest hurdle to the progress of science over the last 50 years.

The real number line in the quaternion structure was originally representative of time. It is my contention that a superior model, that explains the fundamental questions of physics, retains the quaternion structure but that the real number line then becomes a 4th spatio-energetic dimension.

Real energetic and positional change of matter occurs along that dimension observed as loss of potential energy and the force of gravity (which leads to creation of matter) within 3D space.

In my opinion the changes observed, which may be regarded as information, is not merely occurring within 3 spatial dimensions without time, but requires motion of all matter, in an orientation running from the exterior to interior of the hypersphere. This 4th dimensional motion is "loss" of potential energy.It is this energy that is the driving force of the universe and its "loss" gives the direction to the "arrow of time".

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Aug. 5, 2009 @ 08:40 GMT
Dear Georgina

My research shows that energy of space and energy of matter are transforming into each other. This transformation is in continous dynamic equilibrium, see on file attached.

yours amrit

attachments: 1_5._Active_Galactic_Nucleus_As_A_Renewing_Sistems_Of_The_Universe.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 5, 2009 @ 23:19 GMT
Amrit, another interesting paper. I have no problem with recycling in 3d space.I do not have any reason to doubt that these observations have been made. Nature works with cycles.

However if there is dynamic equilibrium, it assumes a closed system, no extra energy in or out. Why, would you say, we can observe the universe in a less structured states becoming more structured with more matter?

Dynamic equilibrium inferres, to me, a state of balance with some fluctuation, not a process that is giving changes, when viewed overall, in one direction. That is from less matter and structure towards more matter and structure.

That is why I consider the input of energy to the system as essential.To drive that process.That energy comes from conversion of potential energy, as the universe moves towards the centre of the hypersphere.This change in position is not obvious from 3d space as we can not perceive this motion, except via the clue of gravity.

Every object has spatial thickness along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension. The interior being afore of the exterior.The exterior moves to the position of the interior as the interior moves afore-ward. However the position or size of the matter in 3 dimensional observable space has not changed as a result of this.This is easily visualise-able by alteration of mental perspective.

This motion alone provides a solution to so many fundamental questions.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 6, 2009 @ 01:54 GMT
Hi Amrit. You said:

"My research shows that energy of space and energy of matter are transforming into each other. This transformation is in continous dynamic equilibrium, see on file attached."

Is this not consistent with what I said in my article (below)?

I would appreciate your opinion on my newly published article entitled: "The Dream Fundamentally Balances and Unifies Gravity and Electromagnetism".

http://radicalacademy.com/studentrefphilfmd13.htm

Thanks. Frank

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 6, 2009 @ 02:25 GMT
I have conclusively demonstrated that the dream has a definitive structure; and the dream makes sensory experience (in general) more like gravity, electromagnetism, and thought. In other words, the dream makes thought more like sensory experience in general, including gravity and electromagnetism.

I now quote Dr. Christian Corda, Ph.D (regarding my published article "The Dream Fundamentally Balances and Unifies Gravity and Electromagnetism":

"I signal and endorse your essay to colleagues within the scientific community.

Cheers,

Ch."

... and, the gentleman also said:

"Dear Frank,

I have carefully read your essay in last weekend. Here are my comments:

1) from the philosophy's point of view it is excellent, it looks

written by following the famous Einstein's aphorism "Imagination is

more important than knowledge"

There is no doubt whatsoever that if this essay/article had been written by a popular and connected physicist, it would not have been dismissed and disregarded as it has been. In fact, the physics community would be helping to advance the ideas therein; and this is what FXQi should now be doing as well.

Clearly, the article is very important.

NOTE: The article is original and informative on the topic of time as well.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 6, 2009 @ 02:50 GMT
Frank,

with respect, your new article is highly repetitive. You have said the same thing, using almost exactly the same words, I estimate, at least 4 times within it. I do not want to waste any more time counting precisely. I still do not comprehend your writing. I think it would benefit from careful editing and perhaps assistance from a proficient translator.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 6, 2009 @ 21:15 GMT
Frank,

When you say "the dream", does this have another meaning for you other than dreams arising due to brain activity during REM sleep?

My personal experience is that visualisation with the "minds eye" can be divided into three kinds.

The first, internally generated images occurring during sleep.

These are mostly involuntary although some voluntary control over...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 7, 2009 @ 01:48 GMT
Frank,

Active visualisation,for me, can be very simple or complex.I may choose how to visualise something. For example I can imagine lines, planes and shapes and alter their relationships, to view them from different perspectives. I can also view solid objects and organisms in full colour and lifelike detail, setting and behaviour. If this is given full attention it is fully realistic, although I know at the same time that it is a visualisation and not subjective reality derived from external input.The significant difference in experience between full immersion in active visualisation and subjective reality generated from external input, for me, is the knowledge of the source of the input to the visualisation. A dream, for me, is the same but without voluntary control of the internal input, unless in a light phase of sleep.

I do not understand how electromagnetism and gravity come into your ideas on dreams, thinking and consciousness.In my own visualisations these forces behave as they would if the input was externally derived. The visualisation can be a biological simulation of an external reality formed from memories and includes as much realism and detail as desired ,if awake, or as much realism or abstraction as is input involuntarily by the brain when asleep.I can, for example, visualise the past even though the past has no external physical existence.

As I have said before Frank, I do not really understand what you are trying to communicate.Therefore all that I have said may be entirely irrelevant to you.I have however given my time and some thought to your ideas, to the best of my ability within personal time constraints. I hope that you have found my criticisms and personal perspective helpful, rather than just annoying.I do not mean to be unkind but think honesty is important.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 7, 2009 @ 03:42 GMT
When scale is balanced, gravity is repulsive and attractive as BOTH larger AND smaller space in the dream; and the force strengths of gravity and electromagnetism become inseparable, balanced, or identical. The variability of visual distance in the dream is consistent with this idea as well.

The dream (and electromagnetism) extends, completes, and balances Einsteins theory of gravity -- note the constant (and properly regulated) energy/lighting in the dream at the mid-range of feeling between thought and sense. That is important. Dreams add to the integrated extensiveness of experience.

Another important consideration is that electromagnetic space (e.g., photons and the Sun) is both larger and smaller than ordinary or typical space (including the earth); hence, the need for balancing electromagnetism and gravity is apparent. Consider the [continuous] development and size of the growing human (through all of its various forms beginning with conception) --- as it would be influenced differentially by gravity and electromagnetism --- the dream would overcome/nullify/"smooth out" such a transition (between the forces). Again, the dream makes thought more like sensory experience in general, and it is associated with our becoming other than we are.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 7, 2009 @ 22:33 GMT
Frank,

Your amalgamation of words still does not make sense to me. What do you define the word dream to mean in your work? Are you talking about REM sleep or another concept entirely. Is it synonymous with imagination or visualisation? Or just being within ones own subjective reality derived from external input?

I think that dreams can sometimes be important because concepts are brought together in dreams.The right side of the brain, which communicates via visual imagery rather than verbally can, through imagination, find solutions to problems or concerns that the verbally communicating left side of the brain can not.

Is this what you are talking about in your last sentence or something entirely different?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 9, 2009 @ 07:56 GMT
Frank,

when I said "Perhaps the child's understanding is technically incorrect but the awe and amazement is real." By real in this context I mean authentic, genuine,verifiable by the experience of others under the same circumstances.

Frank, people can only provide arguments for your work to stand against,so that it can prove itself, if they can understand your expression of your ideas. It will not be accepted as correct or worthy just because you say that it is.

In order to understand where I am mistaken, in the construction of my own model, I need to encounter an argument that can not be countered with a better explanation using my model and evidence that is not explicable using my model.I accept that I may in time be shown that it does not work but am currently confident in its performance and self consistency over many areas.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Aug. 9, 2009 @ 14:57 GMT
William,

You write

"Now brains are disentropic; they operate by accumulating organization. Consciousness itself may be dependent on, perhaps even in some sense equivalent to, steadily accumulating information. I can’t defend that claim, but I suspect it to be so; “static consciousness” seems a contradiction in terms, a fancy way of saying “brain death.” Trying to picture a consciousness that is not increasing its content is, in fact, a lot like asking whether a perfectly unchanging object would be getting any older. The question seems to lose its meaning.

"This may be more than coincidence. I suspect what we essentially mean when we say “time is passing” is that at point Tuesday my brain has inside it organized information pertaining to State Monday but not State Wednesday. At point Wednesday my brain has organized information inside it regarding State Tuesday but not State Thursday. And so forth."

If consciousness is self organizing, as you imply, your model leaves out half the necessary properties for a self organized system. A self organized system is self limiting as well as self similar. It may be true that brains (though I would prefer the term brain-mind) accumulate information in a globally self similar manner (i.e., all of our brains work in the same way); however, allowing for our universal mortality, that accumulation of information is locally self limiting.

Time dependency is therefore a necessary, not sufficient, condition of a self-organized system--in that information-receiving nodes given infinite time accumulate infinite information, a point I make in my conference paper attached.

Lateral distribution of information, rather than hierarchical, as demonstrated by Yaneer Bar-Yam at the New England Complex System Institute, necsi.org., allows global self similarity and local self limitation.

Tom

attachments: 1_ICCS2007.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 9, 2009 @ 17:20 GMT
Hi dear T H Ray,

It's interesting ,what do you think about The Rienmann Sphere and the complexity of informations .

I saw the necsi,very very beautiful group because all is in a whole point of vue ,thus the applications with sociability and its interactions are analyzed ;congratulations ,the sciences responsability is so important .

Sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 9, 2009 @ 17:33 GMT
Dear T H Ray ,

If we take the Poincarré Conjecture and the appraoch in 2002 ,what do you think ?

Let's take the homeomorphism ,do you think what the ultim quantum spheres are incompressibles and without homemorphism ?

If we take the several n dimensions of this conjecture ,what do you think about the 3 dimensions and the 4 dimensions .

What do you think too about the spin and the centrifulgal forces ,for me it's the mass .

About the conjecture ,it's interesting the results of Perelman,What do you think?

sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 9, 2009 @ 18:30 GMT
Let's go for this conjesture of Riemann,

The first which is relevant is what the real part and imaginary part are not harmonized.If we make a graphic ,you will see this non coherence .

The equivalences must be essentials in the two parts.

An other important point is the limits of the physical universe where mathematics and the imaginariaes are not balnces too .

In the math ,the infinite is a reality ,but not in our physical Universe where the limits are essentials .

The Zeta functions thus can be adapted .

A distribution of numbers and prime numbers must have limits and harmonizations .

The convergences shall find the point of unification ,simply ,the complexity returns tio the simplicity .

Sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Aug. 9, 2009 @ 18:31 GMT
Hi Steven,

A great deal of my research concerns the Riemann surface, of which the Riemann sphere is the simplest. One principle characteristic of the Riemann surface is orientability, which is key to my argument for the time metric to be n dimensional continuous, n > 4, and orientable.

Regarding the Poincare conjecture and its proof, I suppose most everyone in topology accepts Perelman's proof of the Thurston Geometrization Conjecture as a great and lasting contribution to the classification of manifolds, which is what it's all about.

I can't address your other questions--I don't know what you mean.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 9, 2009 @ 18:41 GMT
Hi T H Ray ,

It's Steve ,not Steven hihihi

Nice to meet you.

Yes indeed the classification ,the taxonomy must be foundamenatl, because all is linked by the physics ,thus the math needs limits.The infinity and the imaginaries needs limits I think .

The key is there .

Sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 9, 2009 @ 20:19 GMT
T H Ray,

I am interested to know what problems having the time metric described as you have solves better than the existing quaternion structure.

My own conviction is that the currently accepted quaternion structure provides a model that works to describe observed reality, the only problem being the understanding of what the 4th dimension represents. Which is tied up in the general confusion about time and reconciling mental processing of information with objective external events. When this adjustment is made the model is then also able to also explain those aspects of observed reality which were puzzling, in my opinion.

However I am interested to learn if and how a different structure might also work to explain all of current observed reality including those puzzling aspects.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Aug. 9, 2009 @ 22:30 GMT
Hi Georgina,

I don't know what the quaternion model is. However, if you mean a model of 8 dimensional analysis in which time is a simple parameter of reversible trajectory (as is also true in the Minkowski spacetime), my model differs in that the time trajectory is irreversible and dissipative over the S^n manifold, n > 3.

It would explain why shattered teacups don't reassemble spontaneously.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 9, 2009 @ 23:05 GMT
Hello all. A proper understanding/description of memory is helpful and applicable to this discussion on time.

"Memory integrates experience and is necessary for the improved integration of a greater totality of experience; and here lies its connection with the advancement of consciousness and genius. Memory increases (or adds to) the extensiveness, desirability, predictability, and intentionality of experience. Memory is an aid with regard to the extensiveness of intentionality in regard to experience. The loss (or reduction) in both memory and the intentionality of experience that occurs in the dream helps to explain why we are basically (or significantly) without the use of our body therein."

AND......

"The dream and genius demonstrate that more must be forgotten in order for new experiences to obtain; but a superior integration and familiarity of experience serves as the basis (or substituted requirement) for this forgetfulness that involves this extension of experience."

AND......

"Due to what is a compression and extension of memory (and experience), memory may then be understood to be more extensively incorporated as part of an improved understanding, thereby increasing the totality of experience (and thought)." --- you see how memory is similar to dream experience? Also, it can be seen here how this is consistent with the dream unifying gravity and electromagnetism/light.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 9, 2009 @ 23:13 GMT
Now, kindly consider the following, in keeping with my last post:

The integrated extensiveness of being and experience go hand in hand in and with time.

"Dreams are an emotional experience that occur during the one third of our lives that we spend sleeping, because emotion is one part (or one third) of feeling, emotion, and thought. Consistent with this, both feeling and thought are proportionately reduced in the dream. Thoughts and emotions are differentiated feelings. Dreams are essential for thoughtful and emotional balance, integration, comprehensiveness, consistency, and resiliency. Indeed, emotion that is comprehensive and balanced advances consciousness. If the self did not represent, form, and experience a comprehensive approximation of experience in general, we would be incapable of growth and of becoming other than we are."

Comments, questions?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 10, 2009 @ 00:05 GMT
Tom, thank you for your reply. By quaternion I simply meant space-time as in 3n+1 dimensions, where time is the scalar dimension rather than a vector dimension The 3 space dimensions being the vector dimensions. As Einstein proposed.

An irreversible trajectory gives a useful correspondence with observed reality. Although I should think that it is not necessary to use a different space-time configuration (from the quaternion model) to achieve this.

(Whether Jugs or tea cups make no difference to the argument.)

I have been arguing that a shattered jug, on the surface it shattered upon, is a more ordered state achieved by the input of potential energy which is "Lost" as the cup falls. The cup and the surface have come together to become one object rather than 2 separate objects.

I will admit that it is possible to regard the fragments as individual because they are not chemically bonded to the surface or each other. However their proximity may allow some electrostatic interaction and in time, if the fragments are on the ground, they may become pressed into the mud or eroded into fine granules that are incorporated into the soil. The jug will not reassemble from the more energetically stable broken condition to the less stable whole condition unless extra energy is input by person with glue.

What else makes you think an alternative configuration of space-time is necessary?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 10, 2009 @ 00:38 GMT
Frank, I understand now that you are actually talking about REM sleep which was one of my previous questions to you on another thread I think.

You said "Consistent with this, both feeling and thought are proportionately reduced in the dream."

What makes you say this? What evidence do you have? Is this your subjective experience or have you conducted a survey of the qualitative experience of people in general during REM sleep?Are you talking about amount of REM sleep compared to total time sleeping or the intensity of thought and feeling within dreams. I personally dream vividly and at times may experience heightened visual awareness (from internal rather than external input), thought and emotional experience.

You also say "Thoughts and emotions are differentiated feelings."In English feelings is another word for emotional reactions. Do you mean by "feelings", in your work, sensory input? That is, in my words "thoughts and feelings can result from the processing of sensory input by the brain."

I do not intend to request a translation of every sentence you write so that it is comprehensible to me.You will have to work on improving its intelligibility if you want to have a fruitful discussion of its potential merits and shortcomings, in my opinion.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 10, 2009 @ 01:07 GMT
Tom,

continuing from my previous post to you.

If there is a continuous loss of potential energy of all matter in the universe and additional loss when ever possible, this will result in the observation within 3D space of those irreversible changes associated currently with passage of time. Time however can be considered a mental construct that explains the irreversible changes observed, which are energy changes and corresponding change of spatial position.

In the model I propose "The Prime Quaternion model", The quaternion structure is still the same but the understanding of the 4th dimension is altered.

I am interested to know if you consider that there are sufficient advantages to abandoning the quaternion structure for an alternative structure.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 10, 2009 @ 01:33 GMT
Tom, I have just noticed that having said it did not matter if jugs or cups were used, I have inadvertently muddled the 2 together in my argument.I should have carefully read what I had written. Jug and cup equally represent any fragile object in that post.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 10, 2009 @ 02:55 GMT
Hello. Here are some important and original ideas regarding time. These ideas are a necessary supplement to, and should be considered along with, my 2 prior posts please.

IN GENERAL, the greater the integrated extensiveness of being and experience (including thought), then the greater is one's autonomy. Now also consider: The dream and genius demonstrate that more must be forgotten in order...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 10, 2009 @ 04:36 GMT
Frank,

are your thoughts on chimpanzees related to any research into the behaviour or neurology of these highly complex social primates? How are you able to say that a chimpanzees awareness is intermediate between a human dream state and human awake state? What evidence do you have for this?

I believe that I can not have any knowledge of the subjective experience of being a chimpanzee. I can only have limited knowledge of the subjective experience of another human by communication of those experiences via language.

I can assume that chimpanzees and other humans experience the world similarly to myself, given our biological similarities or assume that given their unique neural architecture resulting from genetic inheritance and lifelong experiences differing from my own, that they experience life quite differently.Either assumption could be correct.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Aug. 10, 2009 @ 11:38 GMT
Georgina,

I don't understand how you are using the term "quaternion." Quaternions in analysis are the hyperdimensional extension of the complex numbers, constituting a division algebra without commutativity.

You seem to be saying that the mathematical property of noncommutativity is identical to the physical properties derived from Minkowski space, the space-time continuum where Einstein's general relativity lives. This is not true, however. The quaternion algebra, due to Clifford, is something quite different from the Minkowski model of continuous space-time, which is analytic, not algebraic. In the Minkowski space, time is indeed a simple parameter of reversible trajectory--which is how Einstein knew general relativity could not be a complete theory, because time wound back to the beginning (the cosmological problem) runs into mathematical nonsense at the singularity.

When we consider irreversible thermodynamics (Prigogine, Glansdorff, et al) at the classical scale, which is how the world appears to work--shattered teacups don't spontaenously reassemble--we require a discontinuity of time with space. Quantum mechanics doesn't allow space collapsed to a point (the mathematical definition of a singularity) and so space is treated by 2-dimensional, i.e., complex, analysis and time drops out of the equations.

If general relativity is correct (I have no reason to believe that it isn't) and quantum theory is correct (ditto) an irreversible trajectory of time, in my opinion, must obey an extradimensional model. In other words, apart from measurement results (Lebesgue measure) where we can demonstrate reversibility even if apart from direct observation--and direct measurement where time appears irreversible--an extradimensional model compatible with observation must explain why time is reversible at some scale and globally irreversible. My model of n-dimensional continuity (n > 3) and dissipation aims at that explanation. That is, if we actually lived in 4 dimensions, we would not experience irreversible thermodynamics.

Most intriguing, I think, is a result that I am working to make more rigorous--the 10-dimensional limit is identical to the 4-dimension horizon.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Aug. 10, 2009 @ 11:45 GMT
Correcting myself--I meant W.R. Hamilton, not Clifford. Sorry.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 11, 2009 @ 04:27 GMT
Tom,

thank you so much for taking the time to explain your reasoning.Your reply was interesting and informative for me.It is interesting to discover how other people are approaching the fundamental problems.I am taking a very different approach to yourself.

I think Minowski space is a simplified representative mathematical model.Einstein's general relativity does not "live" in...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Aug. 11, 2009 @ 16:11 GMT
Hi Georgina,

Well, special and general relativity really do live in Minkowski space, as far as the mathematics is concerned. Remember, the important characteristic of Minkowski space (or space-time) is that the dimensions of time and space are one continuum. You can't separate them and make any sense of relativity. Thus the cosmological problem: when one winds back the metric of time to the beginning, one encounters matter of infinite density. The mathematics of general relativity (which is formulated of Riemannian geometry, which is equivalent to the Pythagorean theorem in 4 dimensions instead of 2) cannot deal with this infinity.

Now, if you want to--if I read you correctly--create a 4-dimensional model of entirely scalar quantities of which time is also a scalar, what meaning can you give to "motion" in your theory? A scalar is a quantity with magnitude but no direction. Relativistic theories also treat time as a scalar, but measure motion in the difference between spacetime intervals.

Why don't you take a hard look at Fotini Markopoulou's essay in the "Time" contest? Personally I think a lot of her effort, and would have rated it higher than it won. In any case, it explains why geometry as currently applied may lack the necessary qualities to account for the motion that existence of time implies.

All best,

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 11, 2009 @ 22:42 GMT
Tom,

Thanks for your reply.

Yes I want a scalar dimension because the 4th dimension can not be ascribed a single direction using our 3 dimensions of space.The dimension itself does not have direction as such. From our 3D space perspective, its orientation is at 90 degrees to all of the other 3 (vector) dimensions. This means that when a spherical mass is considered the 4th spatial dimension, that I am proposing, will run at 90 degrees to the surface of that sphere at all points, from the exterior to the interior of the mass and through the centre of gravity. From our 3D space perspective this gives a singularity. Change of spatial co-ordinate along this dimension accompanying decrease in numerical value of potential energy is continuous.

I do not want an entirely scalar model but to retain the 3 vector dimensions of space, so that in structure it is the same as the space-time continuum model. Except that the 4th dimension is not time itself, but gives changes that can be perceived by the human mind as passing of time.This means that all of the mathematics pertaining to general and special relativity can be retained as the structure of the model has not altered. Though its interpretation has.

A numerical change in energy value or spatial coordinates does not have to be interpreted using the abstract, confused mental construct of time. I am using the word motion because I am visualising the change in numerical value and co-ordinates in my mind.This does not accurately convey the meaning. Motion is a term implying distance and time. I mean to convey change in numerical value of energy and spatial coordinates which may be expressed as change in position along the 4th dimension.

I do not want to separate time and space but I want the human experience of time to be recognised as human perception which is distinct from the underlying changes in the spatio-energetic continuum. When human perception is removed there are only numerical energy value and spatial co-ordinates.No time.

I think that the problems of physics are a matter of comprehension arising when observed reality, occurring in 4 spatial dimensions (one scalar) with continuous change in energy and spatial co-ordinates, is interpreted using a static model or geometry comprised of 3 spatial dimensions only.This is one of the reasons why I think quaternion algebra may be helpful.As it takes into account the 4 dimensionality and special 4th dimension relationship in its form.Is this naive?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Aug. 12, 2009 @ 08:12 GMT
Georgina,

Years ago (I think it was in Gary Zukav's book The Dancing Wu Li Masters, though I am not positive) I read a story about a group of Buddhist monks whose master asked about a nearby flag blowing in the breeze, "What is moving, the flag or the wind?" One monk replied, "the flag." One replied, "the wind." The master said, "The flag is not moving, the wind is not moving. Your mind is moving."

That's fine. It has nothing to do with physics or mathematics, however. One does not _assume_ "reality" in physics, and mathematics is only a language that attempts to describe reality, not an end in itself.

In general relativity, time _is_ a scalar quantity. It therefore has no meaning independent of relationships among points in space. Physically, time in GR is an illusion. General relativity is also a continuous field theory, which is incompatible with quaternion algebra (or any algebra). The latter, as I tried to explain, is only a mathematical extension of the complex numbers.

One cannot jump from the assumption of a particular reality, i.e., "my mind is moving," to an assumption that some mathematical model already captures such a meaning. The scientific method is to hypothesize without assumptions and test without bias. The method does assume that an externally objective reality can be found; however, this does not obviate psychological phenomena of the type you are aiming to validate. Don't ask physics or mathematics to produce ready made answers, though. Chances are, the tools are much more subtle than have yet been crafted.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 12, 2009 @ 12:35 GMT
Tom,

The Master has a good point because what is "seen" is the subjective reality created by the mind from the sensory input, which is not a flag or the wind itself but an internally generated visualisation formed from the processing of the input received.

I think that as physics is a science, in which observation plays an important role, rather than pure mathematics or philosophy,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 12, 2009 @ 21:00 GMT
Tom,

just to clarify my previous post.

It is not a flag waving itself that is seen or wind moving a flag but a visualisation. The "image" in the "minds eye", i.e. the visualisation appears to move due to the way in which the sensory input has, by neural processing in the brain, been made into that particular representation. It consists of electrical activity in the brain which "the mind" interprets.That is to say further or simultaneous brain activity using the internally generated representation gives awareness or perception.Together with the interpretation of a flag blowing in the wind is the information that this exists externally.The subjective realities we inhabit are all generated by "the mind" from input received, from an external reality, across the Prime Reality Interface (in this case sense organs.)

I also said that GR may not be compatible with quaternion algebra. I meant to say that the 2 different forms of mathematics may be incompatible but not that GR could not be expressed using quaternion mathematics. I think that Einstein did use this form of mathematics himself when trying to resolve the problem with his model.

General relativity can be described mathematically but that can be translated verbally and that description can then be visualised or a mathematical mind might directly visualise from the mathematics. The visualisation of the structure of the universe in 4 dimensions, observed from various perspectives into which objects can be placed is the same GR model. The spatial- visual model makes perfect sense.When observed spatial-visually it is not counter intuitive(as the verbal or mathematical description may seem.) It is my contention that general relativity does not only exist in the maths but it is a mental construct that represents observed reality, which can be communicated in various ways.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Aug. 13, 2009 @ 08:28 GMT
Georgina,

What Einstein actually said, in the final paragraph to Appendix II, “Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field,” from [Einstein, 1956, The Mesning of Relativity] was “One can give good reasons why reality cannot at all be represented by a continuous field. From the quantum phenomena it appears to follow with certainty that a finite system of finite energy can be completely described by a finite set of numbers (quantum numbers). This does not seem to be in accordance with a continuum theory, and must lead to an attempt to find a purely algebraic description of reality. But nobody knows how to obtain the basis of such a theory.”

We still don't know.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 13, 2009 @ 13:54 GMT
Tom,

That is really interesting to me. I had not read that before. He has worded that statement very carefully.He does not actually say that he thinks a continuum theory is wrong but that reasons can be given why it might be considered so. One can almost hear the resignation to the inevitable in his voice.

I like to think that reality has some integrity. Having a model that is able to represents the quantisation of energy could be useful.However it can not sit alone as its own separate reality, inexplicable by other known rules and accepted models of science. Reality is more than just that alone.Nor can the whole of subjective reality be altered to fit with the quantum physics model.

I agree with Tesla that it is a nonsense to talk about curvature of nothingness.A dynamic model within the un-knowable objective reality of space is more likely to be a good representation than a field. This does not mean that I think Einstein's model is nonsense but that it is not nothingness that is being curved. Matter is changing position in space and something is being disturbed by this, which transmits forces to other masses.

It may be regarded as scientific heresy to say this but, just because it can not be shown to exist by experiment does not mean that it is not there.

If no information is passed to our senses then no subjective reality is formed. We have no knowledge of it, but that is not the same as it not existing.Our eyes are blind to ultraviolet light and our ears are deaf to ultra sound and infra sound. Using our technology we now know these things do exist and have real effects and uses.Research into 4D fluid dynamics could give useful models.

Bose-Einstein condensates behave entirely differently to the usual type of matter that is encountered. When spun they show distinct energy levels and other intriguing properties.The hypothesis can be made that it is the unknown medium of space, that may exist with distinct energy levels, which permits the transmission of quanta of energy only.

I no longer think that multidimensional time is a solution.Time had to go. Why do you think that multidimensional time is a worthwhile avenue to explore and why more than 4 dimensions of it? How does it help?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Aug. 13, 2009 @ 16:59 GMT
Does time move ?

No time is information about motion i.e.change in timeless universe that we obtain with clocks. Universe is NOW.

yours amrit

attachments: TIME_IS_INFORMATION_ABOUT_CHANGE_IN_TIMELESS_UNIVERSE.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 13, 2009 @ 17:06 GMT
Hello all ,

This day ,I saw a wonderful link by Mr Geoff Haselhurst,

I saw too the spherical wave structure of matter,I didn't know .In all case it's fascinating .

If we applicate the spheres laws and their rotations in a finite space in optimization towards ultim harmony between mass thus we can link all by these quantum spheres ,the spherical waves and the cosmological sphere .We have our gauges .

It's spaceandmotion.com where the discussions are relevants .

I didn't know that of Einstein...".Einstein's error was to represent matter as a continuous spherical field in space-time rather than as a Spherical Wave in continuous Space which causes the spherical force field effects."

Many things are interestings on these discussions .

Sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 13, 2009 @ 18:22 GMT
On this site ,we see many discussions between Einstein,Schrodinger....it's really interesting to read them .I invite you to read these discussions ,it's the real words of these persons .

I have seen a discussion about the spherical waves and too about the finite spherical Universe .

It's evident in fact ,the quantum spheres implies all with their specific rotations ,all is linked by this reality the rotations of quantum spheres .

What is interesting is the architecture ,the spheres in our Universal sphere are specifics with their volumes ,mass ,rotations ....the quantum architecture of spheres it's the same ,like a code .Thus the numbers of spheres are so numerous and so differents,it exists a perfect balance of mass and space between spheres in the two sense of our finite sphere in evolution,the quantum and the cosmological spheres ,the time is a constant of evolution towards this perfect balance between sphere .In logic our future universal sphere and its spheres with their mass and the space between them is the same that our quantum balanced spheres.The velocity of rotations of these spheres is an universal constant .A big velocity of rot implies a weak mass ....

Sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 14, 2009 @ 03:23 GMT
The [relative] reduction in the integrated extensiveness of space in the case of photons is associated with no time passing.

Dreams unify invisible and visible, thereby unifying scale, gravity, and electromagnetism/light.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Aug. 14, 2009 @ 08:45 GMT
Georgina,

You wrote, "I no longer think that multidimensional time is a solution.Time had to go. Why do you think that multidimensional time is a worthwhile avenue to explore and why more than 4 dimensions of it? How does it help?"

Time is still 1-dimensional in my, and every other, theory of extradimensional space that I know of. The advantage, as I tried to explain, is that of compelling irreversibility of events, by dissipation over n dimension manifolds, n > 4. This is similar to quantum decoherence.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 14, 2009 @ 20:25 GMT
Tom,

Thank you for the clarification. I am sorry for the misunderstanding, I misread one of your previous posts.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 14, 2009 @ 20:30 GMT
Tom said "One principle characteristic of the Riemann surface is orientability, which is key to my argument for the time metric to be n dimensional continuous, n > 4, and orientable."

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 14, 2009 @ 21:21 GMT
Steve,

why do you consider a universe incapable of further growth, development and reorganisation to be more perfect than one that never ceases to grow, develop and reorganise? The first scenario is static, fixed and inanimate the second animated and eternally creative. Compare the perfect plastic bush to the natural growing rose plant.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 14, 2009 @ 22:54 GMT
Dear Georgina,

it's just what I said too, the eternity of all, thus the creativity too after will continue in this balance of cosmological spheres ,it's important to encircle the fact what all will be behind all physical realities after that but not before ,not in the building ,in this complexification ,it's different .

I d like insist on one point ,the perfect balance of mass spheres is totally different than the eternal creativity ,I speak only about the mass and the space at this end of the building because the balance will be between all ,thus the interactions between lifes and systems with their creativities and intelligences shall continue in a perfect balance of mass where the physical dynamic is finished and the eternity begin ,and in fact this eternity has always existed ,a paradox No but it's like that .

Sinerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 15, 2009 @ 07:07 GMT
Steve,

You seem to be suggesting new laws of physics in operation after completion of development of the universe.According to your model: How is the energy supplied for continued animation of that mature universe? Why is the universe in its current state and not already fully complete in development? Does a mature universe produce offspring? Or was it a unique event in infinite probability? Why are these kinds of scenario preferable to one that is compattible with observations made throughout nature. That is that everything is recycled? All living things die but new individuals and life forms arise. Mountains are eroded by wind and water but new ones form from volcanic activity and earth movements. Stars are "born" and stars "die"etc.

Looking at fractals and complexity theory it can be seen that patterns can be repeated at larger scales and larger scales. These kinds of patterns are seen throughout nature and would appear to be related to the natural process of self assembly. In my opinion there is no reason to assume that the universe should behave radically differently from the rest of nature just because of its size.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 15, 2009 @ 08:10 GMT
Georgina,

It's interesting these questions .

You say

Why is the universe in its current state and not already fully complete in development?

Because the Universe evolves and what the times builds ,thus all evolves too.

Does a mature universe produce offspring? Or was it a unique event in infinite probability?

No I think it exists only one Universe ,any others Universes but a continuing increase of interactions in this uniqueness .

I think really it's impossible to know this limit ,already in our sphere it's difficult to understand ,thus for the unknew ???

Why are these kinds of scenario preferable to one that is compattible with observations made throughout nature. That is that everything is recycled?

Yes indeed ,it's a complemenatrity of interactions of evolution ,all is complementary ,the recycling must be relativistic too with some limits ,our perception must have some limits in the interpretation .All is recycled but not the ultim sphere .Its aim is not to recycle this Universe but recycle in the sphere to build this sphere .It's totally different ,there the recycling is taken like a evolutive complementarity in the physical sphere laws.

Sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 15, 2009 @ 09:08 GMT
Steve,

the one thing I would agree with is that the ultimate sphere, which in my model is the 4D Megauniverse hypersphere, is not destroyed.It exists without time. Though universes are born, develop and are destroyed within it.This geometric structure and its function is essential to explain all of the other foundational questions. Such as how did the universe come into being? Why is there an arrow of time? How does creation occur? What is mass energy?

It is an explanatory model of reality that works. That is not to say that it is objective reality. We can not access objective reality directly to see how it differs.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 15, 2009 @ 09:20 GMT
It's interesting ,

It don't exist any super mega top hypersphere,don't try to know the unknew ,it's impossible dear Georgina.

In my model I use spheres everywhere in math ,in physic ,in chemistry ,biology....even in philosophy.

How do you imagine the quantum particles which are in my model ,quantum spheres with specificty and uniqueness .

What are your particles .I d like know ?

What I find incoherent in your model ,it's the lack of whole and furthermore the time like a vector ,furthermore the complexs and imaginaries ,more the eternal recycling .

Be sure I like a lot read your ideas,your are a genius and it's well like that but I don't agree .

I invite you really to focus on all sciences to link your model and improve it .We needs limits in our physical sphere dear Georgina ,we can extrapolate but we have our limits .

The universal sphere is in building ,and the unknew is the unknew ,let's be patient to know the ultim truth .

On the other side ,the mind and the consciouss are secrets after the death thus there I can understand your spiriyual vision ,unfortunally on Earth we don't understand this eternal link in a finite sphere in improvement by weak polarizations .

Kinds Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 15, 2009 @ 11:27 GMT
Let's take the pure heat and thermodynamics laws.Our macroscopic point of vue must be in harmony with the microscopic point of vue .

All systems in its relativistic perception is linked by our quantum states .

Our senses of perception thus are linked and correlated by the constants .

PV= n RT ....Thus let's imagine one system and inside different properties like diathermic or...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 15, 2009 @ 12:42 GMT
Let's take our enzyms ,always a spherical design , a center and a sphere around .

If you see the design and simulation ,always this comportment is a reality .

A center ,a sphere and many rotations implying fields .

Here is a beautiful website

http://www.biochem.szote.u-szeged.hu/astrojan/prot3t.htm

sinc
erely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 15, 2009 @ 23:32 GMT
Steve,

I am not trying to know the unknown. I am trying to present a model that will enable all observations to be reconciled and fundamental questions to be answered. This is a subjective interpretation of reality from observation. Together with this model comes the knowledge that ultimately objective reality is un-knowable and no model representing it can be validated.

That was not my original aim, I sought only to comprehend time. The rest has fallen into place as a result of that quest.

I am sorry that it is not possible to give all of the details of the model, which may make it seem un-holistic, as that would involve posting the whole book here. I have tried to present those aspects of the model that appear relevant to the current discussions.

I have no where said that I consider time like a vector. I have said that time is a confusion of at least 3 different mental concepts applied to spatio-energetic changes that are occurring. Change in 4th dimensional position gives energetic changes that can be related back to time but are not time itself.The 4th dimension is not a vector because vectors have direction. No 3D space direction can be given to the 4th dimension as it is at 90 degrees to all 3 vector space dimensions.

All of the bosons are not particles as such in my model but disturbances (waves)of the unknown medium of space which transmits forces. The description of these disturbances as particles has been a mathematical convenience not a reflection of their nature.

The fermions are a form of energy that appears to have the property of mass in 3D vector space. The mass energy of matter composed of fermions is due to the change in position along the 4th dimension.This is loss of potential energy, which I also call promotional energy. It could be considered as kinetic energy but for change in position along the 4th dimension rather than motion within the 3 vector dimensions.

I too find the consistency within the natural world of interest and I think similarly to yourself that this results from the underlying processes of self assembly of the universe. It is very useful to make all of these comparisons which may lead to a model of self assembly or creation.That is not the approach I have taken however. I think the dynamics within quaternion space, which may be modelled on computer, may lead to the same observed consistencies which will then add credit to the model.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 16, 2009 @ 03:16 GMT
Steve,

further to my previous post,

A free fermion is not actually a point in 3D space that can be defined because it never ceases to move in 3D vector space and along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension. It has no fixed spatial co-ordinate and no fixed 4th dimensional co-ordinate. Human observation can assign a fixed position in 3D space or a fixed 4th dimensional position (currently...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 16, 2009 @ 09:40 GMT
Georgina ,

Thanks ,I understand better your model ,indeed in this article I understand what the time vector isn't a vector in your model .

The idealism and the universalism are the same things ,the huan intrelligence can always imply a better interactions ,the complemenatrity is more logic like a simple predation on Earth .The death is an illusion simply .

There I agree with you and the recycling in harmony ,not about a destruction .

It's totally different .

The life and the death are linked to improve the interactions and create the complexity which is an universality because all goes towards this ultim sphere ,the physical sphere.

I like so much the horticulture ,the botany and the ecology ,since many years I plant ,cultivate and test the interactions ,really all is harmonious ,and the eyes and hands of man can harmonize because the intelligence knows how improve this interaction and that to be sure to have these harmonious interactions where all is linked and can improve itself in fact .

In my small garden ,very small ,I live in a city of 100 m² and my garden is about 125 m²,since 12 years i test in my garden ,it's there I tested the paludism fight and that naturally .Thus the proliferation of this anophela can be harmonized if you insert good parametrs like predators ,arachnids ,hymenoptera,odonates ,reptilians ,birds....plants too which are repulsive too ......thus always a harmonization is possible and that if the whole is undrestood ,to understand the ecology ,it's necessery to put your hands in the ground ,it's better than some books ,the ideal is the both ,books and practices on ground ,the test ,the experiment.....thus the conclusion of improving of interactions .

I am an universalist ,an idealist because it's our future ,simply .

Sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 17, 2009 @ 00:52 GMT
Steve,

I concede that looking at the bigger picture all death and destruction is just recycling and reconfiguration of matter.Along with this there also appears to be increasing overall complexity in the universe.

I think our difference of opinion here is only whether that process of creation is either continuous( because of recycling of the universe) or repetitive (because of cyclic destruction and development phases) or an eternal state of perfection and completion.You are an idealist and a great optimist in this regard.I can not argue against what is a matter of faith.Your spirituality and high regard for the natural world is admirable.

I do not know what our future is as a species. As I have said before not all humans have the capacity to comprehend matters of emotional experience, morality and personal values.They can not distinguish that which is good, wholesome and beautiful from that which is not.These same people are driven to gain power and control over others and despise what others value but they do not comprehend themselves. Therefore they seek to diminish, devalue or destroy it. I think a future of global universalism, idealism, optimism and humanitarianism is one of the less likely scenarios. Having said that, the most unlikely things can and do sometimes happen.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 17, 2009 @ 10:53 GMT
Georgina ,

Thanks for the compliment about my spirituality .It's all my life in fact the spirituality .My main aim is to act on ground to improve the quality of life of our fellow man .There are nothing for me more important than that ,act on ground by adapted sciences .

It's the reason why I work about the creation of these International Humanistic Sciences Center ,named Unified Sphere .On Xing ,I am moderator of Africa Unite ,our team is fantastic ,these persons are incredibles ,a real universal heart ,the real love of compassion .It's important at this moment on Earth I think ,the complementarity and the centralization of skills and that to be more efficient .

Our projects are well implanted in RDC ,Cameroon ,Algeria ,Maroc .

In fact I give them my inventions and models in ecology and energy and that for nothing (monney).

I have invented mini energetic systems and an innovant agricultural system .

In 2010 I will be in Africa on ground ,it's better and furthermore I like work the soil ,it's good for health lol.

You say an important point ,the comprehension of our world by people and their comportments ,all is there indeed ,it's the reason why it's important to well educate and that in a optimist point of vue of this universality in building .

We are youngs and we had made many errors and we pay these errors ,simply ,but the times of evolution can improve that .

You too I see a big spirituality ,you are welcome when this center will be created .

Sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


songjoong sdfsd df wrote on Dec. 27, 2017 @ 06:39 GMT
cara menjadi reseller qnc jelly gamat

Cara Menjadi Agen Qnc Jelly Gamat

manfaat qnc jelly gamat

Obat Tradisional Kista Nabothian Tanpa Operasi

cara menjadi agen qnc jelly gamat

cara menjadi reseller qnc jelly gamat

cara mengobati gondongan pada anak

cara mengobati kanker nasofaring secara alami

obat pembersih sisa janin setelah keguguran

cara mengobati kanker pankreas secara tradisional

obat tradisional benjolan di leher sebelah kanan

obat tradisional tipes untuk orang dewasa

obat tradisional untuk menghentikan haid berkepanjangan

Obat Tradisional Pembekuan Darah Di Otak

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


songjoong sdfsd df wrote on Jan. 2, 2018 @ 08:49 GMT
jual qnc jelly gamat di magelang

jual qnc jelly gamat di mataram

jual qnc jelly gamat di metro

jual qnc jelly gamat di mojokerto

jual qnc jelly gamat di padang panjang

jual qnc jelly gamat di padang sidempuan

obat tradisional kista payudara tanpa operasi

Bookmark and Share
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.