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.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Luca Valeri: on 5/26/14 at 11:50am UTC, wrote Hi Andrej, Thanks for your breath taking trip. Reminded me the adventures...

Hoang Hai: on 5/19/14 at 15:39pm UTC, wrote Incidents in my assessment has been processed, 10 point for you as stated...

John Merryman: on 5/15/14 at 23:02pm UTC, wrote Andrej, Really what you are talking about is conservation of energy. All...

Andrej Rehak: on 5/15/14 at 14:55pm UTC, wrote Dear John I see that you are talking of a present of the events at their...

John Merryman: on 5/14/14 at 16:58pm UTC, wrote Andrej, I agree the idea of quantum indeterminacy is a description of a...

Andrej Rehak: on 5/14/14 at 12:38pm UTC, wrote Dear John Particles aren't popping into and out of existence... It is one...

Anonymous: on 5/13/14 at 17:51pm UTC, wrote Andrej, Does vacuum fluctuation need a vector of time? What measure of...

Andrej Rehak: on 5/10/14 at 21:52pm UTC, wrote Dear Hai Thank you. Looking forward to read your essay. Regards, andrej


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Robert, thank you. I now understand the difference between decisions and..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Robert McEachern: "Making a decision, means selecting between discrete, a priori established..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Eckard,you seems persuaded by your Words and thoughts.I don t understand..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "In Darwinism/Weismannism there is no first cause, just a causal chain...." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "lol no indeed it is not a lot,like I said I liked your general ideas.I have..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Steve Agnew: "There are three assumptions...is that a lot? The aether particle mass, the..." in The Demon in the Machine...


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 FORUM
October 15, 2019

CATEGORY: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? Essay Contest (2014) [back]
TOPIC: The Arrow of Time by Andrej Rehak [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Andrej Rehak wrote on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 16:23 GMT
Essay Abstract

By tautological and rigid mathematical logic, we focus on the explanation of the dynamic nature of time and implicitly the dynamic nature of space. We hope that this understanding will change the paradigm of linear notion of the past, present and future, and contribute to the understanding of the concept of "I am". We also hope that the expected shift of awareness will induce the cognition that, regardless of the technology and its implementation, regardless of the mellifluence of nicely packaged ideas and persuasiveness of their presentation, only the healthy, non-preconditioned, free and conscious "I am" judges, decides and has a future "I am".

Author Bio

Andrej Rehak finished High School for Mathematics and Informatics and graduated sculpture on Academy of Fine Arts in Zagreb. He does computer animation and searches for patterns in motions and shapes.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



George Gantz wrote on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 21:58 GMT
Andrej - A fascinating journey - I loved the ship imagery. However, I'm afraid I got a bit lost in the middle. The notion of perspective and the uniqueness of "I AM" (epistemically the only we know for certain) and it's relation to I Am past and I Am future is powerful, but then I was not sure what you are saying about how this should guide one's attitudes and behavior - how one should actually live one's life.

I also love the connection (I'm not sure if this was intentional or not) this image has to one of the more profound metaphysical references in the Old Testament, when God refers to himself as "I Am who I Am".

Thanks - George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrej Rehak replied on May. 3, 2014 @ 13:43 GMT
Dear George

Thank you.

How one should live his one's life? Every perceived shape, "alive" or not "alive" is the shape of knowledge. Knowledge is not the information learned by hart. Knowledge is the truth understood by hart. Aristotle wrote that the truth is what best agrees with nature. The nature of Nature is infinite repeating of self-similar matrixes independent of scale tending to equilibrium. All above one, tend to infinity. One above all tend to zero. One above one is one... the dynamic equilibrium between the ideas of none and all. Implicitly, from self-sufficient, self-organized, aware, free and fearless one, emerges the self-similar pattern of self-sufficiency, self-organisation, awareness, freedom and fearlessness. Equilibrium is the way to equilibrium, happiness is the way to happiness... living is the way to live and procreate life... collecting, preserving and expanding the knowledge understood by hart.

I am who I am, where I am and when I am :)

Regards,

andrej

Bookmark and Share



Stuart Marongwe wrote on Apr. 26, 2014 @ 16:34 GMT
Dear Andrej

You are really touching a fundamental question that has perplexed philosphers and scientist alike. Even poets write about time.It is facinating to see time from the perspective of an artist. I do believe that to understand the laws of nature one needs to appreciate the elegance and beauty of nature in the same way as an artist.Thus a physicist has to recognise patterns in nature as well as its aesthetics. My question is if you where asked to draw time what would you depict? An arrow perhaps?

regards

Stuart

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrej Rehak replied on May. 3, 2014 @ 13:49 GMT
Dear Stuart

Thank you.

The elegance and the beauty aren't governed by legislations build upon local conjunctions; mathematical, physical, religious, political, tribal... The elegance and the beauty are governed by universal laws. All theorems are universally beautiful. Aesthetics in theories (mathematical, physical, religious, political, tribal...), is the consequence of misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the laws of nature. From the resulting contradiction arises the aesthetical matrix of the disturbance of beauty.

The geometry of snowflake is the growth trail of the geometry of hexagon. It is the information container of genesis of its duration. Jet, in the whole universe, there where, there are and there will never be two identical snowflakes... The geometry of time is the spiral geometry of abyss and source. It draws trails of the geometry of space, speed and mass. From its dynamics emerges the dynamic pattern of the laws of motion and the laws of shapes. Whatever one perceives, one perceives trails of genesis of space in genesis of time. Hence, be it an atom, snowflake, nautilus shell, human body or a galaxy... whatever nature or whatever one draws, the resulting form is the container of time, absorbing its future and reflecting its past :)

Regards,

andrej

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 07:18 GMT
Dear Andrej Rehak ,

In the understanding of the arrow of time the T-invariance impossible. You have real criticism. Therefore highly appreciated your article. I In my article argues that modern science has no proper understanding of the time.

Regards,

Murat Asgatovich Gaisin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrej Rehak replied on May. 3, 2014 @ 13:50 GMT
Dear Murat

Thank you, looking forward to read your article.

Regards,

andrej

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on May. 1, 2014 @ 18:57 GMT
Dear Mr. Rehak,

Your hyper-imaginative essay was extremely entertaining to read and I hope that it does well in the competition. I do have a minor quibble that I hope you do not mind me mentioning.

Reality is unique, once. Abstract concepts of time are not unique.

Regards,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrej Rehak replied on May. 3, 2014 @ 13:54 GMT
Dear Joe

Thank you. The description of any event depends of the unique space-time position of the observer. Hence, reality is unique, in unique once and somewhere, perceived by unique one. The plural of theoretical and philosophical abstract concepts of time are not unique indeed. However, the mathematical description of the concept of time, inexpressible without its relation to space and speed, is unique, rigid and inseparable trinity.

Regards,

andrej

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on May. 6, 2014 @ 12:24 GMT
Dear Andrej,

I read your essay, filled with the spirit of Cartesian doubt, the spirit of "clarity and distinctness" with great interest. Key concepts in your essay "arrow" - "vector". The vector according to Latin - "carrying". It "exists" and "carrying".

Physics is now in a "crisis of representation and interpretation" (T.Romanovskaya) "crisis understanding", deep methodological...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrej Rehak replied on May. 10, 2014 @ 21:38 GMT
Dear Vladimir

Thank you. It was pleasant to read your healthy, clear and distinct criticism of grasping the idea of the infinity of knowledge. Grasping structure enables one to visualise indeed. If one can visualise, one can see the path. Thank you for your references as well (my mother tongue is Russian, so I can read it, a bit slower though...). Looking forward to read your essay.

regards,

andrej

Bookmark and Share



John Brodix Merryman wrote on May. 8, 2014 @ 01:02 GMT
Andrej,

The point I keep raising about time is that since we are single points of perception, we experience it as a sequence of events and so think of it as the point of the present moving from past to future, but the essential reality is that the changing configuration of the physical turns future into past. It is like seeing the sun move overhead, but its the ground moving the other way....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrej Rehak replied on May. 10, 2014 @ 21:44 GMT
Dear John

Thank you. I would add a tiny but crucial correction to your last statement. As all (unnaturally undisturbed) natural forms, we are the balance seeking balance and fortunately never quite attaining it. A simple instruction to construct balanced eternity. Regarding your time-temperature analogy, try to express temperature, or any other physical phenomenon or unit, without its space time description. The inseparable trinity of space, time and speed is the circular tautology which can be written as 1=1 (which is the same if we write 1=1/1 or 1=1*1). It is the unitised and referent form of the valid statement g=cd, applicable to all orbiting entities. In words, gravity g (wave-length) is the vector product of vector of time d (wave-time) and their scalar, speed of light c. Although in an unavoidable surrounding of constant acceleration, every wave-length in its wave-time, measures constant speed of light, thus constructs linear perception of propagation of space and duration of time. From this fundamental, and in fact, the simplest imaginable relation, all equations of motions and shapes are derived. I would appreciate if you convince me that the stated is not true. However, the only tool you are allowed to use is mathematics, and its physical reflection - measured reality.

Looking forward to read your essay.

Regards,

andrej

Bookmark and Share


Anonymous replied on May. 13, 2014 @ 17:51 GMT
Andrej,

Does vacuum fluctuation need a vector of time? What measure of change would be its clock?

The only effect you could measure is the frequency of the particles popping into and out of existence. How is that more fundamental than the amplitude of the energy by which they do so?

Those quantum particles no longer exist once they have been extinguished. They did exist, but no more. Just like yesterday, the 12th of May, did exist, but now its in the past and will recede ever further into the past, as the earth keeps turning.

So all you have are these events, formed by quantum indeterminacy, or the sun shining on a spinning planet. What creates them is the energy. The amplitude of the sun is much more than that of a quantum, so it creates a much larger event. If the earth happened to turn a bit faster, or a bit slower, than time would seem to go faster or slower, but the energy of the sun would be the same.

We still see the sun and stars moving across the sky and with much measurement and calculations, devised a very precise method of computing where they would be. Yet while the math of epicycles was good, the model was still wrong because we did not include the earth spinning. Just as spacetime is very accurate math, it still cannot explain much about the reality we experience, such as why time is asymmetric, or why we can see across space, but only back in time, etc. Like a movie, we watch one scene at a time, but it's the scenes which move, from being in the future to being in the past, not we who are in the present. We just think it's the present that moves, like we thought the sun moved.

Regards,

John

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrej Rehak replied on May. 14, 2014 @ 12:38 GMT
Dear John

Particles aren't popping into and out of existence... It is one of many wrong interpretations of natural phenomena. Think of a sound wave which is out of our hearing spectrum. Depending on its position (below or above our hearing range) by altering its frequency, the sound would appear or disappear, certainly not into and out of the existence, but simply into and out of our...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on May. 8, 2014 @ 16:45 GMT
Andrej,

Great essay. I loved your sailing ship analogy. As an offshore racing skipper I picture it well and agree it's entirely accurate. Much current physics has indeed emerged from as the ship of foolishness. As you say; "Such physics is a contradiction of physics." Top marks for that alone. I not only agree your hypothesis but sent Bob and Alice off our planet to escape the Earth-centric thinking that ties us to stupidity, with astonishing results.

I'm sure you'll understand and like my derivation. Some did, but then a hail of 1's from the troll archers hit and it' sinking badly. I hope I may also persuade you to read my previous essays, showing how SR also converges to meet QM. But I show we must be aware of those tautologies with false assumptions, such as Bells theorem. Spin always has two poles both N and S. What the coherent physics really lacks so far is someone with skills in computer animation who also understands coherent physics. Do you know anyone who fits that description and wants to help steer the right way?

I greatly look forward to discussing on my essay blog.

Very best of luck.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrej Rehak replied on May. 10, 2014 @ 21:50 GMT
Dear Peter

Skipper says thanks to skipper :) (I just came back from the intense sailing week)

The simple law of nature is that stupidity extinct itself. The universe animates, computes, knows its coherent physics and renders itself quite well :). I wouldn't say that its harmonic structure cares for local, insignificant and irrelevant interpretations of its eternal being. Thus, as regards theorems referring to invalid theories, the universe considers them irrelevant. The universe wants to be understood. Therefore, it is its inevitable destiny.

Looking forward to read your Bob and Alice adventure.

Regards,

andrej

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on May. 9, 2014 @ 01:58 GMT
Dear Author Andrej Rehak

Very interesting - the Time always be the most serious competitor in our race to the future.

10 points for your conclusion "Who steers Earth's future?" - Hải.CaoHoàng

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai replied on May. 9, 2014 @ 01:59 GMT
Looks like there has been a breakdown in the assessment grading so I can not give point for you ?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrej Rehak replied on May. 10, 2014 @ 21:52 GMT
Dear Hai

Thank you. Looking forward to read your essay.

Regards,

andrej

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on May. 19, 2014 @ 15:39 GMT
Incidents in my assessment has been processed, 10 point for you as stated above.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Luca Valeri wrote on May. 26, 2014 @ 11:50 GMT
Hi Andrej,

Thanks for your breath taking trip. Reminded me the adventures of Alice in Wonderland. Glad I woke up at the end. Or didn't I?

In my essay I also try to understand the arrow of time. Not sure if I succeeded though - in the essay or my personal understanding. You might judge yourself.

High regards,

Luca

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.