Hello Chris,

Nice essay!

You ask, "Who knows? At high velocities, different particle behaviors may not all be affected to the exact same degree? An inertial frame which contains all types of particles and their force carriers moving through various fields at near-light velocity, may one day be able to detect its own inertial motion by observing various fundamental behaviors operating...

view entire post

Hello Chris,

Nice essay!

You ask, "Who knows? At high velocities, different particle behaviors may not all be affected to the exact same degree? An inertial frame which contains all types of particles and their force carriers moving through various fields at near-light velocity, may one day be able to detect its own inertial motion by observing various fundamental behaviors operating at different relative rates as compared to rates in low velocity."

Well, so far, in all our cyclotrons and atom-smashers--in all our observations of cosmic rays and muons and other high-velocity particles, relativity has never been violated. OF course it might some day, but unless we have a good reason to think it should be violated, there doesn't seem to be much gained by supposing relativity might be violated. Someday I might replace Axl Rose as the lead singer in Guns and Roses, but I have no real reason to think so.

I love your title!

"Is there a physical mechanism responsible for what we perceive as time?"

Yes! That physical mechanism is provided by a fundamental universal invariant--the fourth expanding dimension. The fourth dimension is expanindg reltaive to the three spatial dimensions, distributing locality and fathering time.

You would enjoy my essay which shows how time naturally emerges from a deeper physical invariant:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/238 "Time as an Emergent Phenomenon: Traveling Back to the Heroic Age of Physics by Elliot McGucken"

Einstein's Relativity may be derived from dx4/dt= ic, which represents a more fundamental invariance of this universe--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Einstein introduced relativity as a principle--as a law of nature not deduced from anything else, and well, I guess I was dumb enough to ask, 'why relativity?' And I found the answer in a more fundamental invariance--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, or dx4/dt = ic.

And not only can all of relativity be derived from this, but suddenly we are liberated from the block universe and time and progress in theoretical physics are unfrozen. And change is seen in a most fundamental equation that weaves change into the very fabric of space-time, where it needs to be, as change pervades every realm of physics and all acts of *physical* measurement. And suddenly we have a *physical* model for entropy, time and its arrows and assymetries in all realms, free will, and quantum mechanics' nonlocality, entanglement, and wave-particle duality. The fourth expanding dimension distributes locality, fathering time. MDT accounts for the constant speed of light c--both its independence of the source and its independence of the velocity of the observer, while establishing c as the fastest, slowest, and only velocity for all entities and objects moving through space-time, as well as the maximum velocity that anything is measured to move. And suddenly we see a physical basis for the dualities--for space/time, wave/matter, and energy/mass or E=mc^2. Energy and mass are the same thing--it's just that energy is mass caught upon the fourth expanding dimension, and thus it surfs along at "c."

MDT provides your *physical* mechanism for time and all change, and a while host of other physical phenomena.

Indeed, MDT finally provides, in Feyman's words, "the thing that makes the whole phenomena of the world seem to go one way."

Feynman stated, "Now if the world of nature is made of atoms, and we too are made of atoms and obey physical laws, the most obvious interpretation of this evident distinction between past and future, and this irreversibility of all phenomena, would be that some laws, some of the motion laws of the atoms, are going one way – that the atom laws are not such that they can go either way. There should be somewhere in the works some kind of principle that uxles only make wuxles, and never vice versa, and so the world is turning away from uxley character to wuxley character all the time – and this one-way business of the interactions of things should be the thing that makes the whole phenomena of the world seem to go one way. But we have not found this yet. That is, in all the laws of physics that we have found so far there does not seem to be any distinction between the past and the future. The moving picture should work the same going both ways, and the physicist who looks at it should not laugh."--(The Distinction of Past and Future, from The Character of Physical Law, Richard Feynman, 1965)

Best & keep asking those questions!

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

view post as summary

Hello Chris,

Love your words! "Thank you for the link to your paper on the role of gravity in your theory. I am reading it and rereading your essay as well. I believe one of your comments about this forum was that you likened it to a poker tournament. I couldn't agree more. Our entire planet could learn some valuable lessons from the world of poker. The poker world is filled with many very...

view entire post

Hello Chris,

Love your words! "Thank you for the link to your paper on the role of gravity in your theory. I am reading it and rereading your essay as well. I believe one of your comments about this forum was that you likened it to a poker tournament. I couldn't agree more. Our entire planet could learn some valuable lessons from the world of poker. The poker world is filled with many very gifted and seasoned professionals, but on any given day a relatively unknown player can win at a table full of pros if he is intelligent and knows what to do with decent cards. Poker pros are very aware of that and have enormous respect for that fact. We are fortunate that, like the poker world, this forum has such respect for good ideas that they have made this contest open to the public because on any given day.... "

Yes--I love poker; and the whole philosophy surrounding its science and psychology. For poker blends the science of probability with the ineffable psychology of men.

And we see those elements--science and psychology--in this contest. Alas, we are all too human.

There is a quote from Moby Dick which states that thought is for God Alone--as men we are too much wedded to our hearts.

So many elements of the song Breakdown by G'n'R also reminds me of this contest, as we're all coming out of the cold to try and shed some light on time; and it concludes, "just because you're winnin' don't mean you're the lucky one."

For truly, in the pursuit of truth, all who strive to be truthful win; and the awards and honors given by men rarely capture this.

Rather, the greater reward is this fellowship--this shared acknowledgement of the mysterious--this shared humility before the universe's great mysteries, and our very miraculous existence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB1h_k3RCJw&feature
=related

And love the saloon/poker game piano.

BREAKDOWN

We all come in from the cold

We come down from the wire

An everybody warms themselves

to a different fire

When sometimes we get burned

You'd think sometime we'd learn

The one you love is the one

That should take you higher

You ain't got no one

You better go back out and find um

Just like children hidin' in a closet

Can't tell what's goin' on outside

Sometimes we're so far off the beaten track

We'll get taken for a ride

By a parlor trick or some words of wit

A hidden hand up a sleeve

To think the one you love

could hurt you now

Is a little hard to believe

But everybody darlin' sometimes

Bites the hand that feeds

When I look around

Everybody always brings me down

Well is it them or me

Well I just can't see

But there ain't no peace to found

But if someone really cared

Well they'd take the time to spare

A moment to try and understand

Another one's despair

Remember in this game we call life

That no one said it's fair

I've come to know the cold

I think of it as home

When there ain't enough of me to go around

I'd rather be left alone

But if I call you out of habit I'm out of love and

I gotta have it

Would you give it to me if I fit you needs

Like when we both knew we had it

But now the damage's done

And we're back out on the run

Fun how ev'rything was roses

When we held on to the guns

Just because you're winnin'

Don't mean you're the lucky ones

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB1h_k3RCJw&feature=related

En
joy!

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

view post as summary

Hi Buck (and John),

The best way I can convey how my view of time compares to other theories is to show you what I recently wrote to Carlo Rovelli on his thread:

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

You argue that the origin of time variable features are not mechanical, rather – emergent at the thermodynamical level. Do you have any thoughts as to how velocity or gravity affect the time...

view entire post

Hi Buck (and John),

The best way I can convey how my view of time compares to other theories is to show you what I recently wrote to Carlo Rovelli on his thread:

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

You argue that the origin of time variable features are not mechanical, rather – emergent at the thermodynamical level. Do you have any thoughts as to how velocity or gravity affect the time dilation of these thermodynamical activities? It seems to me that despite all of the essays, with so many different opinions of time’s true nature – we have only two possible fundamental starting points:

1) That the thermodynamical activity, or motion (or what I refer to as fundamental behaviors in my essay) is used as a measurement of “time” but plays a more passive role because these behaviors exist “in” time and their behaviors are just a visible symptom of what “time” they existed in due to their local environment.

Or

2) What we perceive as time is a macro effect of the most fundamental behaviors among particles, forces and fields. These behaviors define time and in fact are time. Now, if the most fundamental behaviors can all be accurately described as motion, then – okay. But if some behaviors on the quantum level no longer make sense to be described as motion, then it is safer to refer to the fundamental activities as “behaviors.”

For those who commit to the first possible starting point, they would not appear to be in conflict with special relativity – namely Galileo’s principle. The existence of time would be part of the metric that particles and forces exist “in.” There would exist Einstein’s inseparable connection between time and light signal velocity. There would be no “mechanism” - instead, the relative nature of time would just be a co effect of velocity and/or changing gravitational position. Time would exist as a mysterious entity (or co entity) and more questions would certainly need to be asked as to how we could get closer to determining its true nature.

For those who commit to the 2nd possible starting point (which is the one I am committed to) that motions or behaviors define time and in fact are time: Let’s take a system with all of its fundamental behaviors and increase its velocity. These behaviors slow down. If the behaviors themselves “are” time and then become altered as a consequence of their increased velocity- then we need to revisit special relativity. Something is happening on the physical level that we currently don’t have a description for.

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

I know it is difficult for many people to imagine not having a "time" somewhere in the mysterious background that particles, forces and fields are expressing their behaviors "in." I am just the opposite. I say: imagine taking away all of the particles, forces and fields along with the behaviors they engage in and tell me what is left to be considered a flow of time. If there is absolutely nothing, then there is nothing to express time.

Also, I posed this question to Julian Barbour (who has written a great essay)in response to a statement he made in his essay:

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

If the universe can tell perfect time and could be considered the perfect clock, how would that assumption be affected if it is determined that there is no absolute age of the universe? If I am living on a far away galaxy accelerating at a much faster velocity than ours - then (assuming I take enough vitamins to live through the whole process) how old do I think the universe is from my perspective? Or, how old is the universe to me if I am near a black hole or better yet - If a very long time ago I watched the big bang from a safe distance (where my gravity and velocity would be very different compared to being "inside" the universe) how old would I think the universe is right now? Who would be correct?

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

In my opinion, we should try to narrow to the most likely possibilitles that describe the nature of time and build from there.

CJ

view post as summary

Chris, and John,

The idea of looking at time as a signal is a good one. A signal transmits or moves information from one place (the transmitter) to another place (the receiver). In our world, all signals are in the form of motion. This makes sense because the purpose of the signal is to transfer (move) information through space (a distance) from the transmitter to the receiver. The...

view entire post

Chris, and John,

The idea of looking at time as a signal is a good one. A signal transmits or moves information from one place (the transmitter) to another place (the receiver). In our world, all signals are in the form of motion. This makes sense because the purpose of the signal is to transfer (move) information through space (a distance) from the transmitter to the receiver. The information that is transferred by the signal can range from a simple presence or absence of the signal (binary signal) all the way to a very complex structure. An example of a simple signal would be to have the advance team at a battlefront turn on a light aimed back at the headquarters when the enemy attack began. The lack of light from the team would equal peace and the presence of the light would mean war. It is not really that simple though. The light itself contains information that tells you that it is the signal that you are looking for. In our example, it must first be in the form of light and not, for example, a stream of matter particles and if it is to be directly seen by the eyes of an observer at the headquarters, the light must be within the frequency and wavelength range of visible light. A signal can, therefore, contain two types of information. The first kind of information is the signal type identification information that separates this signal from all the other types of signals that could be used. The second type of information that can be present is the information that transfers some additional knowledge or understanding from the sender to the receiver.

In the case of time, motion contains the signal type information. This includes such information as the direction, position, and motion amplitude of the motion. The direction and position information lets us determine the path or distance that the motion will travel through. The motion amplitude tells us how quickly the motion will travel through that distance. When combined together properly they generate the duration information that we call time. Looked at this way time is generated by (derived from) distance, which is an information element of the dimensional system and motion, which is the most basic information element of all entities that exist in that dimensional system. Motion itself is not time. Motion and distance are the elements from which time is derived or generated. Of the two constituents of time, distance is the more fundamental constituent because motion requires distance in order to exist because it requires a distance to move through, but distance can exist without containing motion within it.

On the other hand to look at time as the signal itself in the form of an additional dimension does not make sense because a signal requires motion to allow it to transfer information from one place to another place, but a dimension is just a spatial addition. The signal that would transfer time duration information would therefore have to be a motion in the time dimension rather than the dimension itself. Each entity that exists in our universe would have to possess this time dimensional motion. In order for all entities that exist in our universe to stay together in the present they would all have to have the same motion amplitude in the time dimension. If an entity’s time dimension motion was greater than the others it would disappear into the future and unless that motion was later decreased it would never return to our present. If its time dimensional motion was less than the others it would disappear into the past never to be seen again unless that motion was later increased enough to allow it to catch up with everything else again. If you changed your motion amplitude in the time dimension you might also change duration of motions in the first three dimensions which could cause you to age slower or faster than those who’s motion had not changed, but you would also travel away from everything else in the time dimension either into the future or into the past depending on whether your time dimension motion change was positive or negative. This would mean that you would effectively disappear from our universe. This does not happen in our universe, however. We just see what appears to be a local slowing down of motions within a fast moving system. The system still remains visible in our present.

The nature of noise is another interesting topic. Essentially noise is any signal that is close enough in its signal type identity information to the desired signal to interfere with your attempt to see the desired signal, but is not the signal that you desire to see. Let’s look at the possibility that motion amplitude is just noise that is distracting us from seeing the true nature of time. If we lived in a world where all motions had the same motion amplitude, time duration would be dependent on just the distance that the motion traveled. Time duration could still be measured in such a world, so on the surface it looks like motion amplitude might not be necessary to understand time. As Chris has pointed out, if you took the next step and removed all motion (which would be necessary because after all, even if there is only one motion amplitude we have not completely removed motion amplitude from the equation unless we remove that one level also) you would not be able to measure time duration at all. If time somehow still existed it would not possess any signal that would inform any still existing motionless objects of its existence. Motion is at the very least that signal and motion amplitude is a necessary function of motion. Moreover if there was only one level of motion amplitude, there would be no possibility that any object could move faster than another object to cause any time dilation effects, so the multi-amplitude structure of motion is a necessary constituent of our current perception of time and is therefore a valid part of the signal and not distracting noise.

I agree that what one person considers noise may be the desired signal for another person because different people may be looking for different things or maybe only looking for different results to the same question. In the long run though, the result that is according to reality ultimately expresses itself by the signal information and the understanding of that information so that only those who are willing to deny reality will hold onto other viewpoints. Of course there are always many things that we have not yet either been able to get an adequate signal to analyze or we do not have enough background understanding to properly analyze the signal information that we have received in its complete perspective.

P.S. John, I am open to all aspects of knowledge and understanding and am, therefore, willing to talk about those other topics also, but I will restrict them to my paper’s comment space so as not to offend others who may not desire such topics on their comments page.

P.S. Chris, I saw your comment to me and will try to respond to it as soon as I can, but I am sending this response about issues that John brought up now to at least get this much out right away. I have been having some computer problems lately to get on line, etc. so I want to quickly get this out while it is still up.

view post as summary