Search FQXi

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

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Georgina Woodward: on 6/9/19 at 0:48am UTC, wrote Yes because once distance is involved the duration from signal emission to...

Jorma Seppaenen: on 6/8/19 at 13:14pm UTC, wrote Current clock devices based on cyclic processes are giving regular proper...

Georgina Woodward: on 6/1/19 at 2:36am UTC, wrote If the CMBR is what it is thought to be, the most ancient relic of the...

Jorma Seppaenen: on 5/30/19 at 5:39am UTC, wrote Yes. On technical level, there is challenges but on principal level, if...

Georgina Woodward: on 5/29/19 at 5:42am UTC, wrote Are you talking about using the agreed change in observed red shift to...

Jorma Seppaenen: on 5/27/19 at 5:13am UTC, wrote Hi Georgina, Yes, CMB map is an observation product, it's very essential...

Georgina Woodward: on 5/25/19 at 23:49pm UTC, wrote "The motion of the solar system, and the orientation of the plane of the...

Georgina Woodward: on 5/25/19 at 23:08pm UTC, wrote Hi Jorma, some thoughts; You mention mutual EM connection. I think you...

FQXi FORUM
June 26, 2019

ARTICLE: Why Time Might Not Be an Illusion [back to article]

John Brodix Merryman wrote on Mar. 1, 2018 @ 01:29 GMT
I think the essential problem with time is that since we experience reality as flashes of perception, then we think of time as the point of the present moving, or "flowing" from past to future. Which physics codifies as measures of duration and then correlates with measures of distance, using the speed of light, to postulate spacetime as foundational dimensional extension.

Yet a more...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Roger Granet wrote on Mar. 1, 2018 @ 01:32 GMT
I'm an amateur, but the idea that the universe evolves and that past, present and future are not all present at the same time in a spacetime box is indeed very appealing. From my layperson's thinking, I like Short's idea of

"...the universe is made of tiny discrete bits of time and space: basically pixelated, like a computer screen, that ticks forwards in time..."

although, I'd change it slightly to "the universe is made of tiny discrete bits of space" and also change it to changes in the shape and maybe position of these bits relative to one another is what time is.

Said another way, time is not fundamental. It's just a function of physical things happening (e.g., physical change) to these discrete bits. If there were absolutely no physical change in any of these bits, there would be no time. This explains why time is moving irreversibly from past to future: because things keep happening (bits keep changing in shape and possibly position). To go from future to past, there would have to be a reduction in the number of things, or events, that have already happened in the universe. This doesn't occur. Even if the events of a process look like they're happening in reverse, like if a broken cup spontaneously reassembles, this doesn't mean that time is going backwards; it just means that additional physical events have happened that reassemble the cup and that happen to look like the previous events. But because physical change is still happening as the cup is reassembled, and the number of events is still increasing, time is still moving forward.

I think this also has some connection to why different observers may see events as happening in different orders. If the bits are changing shape and position in different ways or speeds at each observer's location, then this could affect the rate at which they perceive time as moving forward.

Anyways, that's this amateur's thinking. Thanks for listening.

report post as inappropriate

sherman loran jenkins replied on Mar. 7, 2018 @ 19:43 GMT
As an non professional, that is, an amateur, you have some advantage when it comes to seeing and speaking the truth. Nine out of ten physics pros can not voice serious question about sacred dogma. But you can. They, those 9 in 10, are not stupid they are human and want to belong, to get paid, to fit in and not be the butt of jokes. You, however, can question the nature of time in a serious manner. You could even dispute the Big Bang where a pro would need to parse his or her words with care to prepare for a possible revolution at some future date while protecting their present position.

Your thoughts on time are closer to reality than most of the pros. Time is not fundamental in a primary sense but it is a direct result of what is fundamental.

Sherman

report post as inappropriate

Roger Granet replied on Mar. 8, 2018 @ 03:18 GMT
Sherman,

Thanks for the encouragement! I noticed some others mentioned similar ideas about time. Hopefully, some academic physicists actually read some of the comments and essays by amateurs like us, but I'm guessing they don't. As you said, they belong to a community and don't want to sound like crackpots, and they're also busy, but it does get frustrating sometimes Sometimes, I cynically think that they set up fora like this just to give the amateurs an outlet so that we then don't bother them! :-) But, the only thing we can do is keep on thinking and maybe try to get some evidence someday for our ideas. Good luck to us all on that!

Roger

report post as inappropriate

Harrison Crecraft wrote on Mar. 1, 2018 @ 17:14 GMT
Tony Short “is making the pitch to reawaken the older, more intuitive picture in which the universe evolves as time passes.”

Thermodynamics expressed an intuitive picture of the passing of time by dissipation of kinetic energy into heat. Thermodynamics originally defined this in terms of entropy, a function of heat and temperature. Physics was quick to reinterpret heat and temperature...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Mar. 1, 2018 @ 19:30 GMT
Well timed this is hmmmm.

Now that the essay contest rating phase is complete and the hurried up to wait period of panel judging has commenced, its probably safe to address the conundrum of time in commenting on a topic nobody that has been attending fqxi will bother to look at. Especially given that 'posts in this topic' listing is not being displayed on the margin. In that vein, the essay...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford wrote on Mar. 4, 2018 @ 22:35 GMT
Physics assumes that (what they represent as) change of number associated with a fundamental variable just occurs, but physics has no rationale for why change of number should ever occur.

Clearly, time is not a force that changes numbers: on the contrary, time seemingly arises from change of number. Seemingly, time is somehow fundamental, but not base-level fundamental.

Forget abstract ideas of “causality” and “change”, let’s look at the nitty-gritty: Shouldn’t physics first examine what (they represent as) “numbers” could be, and what “change of number” could be, before going on to look at the issue of what “time” could be? And could they please do this without invoking Platonic realms to cover all the gaping holes in their theories?

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 5, 2018 @ 00:46 GMT
P.S.

1. Do the “fundamental forces” cause “number change” or does “number change” cause the “fundamental forces”? You can’t tell until you get a handle on what “numbers” are.

2. Mass-Energy equivalence seems to show that Energy exists at the same level as Mass. Energy is not a self-sufficient, causal entity: Energy is no more a cause of change of number than Mass is a cause of change of number.

report post as inappropriate

Roger Granet replied on Mar. 7, 2018 @ 04:36 GMT
Physicists, mathematicians and philosophers do like their Platonic realms, abstract mathematical constructs and non-physical "mind"s, don't they! :-) While these things are possible, they're very hard or impossible to prove and seem to be the same as religious faith is to others.

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 4, 2018 @ 21:55 GMT
Lorraine, if you haven't read it, I recommend Number and Time by Marie-Louise von Franz. Very Jungian. If you have read it, I would like to discuss, since I find myself going back to pages I have marked..

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 5, 2018 @ 17:39 GMT
Dear FQXi.org Members

The earth had a real visible surface for millions of years before any physicists ever appeared on that real visible surface, arrogantly offering their preposterous complex finite guesswork about invisible influences.

Obviously, Nature must have devised the only reality obtainable.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

jim h wrote on Mar. 5, 2018 @ 18:49 GMT
"One reason I don’t like spacetime is that the whole thing has to leap into being at some point"

Give up that meaningless, undefined word "being". Just put it over the side, along with materialism and physicalism. These are empty concepts, just dead weight; as we like to say today, "not even wrong".

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Mar. 5, 2018 @ 21:04 GMT
I think the right answer has to be some kind of mixture of the A theory of time (time flowing) and B theory (Einstein). I think the real challenge with A theory is consciousness, as we perceive flow and cannot choose to go back in time. We can choose to go between B theory times. I also think the hard problem of consciousness (how mental states appear from physical states) is intimately tied into time. I think the hard problem is actually caused by what time really is (e.g. consciousness exists through time, but we just cant see it with our evolutionary construction, and if we could we could instantly solve / see the hard problem). Given this evolutionary bias, equiv to not seeing a colour, we need physics to give us something really weird that we can then go 'hey wait a second..this actually is how time works because it's the very solution to how consciousness can possibly be'. In otherwords when we have a breakthrough in time or consciousness I think it will have direct ramifications for other. Hopefully Short can uncover some remarkably odd physics from which a translation can occur.

Jack

Website: Philosopher.io

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 6, 2018 @ 17:09 GMT
Ref: Natural reality.

Dear Dr. Short.

The first sentence in the Technical Abstract of your WHY TIME MIGHT NOT BE AN ILLUSION project funded by FQXi.org reads: “Special relativity lies at the heart of modern physics, and has inspired a fundamental shift in our picture of reality, from a spatial state evolving in time to a static block universe.”

The earth had a real visible surface for millions of years before any physicists ever appeared on that real visible surface, arrogantly offering their preposterous complex finite guesswork about invisible influences.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

jim h wrote on Mar. 5, 2018 @ 21:53 GMT
" A theory of time (time flowing) and B theory (Einstein)"

I think time as an axis of space-time is one thing, and 'experiential' time is something else: an attribute of consciousness. They align in various ways.

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Mar. 6, 2018 @ 18:32 GMT
Jim h

What is fundamental to science is the observer and his need to know. Physics studies our experience of the universe. But the universe is not a show made of “experiences”. It is made of “stuff”. To think that the universe awaits our gaze in order to happen is once more sitting ourselves at the center of the universe...

Unlike our experience of the universe, the “stuff” of the universe requires a beginning and a causally driven state of existence and evolution. When we remove the observer (appearance/experience), all that is left is existence. The universe exists and happens. Understanding the universe consists in finding the logical boundaries that allow its existence and evolution.

In my essay, I suggest that while we can’t pop “being” from “nothing” (rule of non-contradiction), we may find “happening” (dynamics) somewhere between nothing and being. The built-in “causality” in this “monistic” dynamic system is a higher probability of existence toward a more logical state of affair. And this (ontological) higher probability of existence of a particle in a place is matching or correlates with our probability of finding it there.

So, “being” in our universe is impossible. Instead we got “happening”, and the rules are about “where” it happens.

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

sherman loran jenkins wrote on Mar. 6, 2018 @ 21:47 GMT
Time is easy once you see it. The mechanism and pressure that regulate the pace of “time” is the same throughout the universe. A water clock on the Nile and and one on the Mississippi drip along only slightly untrue due to elevation and temperature. A quartz watch. An atomic standard clock. They all, at the bottom level, rely on the structure and pressure of the Universe. Every atom, every photon. Everywhere in the Universe all is uniformly paced by a common structure under uniform pressure; only slightly disturbed here and there by concentrations of mass and energy.

report post as inappropriate

jim hughes wrote on Mar. 6, 2018 @ 22:16 GMT
Marcel,

Your first 2 paragraphs are a good summary of the materialist position with which I disagree.

To me the heart of the matter is that you can assign no attributes whatsoever to the "stuff" of which the universe is "made" - it's not even a concept, just a word. Similarly, the word "exist" has no articulable meaning other than "is experienced".

More to the point of the original article: if I say the block universe "has to leap into being at some point" I've already assumed a meta-time outside of spacetime, and I'm talking about the need for time to have a beginning at a point within that meta-time. But let experiential time be an attribute of consciousness, and the perceived need goes away.

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Mar. 7, 2018 @ 01:58 GMT
Jim,

“Similarly, the word "exist" has no articulable meaning other than "is experienced".”

Semantic, vocabulary?

What do you call the “state” the universe was in during the past 13.8 billion years before we showed up to “experience” it?

I call it “existence”. What do you call it?

Thanks,

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman wrote on Mar. 7, 2018 @ 02:28 GMT
Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth turns. Any "flow," in this existential present, is future to past. Probable to actual to residual. Every action is its own clock, its own frequency. All in the same state of presence.

Including each and every mind. Flashes of consciousness.

report post as inappropriate

jim hughes wrote on Mar. 7, 2018 @ 03:12 GMT
Marcel,

What "state" is a photo in before it's detected? QM says it has no definite state - no specific position or velocity. So did it 'exist'? We feel like something was there - a wave function, a matrix of possibilities. But I don't think we're justified in saying the photon "existed" before it was observed.

I like the quote from Renato Renner in this article: "You have to give up something you took for granted, something that’s almost hard-coded in

our brains." And I think what we have to give up is physicalism. And not because it's "wrong" but because it's ultimately meaningless.

report post as inappropriate

roll the ball wrote on Mar. 7, 2018 @ 03:18 GMT
I think this is an informative post and it is very useful and knowledgeable. I really enjoyed reading this post. big fan, thank you!

- roll the ball

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Mar. 7, 2018 @ 04:49 GMT
Jim,

“QM says it has no definite state...”

The meaning of “state” in QM is different, and refers both to the state of our knowledge as well as to the quantum state due to our interaction required to acquire this knowledge. A measurement applies a constraint on the wave functions that forces its temporary quantization. (A constraint introduces a boundary on the normal distribution of the parameter being measured, clipping the infinity tails on each sides, creating a box within which the wave function appears with specific modes i.e. quantized)

But here, we have atoms, stars and galaxies...

What do you call the “state” the universe was in during the past 13.8 billion years before we showed up to “experience” it?

Thanks,

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman wrote on Mar. 7, 2018 @ 13:20 GMT
Jim,

One way to think of physicalism is a dichotomy of energy and information. Energy manifests information, or it would collapse into a black hole, while information defines energy. How would a wave, for instance, be understood, other than as frequency and amplitude? So particles/quanta are energy with various parameters of information.

Consider that as biological organisms, we evolved the central nervous system to process information and the digestive, respiratory and circulation systems to process energy, to propel that information gathering.

Then consider that as energy is "conserved," it is always and only present. So the natural change of this energy means the information is constantly changing. This creates time. As energy goes from one configuration to the next, it goes past to future, while these forms, the information, goes future to past.

Consider, as an example, that conscious goes past to future, as particular thoughts go future to past.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 7, 2018 @ 17:41 GMT
When asked what was around before the Big Bang, Stephen Hawking confidently replied that nothing preceded the Big Bang.

The earth had a real visible surface for millions of years before any physicists ever appeared on that real visible surface, arrogantly offering their preposterous complex finite guesswork about invisible influences.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

jim hughes wrote on Mar. 7, 2018 @ 19:04 GMT
Marcel, John, continuing this exchange would lead to the familiar debate of idealism vs realism (or physicalism) and while I enjoy that debate, I'm just an amateur - many people, from Berkeley through Wheeler, have made that case better than I ever could. My take is that relativity and QM weighed in heavily on the side of idealism, removing - respectively - the obvective 'now' and the flow of time, and 'solid matter', from whatever reality exists apart from our experiences.

So rather than continue to hijack this thread, I refer you to those people - John Wheeler, especially.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 8, 2018 @ 17:59 GMT
Dear Jim Hughes,

Reality am not debatable.

When asked what was around before the Big Bang, Stephen Hawking confidently replied that nothing preceded the Big Bang.

The earth had a real visible surface for millions of years before any physicists ever appeared on that real visible surface, arrogantly offering their preposterous complex finite guesswork about invisible influences.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

Lee Bloomquist wrote on Mar. 9, 2018 @ 13:22 GMT
There are also comparatively recent, apparently overlooked maths for investigating time.

"Non-well founded sets" give us a way to introduce "streams" into a discussion if time:

properTime = (moment, properTime)

Substituting on the RHS of the equation:

properTime = (moment, (moment, (moment..., properTime)...)

And properTime becomes a "stream" of moments, solving the problem of time's arrow.

Including "nonstandard analysis" yields a "nonstandard past" and a "nonstandard future," each infinitely close to the "standard present."

moment = (nonstandardPast, standardPresent, nonstandardFuture)

Then using the math of "situation theory," the nonstandardFuture "models" where possibilities exist and the nonstandardPast "models" where information (in the form of "infons") exists.

That enables looking at the Born rule as an "infomorphism," as in the math of Barwise's "channel theory".

Which is an example of "the inverse relationship principle"-- that when possibilities decrease, information decreases abd vice versa-- as in Barwise's math of "Informationalism."

All of these are maths which are currently overlooked.

(More elsewhere on the site.)

report post as inappropriate

Lee Bloomquist replied on Mar. 9, 2018 @ 22:08 GMT
Correction:

"The Inverse Relationship Principle: Whenever there is an increase in available information there is a corresponding decrease in possibilities, and vice versa."

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 9, 2018 @ 15:31 GMT
Dear Lee Bloomquist,

Concrete evidence exists that proves conclusively that the earth had a real visible surface for millions of years before any mathematician ever appeared on that surface.

It logically follows that Nature must have devised the only real physical structure obtainable and mathematicians had nothing to do with it.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

jim hughes wrote on Mar. 10, 2018 @ 16:17 GMT

"When we remove the observer (appearance/experience), all that is left is existence. The universe exists and happens."

Realize that this isn't a conclusion, it's an act of pure faith. In my opinion, a universe without an observer isn't a conceivable entity, in other words our minds can form no concept to put behind the words. Try to imagine a universe that doesn't contain an observer. Did you succeed? I'm guessing what you did is bring to mind a beautiful NASA photo of a galaxy, and tell yourself it contains no life. But what you really did was mentally place yourself in that universe as an observer and "see" what your eyes would have seen in that situation. So your imagined universe wasn't lifeless: it contained you. Try to re-imagine that lifeless universe without you as a contained observer, and the best you can do is - what? Some sort of mathematical representation?

Philosophers refer to this issue as the "zombie universe problem". I believe it applies to the issue of the big bang, and time's "beginning", as well.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 11, 2018 @ 13:12 GMT
Dear Jim Hughes,

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a real visible surface for MILLIONS of years before any “observers” ever appeared on that surface.

It logically follows that Nature must have devised the only real physical structure obtainable.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Only your imaginary universe needs to have an imaginary “observer.”

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Mar. 11, 2018 @ 16:15 GMT
Jim,

Not to belabor the issue, but consider what the observer adds; Those flashes of sequential cognition, of particular events, objects, perceptions, frames etc., which we then try to organize into some meaning or area of focus. Aka, narrative, rationalization, logical cause and effect, etc. Then consider how much trouble this linear modeling has with fully understanding a non-linear reality.

So might it be useful to demote time from the foundational level to the emergent level, like temperature?

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 12, 2018 @ 14:39 GMT
Dear John Brodix Merryman,

You are the only one who is “adding” misinformation to this discussion. All real creatures great and small have real eyes. While you might believe that: “Not to belabor the issue, but consider what the observer adds; Those flashes of sequential cognition, of particular events, objects, perceptions, frames etc., which we then try to organize into some meaning or area of focus.” No real eye has ever seen one single abstract flash of sequential cognition. Each real eye will only ever see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed, flat, varied hued surface.

Let us try it one more time.

Concrete evidence exists that proves conclusively that the earth had a real visible surface for millions of years before any mathematician ever appeared on that surface.

It logically follows that NATURE must have devised the only real physical structure obtainable.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

jim hughes wrote on Mar. 11, 2018 @ 21:29 GMT
John,

Yes I think it's inevitable that we identify 'time' as an attribute of an observer. Didn't special relativity do that over 100 years ago? I dislike the word 'emergent', it's hand-waving. Better I think to say time, hot, red, are all qualia: elements of experience.

I like to think of time as the geometry of consciousness.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 12, 2018 @ 14:48 GMT
Dear Jim Hughes,

Let us try it one more time.

Concrete evidence exists that proves conclusively that the earth had a real visible surface for millions of years before any mathematician ever appeared on that surface.

It logically follows that NATURE must have devised the only real physical structure obtainable.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

Terry Bollinger wrote on Mar. 13, 2018 @ 00:57 GMT
Hi Dr Short,

I liked and strongly concur with your assertion that "One reason I don’t like [block universe] spacetime is that the whole thing has to leap into being at some point ... And it seems to me that’s a quite complex thing. It seems unnatural."

A computer scientist might say that even more emphatically: You cannot assume the existence of a space-and-time spanning data...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Mar. 13, 2018 @ 01:45 GMT
Jim,

The “now” as an extended moment is an illusion we experience i.e there is no common now between you and your computer, and the Moon, Mars etc. But time is real. A radio-active element will decay with a specific half-life. The probability of any spontaneous event happening is time sensitive.

Previous post ....” "When we remove the observer (appearance/experience), all that is left is existence. The universe exists and happens."

Realize that this isn't a conclusion, it's an act of pure faith. In my opinion, a universe without an observer isn't a conceivable entity, in other words our minds can form no concept to put behind the words....”

To us, the “universe” is an experience. As an experience, we make it all ourselves with sense and mind. But, and experience requires both the observer and a substance. When there is no observer, the substance remains, but in a form different from what the experience would give us.

As I mentioned earlier, our natural satellite is an aggregate of matter across time i.e. every particle making this aggregate is at a different moment from any other.particle. We have no way of conceiving this. But we integrate it all as an object “Moon” apparently all there at once, in a moment of perception or conception. See where I am going? Only when I see it or think about it, this aggregate of matter across time becomes for me, my experience of an object we call the Moon. There is no Moon object (my experience) when I am not watching it or thinking about it. Same thing with the rest of the universe.

So, this is not faith. It`s what we know from experience.

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 13, 2018 @ 13:37 GMT
Deaar Marcel-Marie LeBe,

Concrete evidence exists that proves conclusively that the earth had a real visible surface for millions of years before any person who claimed to experience any finite faith in any invisible influence ever appeared on that surface.

It logically follows that Nature must have devised the only real physical structure obtainable.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman wrote on Mar. 19, 2018 @ 03:03 GMT
Jim,

I can accept time as the geometry of consciousness, in the sense that our mind absorbs quantities of information carrying energy and extracts useful information, creating perception. Then does it again and again, creating a sequence of perceptions.

Consequently we experience reality as this flow of events, so we think of the present as moving past to future. Which physics does codify as measures of duration.

The basic reality is we are points of observation in a dynamic presence, from which we extract information. So the sequence/frequency is foundational to our consciousness, while only a particular qualia of the dynamic state in which we exist.

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Mar. 19, 2018 @ 03:08 GMT
Duration being this state of presence/being, as these events form and dissolve, so it is only the present being measured, as events go future to past. Potential to residual.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 19, 2018 @ 15:24 GMT
Dear John Brodix Merryman,

Reality has absolutely nothing to do with your supposed capability for “accepting” massive amounts of misinformation about invisible abstract human consciousness and the finite duration of invisible finite "presence/being".

Reality has everything to do with the unassailable, irrefutable, concrete, boiler plated FACT, that proves conclusively that the earth had a real visible surface for millions of years before any HUMANLY CONTRIVED INFORMATION ever appeared on that surface.

It logically follows that Nature must have devised the only real physical structure obtainable.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew wrote on Mar. 27, 2018 @ 03:33 GMT
So...going back to the essay...relativity makes time into a dimension like space and so particles on determinate paths set the future, not free choice. In this sense, time is an illusion. The big bang sets the arrow of time...

Quantum time is reversible and so past and future are equally probable. What sets quantum time's arrow is not clear since a quantum clock ticks equally in both directions.

However, quantum dephasing or decoherence time does set time's arrow, but this essay does not mention quantum phase or decoherence. It is very confusing for the essay to discuss the illusion of time without any mention of quantum phase or of quantum phase decoherence.

The essay seems to have an incomplete notion of time...

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 27, 2018 @ 20:38 GMT
Dear Steve Agnew,

Invisible finite relativity cannot possibly make invisible finite time turn into an invisible finite dimension that could look like invisible finite space. Please pay attention.

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before Einstein’s unrealistic (finite) Theory of (finite) Relativity: General and Special was ever published.

It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew wrote on Mar. 27, 2018 @ 04:04 GMT
The earth spin is what we call a day of time and that is the most basic notion of time. However, the earth spin is not constant and fluctuates at 18 ppm/yr and decays at 0.26 ppb/yr or more. Does time fluctuate and decay just like the earth's spin? Or is time somehow a nice constant that does not fluctuate or decay?

In fact, how can time decay in time?

The stability of atomic time is in its decoherence of phase and so two atomic clocks can start together and still diverge in their phase. The divergence of atomic clock ticks is called the Allan deviation and that represents a kind of second time dimension. In other words, not only is there a tick rate for time, there is also a decay of those tick intervals and that quantum phase decay is a second time dimension.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 27, 2018 @ 15:12 GMT
Dear Steve Agnew,

The supposed finite speed of an abstract earth’s rotation has nothing to do with observable reality. Any visible finite timepiece cannot measure invisible time. Please pay heed.

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before any atomic clocks were ever situated on the earth’s surface.

It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 28, 2018 @ 17:47 GMT
Do we need quantum time, Big Bang, etc.?

"Quantum time is reversible and so past and future are equally probable. What sets quantum time's arrow is not clear since a quantum clock ticks equally in both directions."

I tend to distrust any belief that orients itself on pattern of human experience like "conscious", "made", designed", "created", or "purpose". Accordingly I don't expect progress from someone who is thinking in terms of a model like quantum physics.

It was Weyl who admitted that there is at the time being (1932?) no explanation for the symmetry of time (in QM). Schulman even suspected a hypothetical border between the micro world and the macroscopic one. Did really nobody admit that a model is fundamentally different from reality? Who dealt with even more obvious mistakes of the fathers of QM?

To me, reality is the conjecture of something that is not just subjective but entirely independent from any observer. Being aware of coherence length, I like Steve Agnew's argument:

"how can time decay in time?"

The most appealing to me notion of time is something that doesn't decay in time.

Any spin is at best an approximate measure of the reality called time.

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Mar. 29, 2018 @ 02:16 GMT
It has been said that tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth spins. This is equivalent to the notion that the next atomic clock pulse becomes the last atomic clock pulse because of the decay of phase. In other words, it is a statement of the reversibility of quantum time.

While quantum time is reversible, gravity time's direction is set by the determinate paths of particles and so gravity time is not reversible. Gravity time is then completely predictable and determinate while the reversibility of quantum time means that quantum time is not determinate.

The way to explain time is with the parents and progeny of a causal set. Parents have children and from the family history of a causal set emerges what we call time. It takes more time for some progeny to emerge and that extra time is what we call distance in space. Quantum phase decay is then what sets time's arrow, both for quantum charge and quantum gravity and so entropy and temperature seem to have lost their way...

The notions of time and space are extremely useful for predictions of most action, but some predictions of action need the more fundamental notions of a causal set. A causal set orders actions by parentage and progeny and seems to be a more fundamental description of the universe.

However, quantum amplitude and phase superposition seem be an acausal superset whose norm becomes the causal set that we call reality. So it is wrong to say that the universe decays in time. Instead, the progeny of the universe result in fewer not more matter, but with greater force. From that family history emerges time and space...

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Mar. 28, 2018 @ 20:44 GMT
Time is not reversible; never was. Events in the universe happen spontaneously. Spontaneous events happen from a cause and a cause has only one direction.

Springs, pendulum etc. all appear to go back on their tracks. But they are not doing so, because the whole universe changes constantly. In other words, no motion of the pendulum or of any quantum oscillation is ever the same as the previous one.

The oscillation back and forth of a particle “in a box” may be unfolded in a straight line....and it goes only one way..

The universe, time and spontaneous causality all go one way....

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Mar. 28, 2018 @ 22:25 GMT
Marcel,

In a sense then it is the first law of thermodynamics which sets the direction of time. Energy is conserved, thus always and only present, so its inertia is the direction of time. The earth turns one direction, not both.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 29, 2018 @ 14:52 GMT
Dear Marcel-Marie LeBel and John Brodix Merryman,

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before any atomic clocks were ever situated on the earth’s surface.

It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

INFINITE SINGULARITY AM INDIVISABLE AND CANNOT CONTAIN ANY FINITE ELEMENTS OF CAPACITY OR DURATION.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Mar. 29, 2018 @ 01:28 GMT
John.

Yes, the cause is unique and the same for thermodynamics and gravity. Both are about spontaneous dispersion into "larger space"

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Mar. 29, 2018 @ 01:59 GMT
Marcel,

Yet gravity contracts. Consider the most basic features of galaxies are radiation expanding out, as mass and form coalesce in.

Consider that overall space is measured to be flat, that the seeming expansion of the universe is balanced by the overall effect of gravity. Consider the redshift of distant galaxies is the basis of our knowledge of this expansion. What if it is an optical effect?

The most significant flaw I see in Big Bang cosmology is when they realized all those distant galaxies are redshifted proportional to distance, in all directions, it made us appear to be the center of the universe, so the "spacetime" of GR was invoked to say space itself is expanding and every point would appear as the center. Which totally overlooks the central premise of GR, that light is always measured as a Constant. If the light is redshifted because it takes longer to cross between galaxies, it is not Constant to the intergalactic metric. More lightyears between galaxies, not expanded lightyears. So two metrics of space are being derived from the same intergalactic light. One based on its spectrum and one based on its speed. Of course, we are the center of our view of the universe, so an optical effect would make sense.

To get back to the point, say redshift is an optical effect of light having to disperse with distance, to the point it does fall down the spectrum, into radio waves, resulting in the background radiation. Eventually falling so far down the spectrum it starts to coalesce into elemental particles.

The overall result would be a cosmic convection cycle of expanding radiation and coalescing mass.

Thermodynamics.

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Mar. 29, 2018 @ 02:05 GMT
Galactic black holes being the eye of the storm and all inflating mass radiated and jetted back out.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 29, 2018 @ 15:19 GMT
Dear John Brodix Merryman,

It am physically impossible for any invisible gravitational force to contract. While it might seem that the surface of a visible railroad track might seem to expand and contract due to heating by sunlight, a real observer using their real eyes would only ever see a plethora of a small part of the track seamlessly enmeshed in the surface of a part of the railbed and the embankment and a portion of the sky and so on. This would be true if the real observer used a real camera to photograph the railroad track.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Mar. 29, 2018 @ 03:11 GMT
John,

The rate of time slows down as we move toward the ground. This means longer seconds. In order for c (m/s) to remain constant, longer seconds means longer meters. In other words, an object is falling into larger space.

So, space is not contracting in a gravitational field; it is in fact

expanding. The apparent contraction is an illusion. Falling into larger space is dispersion, the hallmark of thermodynamics....

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 29, 2018 @ 15:37 GMT
Dear Marcel-Marie LeBel,

It am physically impossible for invisible time to do anything. Although a real observer using their real eyes may look at the visible surface of a timepiece, the real observer will also see a seamlessly enmeshed flat varied hued surface of a wrist the timepiece is attached to, or the base and grounds the sundial is on, or the structure of the furniture and walls of the room where the grandfather clock am ticking away.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Mar. 29, 2018 @ 21:16 GMT
Marcel,

Isn't it that as "time"/speed of light slows, distance contracts, so that the speed of light remains Constant?

The basic premise is that in the vacuum, the speed of light is the Constant, nothing can go faster. So that in a moving frame, quantum activity has to slow, so the internal activity and external motion don't exceed C. Consequently distance, as measured by physical...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 30, 2018 @ 15:04 GMT
Dear John Brodix Merryman,

Real VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension am always illuminated by real finite non-surface light. Only abstract finite “objects” can be supposed to be in finite motion or at finite rest. Only imaginary abstract light can be supposed to have a finite constant speed.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Mar. 30, 2018 @ 18:57 GMT
John,

I was kind of hoping you would try to talk me out of this one. Not sure you succeeded.

Although interesting, your reply did not address the ratio of longer meters to longer seconds for c to remain constant... Could you give it a try??

Thanks,

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 31, 2018 @ 12:44 GMT
Dear Marcel-Marie LeBel,

The essay postulates that any human concept of there ever being any finite measure of time could be an illusion. The first sentence in the review reads: “Einstein’s (finite) relativity pushes physicists towards a (finite) picture of the (finite) universe as a (finite) block, in which the (finite) past, present, and future all exist on the same (finite) footing; but maybe that shift in (finite) thinking has gone too far

Natural reality am not thoughtful. Whatever you and John may think about anything has NOTHING to do with any reasonable understanding of the real VISIBLE Universe.

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before Einstein’s unrealistic (finite) Theory of (finite) Relativity: General and Special was ever published.

It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Apr. 1, 2018 @ 01:26 GMT
Marcel,

I see meters as a measure of distance, which is a quantity of space. I see seconds as a measure of action, which is motion in space. Meters grow longer when they are composed of matter that expands. Like water does when it's heated. Seconds are longer if the action being measured slows.

If you heat something up, it expands, but the action speeds up, as well, so longer distance+faster action=C.

Now if you put this matter under enormous pressure, like way down in the planet, it will get hot, but it isn't expanding, because the pressure is putting the same amount of matter and thus energy, in a smaller space, so temperature goes up. Aka ideal gas laws. Basically volume and temperature are correlated. Squeeze the volume and pressure pushes up the temperature. Just like acceleration correlates measures of distance and duration, aka spacetime(actually only one dimension of space), as velocity compresses mass and slows light/action. So the time/duration the light takes to travel the distance is Constant.

Gravity is presumed to be Equivalent to acceleration, thus velocity, aka the Equivalency principle. So its called spacetime, but it is the relationship of action to space. There is no time dimension, like there is a s[ace dimension, as the energy manifesting the action is only present, aka conserved. As in always and only present. Duration is the present, as events coalesce and dissolve, go future to past.

Not sure if this is any more convincing. It's late and my brain is barely turning over.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 1, 2018 @ 13:43 GMT
Dear John Brodix Merryman,

The essay postulates that any HUMAN CONCEPT of there ever being any FINITE measure of time could be an ILLUSION. The first sentence in the review reads: “Einstein’s (FINITE) relativity pushes physicists towards a (FINITE) picture of the (FINITE) universe as a (FINITE) block, in which the (FINITE) past, present, and future all exist on the same (FINITE) footing; but maybe that shift in (FINITE) thinking has GONE TOO FAR.

Your “seeing (FINITE) meters as a (FINITE) measure of (FINITE) distance, which is a (FINITE) quantity of (FINITE) space” am clear evidence of you not being quite capable of understanding reality. Please stop mindlessly parroting supposedly FINITE misinformation.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Apr. 3, 2018 @ 03:18 GMT
John,

You and I differ in the following way. You, stick to physics. In this you still say that “space” is out there and you are content with this. I say “space” does not exist. “Space” is about knowing or conceiving a group of point as being at the same moment. No two points are at the same moment. The concept of “spacetime” is a bridge we built between the real universe and our reality in order to keep doing physics. The universe does not have this requirement.

The gravitational attraction between two celestial bodies is not direct or instantaneous. Each body affects its surrounding, and this effect is communicated from close to close around it, into the distance until touching the other body. At no moment is one body directly affecting the other.

We may understand better what the universe is and how it works if, for a moment, we step outside of physics. If we consider what IS instead of what APPEARS to be.

Also; -- “There are three main sources of heat in the deep earth: (1) heat from when the planet formed and accreted, which has not yet been lost; (2) frictional heating, caused by denser core material sinking to the center of the planet; and (3) heat from the decay of radioactive elements.

(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-is-
the-earths-core-so/

(PV = NrT is not part of it)

Thanks,

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 3, 2018 @ 15:44 GMT
Dear Marcel-Marie LeBel,

You are quite correct in your assertion that no amount of invisible space could have ever existed. You are completely wrong in asserting that (finite abstract) “We may (finitely) understand better what the (finite abstract invisible) universe is and how it (finitely) works if, for a (finite) moment, (finite abstract) we (take a finite abstract) step outside of (finite) physics. If (finite abstract) we consider what IS (finite) instead of what APPEARS to be. (finite).

Nature presents us with the only reality obtainable.The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Any ant, antelope, aardvark, or aborigine can deal with reality for each and every creature has a complete surface that only has to physically deal with one real visible unified infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light..

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

Wei Xu replied on Apr. 4, 2018 @ 18:39 GMT
within one universe: there is a duality of virtual and physical reality such as Wave or Particle duality. The issue at our current theory is that the multi-worlds/states under one universal topology are collapsed into an observable state, which results in our morden thoery is also collapsed into the physical existence only.

report post as inappropriate

Wei Xu wrote on Apr. 4, 2018 @ 18:10 GMT
Time can be at the secret scope like energy. None of us who are used to the physical approach can really understand them yet. However, It becomes cristal clear that there are two domains of the scope: physical and virtual states or worlds. In our physical view, it lies at the heart of multi-states within one universe: a duality of virtual and physical reality. The issue at our current theory is that the multi-worlds under one universal topology are collapsed into an observable state, which results in our morden thoery is also collapsed into the physical existence only.

Therefore, the multi-worlds within an oneness universe should be the critical thinking point. For example, spacetime manifold has been moldeled purely in physical framework only, which is clearly diluted the virtual independence as well as reciprocity. In this physical model, we can only have a part of the behaviors, for example the virtual dimension: ct. What does ct mean??? Following this approach, scientists have beem researching for more than a century on unified field theory or theory of everything. So does the arguments for the time and energy. The point is we can’t understand how the virtuality works, or even worse that most of us doesn’t even realize there is a virtual word nor a duality of virtual and physical entanglement.

It means, in reality, the virtual property of time appears in our physical word is a pair of virtual images:
${\bf r}\pm ict$
In our nature, we have a reciprocal par of the complex manifold before it is collapsed the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum space, or Minkowski space:
${\bf r}-ct$

With this simple concept, the natural duality appears recently the groundbreaking in unified field theory... (BTW: if interested, I can provide the links to a set of the papers for the groundbreaking’s)

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 5, 2018 @ 14:53 GMT
Dear Wei Xu,

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before you chose to write: “It becomes cristal (sic) clear that there are two (finite abstract invisible) domains of the (finite abstract invisible) scope: (finite abstract) physical and (abstract invisible) virtual states or (finite abstract invisible) worlds.”

It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

Wei Xu wrote on Apr. 5, 2018 @ 18:57 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher

It is critical to define Visible. Normally, as a human we have limitation to sense the existence even not by any tools we created. For example, the dark energy that holds up our earth is not visible as we have recently acknowledged the Gravity has far less forces to hold on our solar system or milkway. Before the energy forms up the mass, it is not visible. Human intrinsic emotions are not visible directly. Moreover, energy carries messages similar to DNA Code is not visible. It is only that a duality of the physical and virtual has the visible property such as the physical motions are visible.

In a similar fashion, it might be an important concept to apply to the study of time. In our current knowledge, we as human can’t visit the true intrincis but only limited to its outcome property. This is the truth for anything in the virtual world. As a summary, our oneness world is constituted by a duality of virtual and physical existence. Most of the existence is beyond our visibility since only less than 5% is shown up as the odinally matter.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 6, 2018 @ 14:56 GMT
Dear Wei Xu,

You wrote: “It is critical to define Visible. Normally, as a human we have limitation to sense the existence even not by any tools we created.” That am finite misinformation. There am no need to define Visible. If “normally” humans had any finite limitation of their sense of existence, it would logically follow that “abnormally” humans would have no limitation of their sense of existence. Visible reality am not sensible.

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before you chose to write: “It becomes cristal (sic) clear that there are two (finite abstract invisible) domains of the (finite abstract invisible) scope: (finite abstract) physical and (abstract invisible) virtual states or (finite abstract invisible) worlds.”

It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

Harrison Crecraft wrote on Apr. 12, 2018 @ 15:47 GMT
Dear Joe, Marcel, Wei Xu, and others,

I know there are lots of self-published articles claiming to solve physics’ problem with time and nonlocality. Here’s another. However, I don’t know of any other that questions the foundational assumptions of physics and then starts from clearly-stated postulates.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 13, 2018 @ 14:47 GMT
Dear Harrison Crecraft,

Let us try it one more time.

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before “lots of self-published articles claiming to solve (finite) physics’ problem with (finite INVISIBLE) time and (finite INVISIBLE) nonlocality were ever published.” Even before you wrote: “Here’s another. However, I don’t know of any other that questions the foundational assumptions of (finite INVISIBLE) physics and then starts from (finite) clearly-stated postulates.”

It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

THE REAL UNIVERSE CONSISTS ONLY OF ONE SINGLE UNIFIED VISIBLE INFINITE SURFACE OCCURRING ETERNALLY IN ONE SINGLE INFINITE DIMENSION THAT AM ALWAYS ILLUMINATED MOSTLY BY FINITE NON-SURFACE LIGHT.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

Harrison Crecraft replied on Apr. 13, 2018 @ 15:22 GMT
Joe,

I don't think I disagree with anything here. The article expresses an objective realism without need for observers--if that is what you are trying to say.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 13, 2018 @ 20:54 GMT
Dear Harrison Crecraft,

I am not trying to “say” anything. Your misinterpretation that my sublime post was somehow a (finite) “article expresses an (finite)) objective realism without (finite) need for (finite) observers--if that is what you are trying to say.

Let us try it one more time.

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before “lots of self-published articles claiming to solve (finite) physics’ problem with (finite INVISIBLE) time and (finite INVISIBLE) nonlocality were ever published.” Even before you wrote: “Here’s another. However, I don’t know of any other that questions the foundational assumptions of (finite INVISIBLE) physics and then starts from (finite) clearly-stated postulates.”

It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

THE REAL UNIVERSE CONSISTS ONLY OF ONE SINGLE UNIFIED VISIBLE INFINITE SURFACE OCCURRING ETERNALLY IN ONE SINGLE INFINITE DIMENSION THAT AM ALWAYS ILLUMINATED MOSTLY BY FINITE NON-SURFACE LIGHT.

If you agree with me, why are you misconstruing what I actually wrote?

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Apr. 12, 2018 @ 19:15 GMT
H.R.

My claim was ....

"The rate of time slows down as we move toward the ground. This means longer seconds. In order for c (m/s) to remain constant, longer seconds means longer meters. In other words, an object is falling into larger space.

So, space is not contracting in a gravitational field; it is in fact

expanding. The apparent contraction is an illusion. Falling into larger space is dispersion, the hallmark of thermodynamics.... "

- Do you consider gravitational fall as a dispersive event (as above)? i.e thermodynamically spontaneously driven?

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Harrison Crecraft replied on Apr. 13, 2018 @ 13:20 GMT
A free fall (no friction) is not a dispersive or dissipative event and there is no entropy production. Potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. Only at impact or with air resistance is there dissipation. With no entropy production, the event takes place within a single instant of irreversible time, within an interval of reversible time symmetry. I don't think scales are relevant in this case. This response will make sense after digesting the article.

report post as inappropriate

Harrison Crecraft replied on Apr. 13, 2018 @ 13:46 GMT
H Marcel,

I went to your first post in this thread. What article were you referring to? I did not see an entry from you in the recent contest. (I only discovered it 2 days after it closed.)

Harrison

report post as inappropriate

Harrison Crecraft replied on Apr. 13, 2018 @ 14:37 GMT
My updated article is here

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Apr. 13, 2018 @ 15:51 GMT
Harrison,

My entry is at https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2977 .

Thanks for the update. Will get back to you on this

Thanks,

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 13, 2018 @ 21:13 GMT
Dear Marcel-Marie LeBel,

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before Harrison Crecraft wrote that: (finite) Physics describes a (finite) system within an (finite) instant of (finite INVISIBLE) irreversible time

It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox wrote on Apr. 17, 2018 @ 17:08 GMT
I'll not defend the Minkowski block universe other than to recognize it as a step in the process of development of Relativistic measurement. It firstly assumes, and that assumption has been trivialized as a matter of expediency, that the scale of a span of length in space is identical to the scale of a span of duration in time. Realistically we must then assume that such a one to one correspondence of scale must exist only as a special case, perhaps for example as localized to a quantum state of equilibrium at the core of a material particle. Globally however, it removes the relationship of time, and that of space, from the Relativity in physical processes.

I think that what causes much perplexion for many in addressing Relativistic discourse is that our human experience preconditions us to think of both time and space as simply 'being there', that processes happen in that background. But what the simple geometry of SR actually reveals is that both time and space interact with physical processes. Not even time acts instantaneously in its effect on a process, there is not only the rate of a span of duration, but also a rate at which the effect of that span interacts with space in the process. jrc

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 18, 2018 @ 14:44 GMT
Dear John R. Cox,

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before any humanly contrived misinformation concerning a finite abstract “Minkowski block universe” was ever published.

It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

The only thing that am causing y’all any perplexity am your obstinate refusal to understand that reality am infinite, and your trying to explain reality using finite language information cannot sensibly succeed.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward wrote on Apr. 18, 2018 @ 00:53 GMT
Re. spacetime and the Grandfather paradox: "We still don’t know how to deal with that one," T. Short

How to deal with it. Spacetime is generated through observation. It is produced by the amalgamation of information obtained from potential sensory data that has been received together i.e. within a small finite interval. Outside of that amalgamation construct and the observer, is EM radiation and other potential sensory information, that is distributed in uni-temporal (same time everywhere ) space. Neither what is seen in the spacetime construct nor what is encoded in the potential sensory data is material objects. Grandfather, the flesh and blood man, is a material object. That material object itself is not within spacetime, the visual product, but within uni-temporal space. For the material man there is no other time to be at, so he can not travel to the past, even though images that appear to depict the past can be formed using received information.

The above explanation allow unambiguous sequential change of material reality and processes, while still allowing non simultaneity of perceived (or device product) events related to the receipt and processing of signals , and prohibits temporal paradox

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 18, 2018 @ 15:01 GMT
Dear Georgina Woodward,

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before any humanly contrived misinformation concerning a finite abstract “spacetime and the Grandfather paradox” was ever published.

It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

The only thing that am causing y’all any perplexity am your obstinate refusal to understand that reality am infinite, and your trying to explain reality using finite language information cannot sensibly succeed. I do hope that you understand.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 19, 2018 @ 04:15 GMT
Joe you are a source of perplexity. You seem oblivious to the significance of the solution I have provided. Dispelling the paradoxes of relativity while still allowing there to be non simultaneity of observed events but also allowing unambiguous sequential foundational passage of time. Your own "revelation" does not fit with mainstream physics and does not provide solutions to specific problems in physics.

You use the phrase real visible structure. Yet the 'universe' you describe does not permit the process of vision to occur. There are lots of different things to consider, perception, visual products, sensory stimuli and the potential sensory information received, and material objects and particles, sources of the potential sensory information they reflect or emit allowing transmission from source to observer.

I have recently watched a video called 'Mind the gap' about the difference between perception and external reality. Perception being an interpretation formed from sensory inputs and application of prior learning. We do not experience what 'is there' but a reasonable supposition of the possible causes of the inputs received. That is why we can come up with such different conclusions about how the universe functions, and have different experiences of the same events..

While two equally useful explanations can be ranked so that the simplest is probably more likely correct, two explanations, one of which solves multiple problems and the other does not can not be usefully ranked using their simplicity. They need to be ranked according to usefulness. I am not seeking peace of mind in the certain knowledge of being a part of an infinite surface, and so your explanation is of no use to me, nor, I should think, anyone else concerned about the physics of the universe(s) we (humankind) inhabit physically and mentally.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 19, 2018 @ 14:48 GMT
Dear Georgina Woodward,

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before your surface wrote on a surface; “Joe you are a source of perplexity. You seem oblivious to the significance of the solution I have provided.” REALITY CANNOT POSSIBLY BE DEPENDANT ON ANY HUMAN BEING’S PRESENTATION OF FINITE MISINFORMATION. REALITY AM NOT A FINITE MYSTERY THAT HAS TO BE SOLVED BY HUMAN BEINGS.

It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

Heinrich Luediger wrote on Apr. 20, 2018 @ 14:33 GMT
My view on Time is this: The present is a reality filter. Only suitable theories can show in the present, that is, in the Here-and-Now of knowledge, whereby giving a DISPOSTION TO ACTION. False theories are filtered out and discarded in the waste bins called past and future. Theories pretending that the present temporally evolves from the past end up in the past-waste-bin; theories that pretend to predict the future end up in the future-waste-bin. They simply can't show (have effect) in the (any) present (reality), because causality in Hume's sense is not how the world works. Then it follows that in the present nothing can ever be met which we are not aquainted with, one way or another. Theories involving Becoming on the other hand are mere appeals to belief or escapists' domains. Whatever doesn't show in the present is FALSE.

This is why classical physics is time-less. It works at any time, it can be used by everyone, and it mustn't be believed! And - it hasn't been falsified within the range of human EXPERIENCE, the totality of the present.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 20, 2018 @ 23:45 GMT
Hi Heinrich, you wrote "Then it follows that in the present nothing can ever be met which we are not aquainted with, one way or another.". That does not strike me as correct. For example I recall my first encounter with a cigarette rolling machine.. A 'what is it ?' thing. I also remember my first encounter with a multiple lens security camera in a flower bed. Having discounted water droplets because of the dryness of the bed and symmetry of the shimmers my next best guess was a giant spider. Having got out of my car for a better look I was met by the house owner who wanted to know what I was doing, and subsequently said it was a camera. As a small child the temporary holding category 'What is it?' was frequently employed but as an adult it is much less often required, I haven't seen everything existing or that will exist in the world so again encountering something with which I am thoroughly unacquainted is quite likely.

report post as inappropriate

Heinrich Luediger replied on Apr. 24, 2018 @ 15:53 GMT
Hi Georgina,

I said ....one way or another. I'm sure you could have written an essay describing that cigarette rolling machine or that multi-lens camera before knowing what purpose they serve. And I'm certain you didn't think that they could bite you, run away, speak to you, vanish into nothing, cause rain, etc. pp. My point was that our knowledge of the present is organised according to stringent principles so that there is no 'blue screen' - never! The literally infinite depth of human knowledge isn't stored in the brain, it is the effect of the negation of negations. The human brain/mind isn't sharing any commonality with a computer.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 25, 2018 @ 00:27 GMT
Hi Heinrich I'm not convinced that prior knowledge or experience is necessary for production of the sensory product (Image reality), which is the present from the point of view of the observer, only sensory input and functioning nervous system to process it. But prior knowledge or experience is necessary for correct perception or understanding of what is being experienced. In the case of the camera in the flower bed I did actually think it might bite me, as there was so little information available with which to perceive or understand the cause of the visual product. A shimmering like many eyes among the plants.

I agree we don't have a blue screen when there are errors with processing input or dealing with it. The brain can guess what is present and that is what is recognized or even seen. I have often mentioned at a quick glance seeing a cat, when it was actually a pile of laundry, on looking again. There aren't gaps but seen guesses or 'flagged' what is its. I don't know when the brain decides one approach or the other but suspect it depends on context. Such as whether there is time to be curious, whether there is a potential danger, whether the unknown is inconsequential background or periphery relative to other stimuli of interest.

Please could you explain more about what you mean by negation of negations?

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 21, 2018 @ 12:37 GMT
Dear Heinrich Luediger,

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before you decided that your (abstract finite) view on (invisible) Time was this: The (abstract) present is a(n) (abstract finite) reality (invisible) filter. VISIBLE INFINITE SURFACE AM UNFILTERED.

It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 24, 2018 @ 14:49 GMT
Dear Trân Trần,

Finite time cannot exist in eternity. Each finite timepiece can be constructed of an infinite number of materials, and be of an infinite dimension. Each finite timepiece has a complete visible surface. If all of the timepieces were removed from the planet, it would not alter the fact that the real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Apr. 29, 2018 @ 15:23 GMT
There is a saying that says: There are lots of Einstein, but only there was a Newton.

Einstein and those physicists are wrong regarding time.

Time is an evolution parameter. This is clearly seen in Newtonian mechanics or in quantum mechanics.

The Coulomb potential is a function phi(R(t)) with time-implicit dependence, but Maxwell and others replaced it with a time-explicit...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 30, 2018 @ 14:59 GMT
Dear Juan Ramón González Álvarez,

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a visible surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before Newton and Einstein ever appeared on that surface and began their unrealistic physics guesswork, and before any timepieces were ever manufactured..

It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Apr. 29, 2018 @ 18:14 GMT
time has only math existence

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 30, 2018 @ 15:03 GMT
Dear amrit,

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a visible surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before any mathematicians or timepiece manufacturers ever appeared on that surface.

It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Apr. 29, 2018 @ 22:01 GMT
Juan,

“The Coulomb potential is a function phi(R(t)) with time-implicit dependence, but Maxwell and others replaced it with a time-explicit function phi(r,t).”

Let me see if I understand this. The time-implicit function meant that time was something real that exists in its own right. But physicists smelling some implied metaphysics (existence) decided to step back and declared Time as only a factual measurement. Without real (substantial) time, no further involvement of time in causality could be further explored.

The universe has existed and evolved by itself for the past 13.8 billion years so, causality is built into property (ies) of its constituent dynamic process (substance).

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 30, 2018 @ 14:56 GMT
Dear Marcel-Marie LeBel,

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a visible surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before any mathematicians or timepiece manufacturers ever appeared on that surface.

It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

Juan Ramón González Álvarez replied on May. 1, 2018 @ 18:50 GMT
Time is real and even some scientists claim time existed before the Big Bang. They formulate the born of our observable universe as some kind of phase transition from an unstable 'vacuum'.

Besides confounding the physical concept of time as evolution parameter with a mathematical time as dimension, Einstein also introduced a confusion between the concept of a property and the operational definition of the property, when reduced time to "the reading of a clock".

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on May. 2, 2018 @ 14:51 GMT
Dear Juan Ramón González Álvarez,

Finite time am not real. Only humanly devised timepieces are real. Each real humanly devised timepiece, be it a sundial, a Timex wristwatch, or an atomic clock has a finite commencement and can be stopped and restarted AN INFINITE NUMBER OR TIMES.

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a visible surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before Newton and Einstein ever appeared on that surface and began their unrealistic physics guesswork, and before any timepieces were ever manufactured..

It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on May. 7, 2018 @ 20:43 GMT
CALCULATION OF DIMINISHED ENERGY DENSITY OF SPACE IN THE CENTRE OF THE PROTON VORTEX

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on May. 8, 2018 @ 14:39 GMT
Dear Amrit Srecko Sorli,

Your posting appears to be about humanly devised finite calculation of an imaginary INVISIBLE variable energy that supposedly might affect the density of a finite amount of INVISIBLE space that might exist in the finite center of an INVISIBLE proton vortex.

One single VISIBLE infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated by finite non-surface light contains no INVISIBLE protons, croutons or crayons.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Wayne R Lundberg wrote on May. 10, 2018 @ 02:00 GMT
I suggest that the best pixilated space-time QG is that of J. Ambjorn, dynamically triangulated QG. He was able to determine it has a cosmology, but the key problem is to find the StdModel ground state = QC/ED algebraic group representation geometry.

Well, dynamical triangulation of space-time is not at all like dynamical triangles, which have been quite easily demonstrated to replicate QC/ED - AND mass / energy, quite well.

So I'm very confident that this grant will yield a few papers, but nothing useful from a TOE standpoint. Good thing that you've now got Sabine looking for observational methods to disprove this approach to QG. Better to just accept the background independent QG work out of Penn State.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on May. 10, 2018 @ 14:54 GMT
Dear Wayne R Lundberg,

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a visible surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years DEFORE any theoretical physicists WERE EVER BORN.

It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

My essay, REALITY AM NOT ROCKET SCIENCE, which was published online by the Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi.org) on January 10th, 2018 explains natural reality more fully. The essay is located at url: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2992

I applied for a Grant furnished by the Fetzer Franklin Fund to promote natural reality, but my application was denied without any explanation being given for the denial.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Rodney Bartlett wrote on Jan. 12, 2019 @ 05:17 GMT
IN DEFENCE OF REALITY’S SPACETIME-BOX MODEL:

PART A = A PERSPECTIVE ON THE BLOCK UNIVERSE’S EXISTENCE, PART B = A MECHANISM FOR ITS CONSTRUCTION

PART A - HOW THE VECTORS, TENSOR CALCULUS AND SCALAR OBJECTS OF MATHEMATICS GEOMETRICALLY PRODUCE SPECIAL RELATIVITY'S BLOCK UNIVERSE

Abstract

Present understanding of the Higgs boson and Higgs...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Jan. 15, 2019 @ 18:04 GMT
Time has merely the mathematical existence.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 16, 2019 @ 16:43 GMT
You mentioned a paper "Zeh 2010". I cannot find it in the references you gave.

By the way, I wonder why didn't you mention elapsed time alias age. Didn't you read FQXi essays of mine?

EB

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Jan. 17, 2019 @ 16:38 GMT
On the side of the ledger for "pixelated", globally discrete quantum spacetime(s), is the the classic rhetorical 'error of omission' in the logic of BlockTime. It is dependent on assuming that the scale of space and time are the same universally, and on not posing the question of what rate of passage of time is the prime referrence when it can only be constrained as theoretically being anywhere between light velocity and nil.

The problem for global pixelation of spacetime, is how to topologically define discrete time fields, that can also meld into global quantum relativistic gravitational domain ranges.

report post as inappropriate

Julia Banks wrote on Mar. 3, 2019 @ 03:36 GMT
Wow this is amazing. I'm so glad I stumbled on this website and read this article. Thanks for sharing this amazing info you guys.

Sincerely yours,

Julia Banks

Towing Halifax

report post as inappropriate

Jorma Seppaenen wrote on May. 23, 2019 @ 07:24 GMT
I find this very interesting topic. I am just a amateur enthusiast of cosmology, but I would like to present my thoughts about this question.

I have understood, that general relativity (GR) is basically just a mathematical abstraction, a collection of mathematical formulas, where time is one of coordinates of spacetime. As the other coordinates, time is measuring relative intervals in spacetime. Nothing in those formulas are dictating the direction of time or defines any common simultaneity, and also nothing defines any cosmic zero point of time.

Universe on the other hand is the creator of time and space existing. It dictates time's zero-point, direction and flow observable as a non-reversible cosmic entropy. Common universal time can even be measured using CMBR, at time beeing quite harshly. Cosmic epoch term is used. But in principle it is a measurable time, accuracy just depends of observer's measuring instruments. At very accurate level cosmic time would define the common simultaneity, to which differently ticking speeds of observer's clocks don't have any affect. In universe, there is still many things that GR does not explain.

So, there is still the big question, is it possible to time travel or not? I assume, that in GR, if there is faster speeds than light's, the answer would be yes. Because information of tangled particles and inflation could move faster than light, therefore the GR's answer would really be yes. In real universe, neither of these are leading to earlier state of universe, so the answer of existing universe is no. Therefore, time is not an illusion in universe.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 24, 2019 @ 07:18 GMT
Yes. The estimate of age of the visible universe, and age of stars, other astronomic bodies and galaxies is not just a question of accuracy of measuring instruments but whether the theories of evolution of the universe and the astronomic bodies are correct. (What is seen is a present image recently generated from received EM radiation of aged origin. Signal transmission times makes the observation product a spacetime image rather than what exists simultaneously in space)

The Greatest Cosmic Puzzle: Astronomers Find Stars That Appear Older Than The Universe (Forbes)

report post as inappropriate

Jorma Seppaenen replied on May. 24, 2019 @ 17:16 GMT
Dear Georgina,

I think you are perfectly right about the estimate of age of the visible universe etc. To clarify a bit better what I meant I'd like to present following gedankenexperiment. It's based on the idea is homogeneity of CMBR and cosmological principle stating the homogeneity and isotropy of universe. The exact unambiguous age of universe wouldn't be necessary.

So, if we and some aliens in faraway space would have mutual EM-connection and instruments which would measure CMBR's mean wavelength so accurate that the difference caused by one second's time could be recognized. If we would have agreed beforehand the precise future mean wavelength of CMBR (thus a exact second) when to uncork our shampagne bottles and celebrate together the mutual cosmic connection, then, wouldn't this really be a simultaneous party-time? Of course, such an instrument should be able to clear up usual local anomalies.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 25, 2019 @ 23:08 GMT
Hi Jorma, some thoughts;

You mention mutual EM connection. I think you mean by that the sending and receiving of signals whereby synchronization of clocks can happen. Problem is they are not non moving relative to each other but moving in and with their own star system; which will have to be taken into account. It will take a long time even with the alien just 1 light year away. 3 years min. for signalling. You mention the homogeneity and isotropy of the CMBR. IT has neither and also seems to show anomalies correlated to the Earth's location at the centre. The alien would have a different observation product formed from received radiation at its location, that location being central to the CMBR image produced. A party could be scheduled taking into account synchronization issues, when each views their own product.

report post as inappropriate