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

Display:
all posts
member posts highlighted
member posts only

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Jorma Seppaenen: on 6/4/19 at 16:01pm UTC, wrote A View to Time, inter alia The Big Picture - Universal Time ...

Jim Snowdon: on 5/26/19 at 15:53pm UTC, wrote Of course, the stars would, very slowly, move across the sky as the Earth...

Jim Snowdon: on 5/25/19 at 23:11pm UTC, wrote On the permanently dark side of the Earth, the stars would appear to stay...

Georgina Woodward: on 5/16/19 at 4:29am UTC, wrote Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the...

Steve Agnew: on 5/16/19 at 4:07am UTC, wrote Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and...

Georgina Woodward: on 5/15/19 at 5:23am UTC, wrote I still don't know the difference between particles and atoms "knowing"...

Steve Agnew: on 5/15/19 at 4:17am UTC, wrote You two are great! On the one hand, physicists find relationships beteen...

Paul Merriam: on 5/14/19 at 21:17pm UTC, wrote Vitaly, in one of your papers you transformed t = i(tau). What is imaginary...

FQXi FORUM
July 18, 2019

CATEGORY: Ultimate Reality [back]
TOPIC: The Nature of Time [refresh]

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Feb. 15, 2019 @ 16:59 GMT
I'm opening up this thread, following requests from users, as a place to discuss general questions and ideas about the nature of time.

Enjoy!

report post as inappropriate

Eric Aspling wrote on Feb. 15, 2019 @ 18:25 GMT
I'd like this to be an open discussion about ideas. I'm posting my thoughts here because this has to do with the nature of time. These thoughts don't seem to answer any questions. They have helped me come to grips with the tough topics and maybe could generate some fun discourse (maybe not).

Understanding the Irreversibility of Time Using Gates.

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Feb. 15, 2019 @ 17:07 GMT
Eric,

"Does this quantum computing system not apply to the universe?" It does not, because the entire concept of a "quantum bit" is a figment of the imagination. The observed seemingly "weird" quantum behavior is that of a single, classical bit, AS DEFINED BY SHANNON, not the physics community, which has never understood Shannon.

"Reality seems merely a series of measurement gates..." That is correct. Once you understand what Shannon's capacity theorem is actually all about, it becomes clear that quantum theory is not a theory about "matter" at all, it is a theory about the "measurement of matter" only. The ancient Greek philosophers made a distinction between "being" (things as they are - Reality as it is) and "seeming" (things as they appear - Reality as it seems). Physicists have always simply assumed that quantum theory is a theory of "being", but from the perspective of Shannon, it is a theory of "seeming", a theory about the interactions (such as measurements) between things, rather then about the things per se.

Consider this

Rob McEachern

this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate

Eric Aspling replied on Feb. 15, 2019 @ 20:28 GMT

report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali replied on Feb. 15, 2019 @ 20:39 GMT
Hi Eric,

Thanks for this. I have deleted the copy of your message from the "Alternative Models" thread, so that it can continue here.

Hi Rob,

Having deleted Eric message from the other thread, I also just moved your reply to Eric from the "Alternative Models" thread over to here (and deleted the post you put here pointing to that reply), so that the discussion can move here.

I hope that nothing has been lost in the process.

report post as inappropriate

Jim George Snowdon wrote on Feb. 15, 2019 @ 19:25 GMT
We are inclined to assume that time exists, as the result of being immersed in the Earths rotational motion. The Earths rotational motions surface speed at the Equator is roughly 1,000 miles per hour. Endlessly flying along at 1,000 miles per hour, along with everything around us, inclines us to assume, that time exists as some kind of force or thing.

We are within the Earths rotational motion. Rotational motion itself is perfectly matched to our time measurement system, since our time measurement system is based on the period of the Earths rotation. We use the Earths period of rotation as the baseline measurement to measure time passing. Our clocks do not actually measure time passing, our clocks measure duration elapsing.

There is no such thing or force as time. What we do have is motion in our timeless Universe. What we do have is duration elapsing. There is no co-existing past(s) or future(s) somewhere else. There is only the present, the now, the state of duration elapsing.

There is no possible time travel, since there are no other times to travel to.

Motion itself does not create time. The Earths rotational motion is the fundamental physical mechanism responsible for maintaining our confusion about the nature of time.

report post as inappropriate

Jim George Snowdon replied on Apr. 25, 2019 @ 02:16 GMT
We would be inclined to assume that time did not exist, as some kind of force or thing, if the Earth did not have its rotational motion.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 25, 2019 @ 02:50 GMT
Jim, I agree with a lot you have written here but have two disagreements. I think it is helpful to separate what is happening -Now and what is experienced as the present. Also, even if the Earth did not rotate there would still be other changes happening. Timing does not have to be with a 12 or 24 hr clock. It can be done with a sand or water clock. All that matters is that the change used is regular, not varying in rate. I.e. the duration of the intervals of the chosen timing method are the same as each other.

report post as inappropriate

Jim George Snowdon replied on Apr. 29, 2019 @ 17:45 GMT
This is a paragraph from my one page essay in the first FQXi essay contest, "The Nature of Time." The essay is titled, "Things Happen". Its the last entered essay in that contest, entry dated December 4th, 2,008.

"The basis of our shared illusion, is our rotating planet. Our natural state in reality, is to be travelling at a surface speed of 1,600 kilometers per hour. Our time systems are based on this motion. At the root of our deception, we take this motion as our time. As the world turns, we see the real and constant effects of that motion in seamless concert with our clocks. This constant evidence of change validates our clocks, and our clocks mark the passage of time. We live on our clock, its motion is our time. The marriage of the physical rotational motion, with our systems of time keeping, sets the stage for the illusion to occur. The ingredient that creates the illusion of time, and binds us to it, is our consciousness."

report post as inappropriate

Rick Lockyer wrote on Feb. 15, 2019 @ 21:45 GMT
IMHO time is a complex value. Our mechanical clocks and our sense of time passing are purely real axis phenomena. I would agree the only quality of time relevant to mathematics is differential time. We can only know or sense now, but this does not speak to time’s existence. It must be accounted for in our mathematical physics dimensionally as degrees of freedom on an equal basis with spatial dimensions within the enveloping algebra.

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 17, 2019 @ 06:35 GMT
Why are physicists happy with the paradoxes (logical inconsistencies) of special relativity? I believe that it is primarily due to the numerous experimental results that show 'time dilation'. Einstein built multiple times into his inertial frames; automatically destroying the intuitive understanding of absolute time as universal simultaneity and replacing it with "the relativity...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 17, 2019 @ 08:46 GMT

SR was accepted long before 1971 or even the Myon speculation. Why? Perhaps the 100 Autoren were ignored in 1932 for propaganda reasons.

I consider Einstein's intentional nonsensical "synchronization" the central root of time dilution and all that.

EB

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 18, 2019 @ 03:44 GMT

http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/MuonRelativity.htm ?

"they use time dilation from one direction and length contraction from the other! It’s hard to say whether the presenters are aware of their inconsistent logic or if they are just reciting it with a straight face."

Pre-Relativistic Doppler effects on apparent length and apparent time depend on the sign of v.

With 1971 I referred to an experiment that might have overlooked the Sagnac effect.

Where are the many experimental confirmations of SR?

EB

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 25, 2019 @ 00:39 GMT
Edwin,

Maybe, the answer is Max, Max, Max, and once again Max. Maxwell's aether worried the community. Max Abraham firmly believed in it. Max Planck and Max von Laue supported Einstein's utterly mistakable interpretation of the principle of relativity as Relativity. Max Born built a bridge via Stern/Gerlach to the also multi-paradoxical mechanical interpretation of quantum physics.

While I admit, my suspicion concerning the Stern/Gerlach experiment might be unfounded, I maintain: The fundamental logical inconsistency of Einstein's 1905 relative two-way velocity is definitely inacceptable to me.

I realized that even prominent opponents of Relativity overlooked or swallowed it.

You are attributing gamma to energy. This might be the most reasonable way out, no matter whether or not you are correct in all other details.

EB

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 19, 2019 @ 14:05 GMT
About this time it is for me a link with this space respecting this general relativity.It is like a duration correlated with the rotating sphères probably.Now of course we know that we can decrease our internal clocks due to this special relativity when we reach c.It is also a good Tools this special relativity permitting to rank the evolution of our universe because more we go far in space more we return in the past for the observer.Time and space are linked and are foundamentals ,regards

report post as inappropriate

Eric Aspling wrote on Feb. 21, 2019 @ 12:16 GMT
Hi Georgina,

This post was simply to express why the illusion of time seems to progress directionally based on quantum gates and the way they can transform quantum information. Ensuring the unitarity and thus reversibility of quantum gates that go unmeasured doesn’t give any new information toward understanding how to interpret the wave function.

It does however link the evolution of entropy in the universe to a preferential time direction (2nd law of thermo). It also spreads some light on how the system behaves this way. The measurement problem could answer why it behaves this way but the statement that observed time has preferential direction is not novel, but it is highly debated.

I have yet to hear a philosophical argument that there are two versions of time one that has preferential direction and one that does not. Not only making the argument, but applying it to reality was what I attempted to do here.

When the mathematics become developed to answer the measurement problem, the current “shut up and calculate” methods will be emergent out of the theory. Thanks,

Eric

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Feb. 21, 2019 @ 14:36 GMT
Eric,

"This post was simply to express why the illusion of time seems to progress directionally.."

The answer is obvious, if you disregard "conventional wisdom" and think about the following:

It is all about "seeming" rather than "being".

Imagine you have a machine with a "start" button. As soon as you press that button, time will run in reverse, throughout the entire cosmos, for exactly five seconds, and then resume running forward.

No observer ANYWHERE would EVER notice! It is ENTIRELY unobservable. Because the first thing that happens would be returning the cosmos to the state immediately before the button was pushed - and that includes removing/erasing all memory of the past "future" that was just reversed.

In other words, "time-reversing" is entirely unobservable, even in principle, even when it happens. That is why it has never been observed. We could all be repeatedly taking two-steps forward in time, followed by one-step back, and there is no way for us to ever observe that fact, because true time-reversing, erases all information about its very occurrence - by definition.

"The measurement problem could answer why it behaves this way..." Exactly. There is nothing left, no "forensic evidence" to ever be measured - the process of time-reversal always removes all detectable evidence of itself. It has nothing to do with quantum theory.

Only an observer "outside" of our cosmos and its reversals in time, could ever observe such reversals. But we are not such observers.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 21, 2019 @ 21:15 GMT
Eric, I'm not sure how you can address (to paraphrase) the illusion of time progressing in a directional manner, when the quantum gates you mention can only be considered as a tally of mathematics performed. Is the seeming uni-directionality a illusion? Or is it assumed to be an illusion by accepting the mathematically sanctioned time reversibility of classical mechanics and relativity? If the background in which all processes are happening is the configuration of all that exists and the change in that configuration is foundational passage of time, time is not reversible and the dirrectionality not an illusion, but a metaphor. If instead one considers the sequence of products from measurement or observation occurring within the afore mentioned background, they too are not reversible. That providing the perceived "direction" of time.

report post as inappropriate

Eric Aspling replied on Feb. 23, 2019 @ 16:20 GMT
Hi Georgina,

The "illusion" is simply a catch phrase associated with the debate about temporal direction. The argument is usually centralized about unitarity in quantum mechanics. Basically stated that if a quantum gate is Unitary then there exists a law that takes a state 1 to state 2, and there must also exist a law that takes state 2 to state 1. Quantum gates that are not measurements, are required to be Unitary. Measurement gates are not required to do this. Certainly, this is a conundrum that is hence to be solved mathematically by understanding the measurement problem.

My solution to thinking about the debate is that both of these things exist independently of each other. Quantum Mechanically, there does exist a notion of unitarity that is absolute. However, there is also directional time that we experience through measurement. No real mathematics or physics gets accomplished but a sort of entertaining philosophy can be drawn from the example.

Eric

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 26, 2019 @ 04:33 GMT
Eckhard has read and grasped my paper Everything's relative… and remarked above that

"Attributing gamma to energy… might be the most reasonable way out" [regardless of whether I'm correct in all other details.]

The Fizeau experiment [among others] is still not physically understood, so my details of such may or may not be correct, nevertheless the energy-time model versus the space-time model yields intuitive physical explanations of experiments without the inconsistencies of special relativity (the 'paradoxes').

Having spent almost 2 years arguing these points with excellent physicists, including two of Feynman's students, I am very aware that relativity has been pushed into countless areas of application. The application of gamma to relativistic energies is significant, but time-dilation experiments are the basis of most relativists' faith in SR.

I have become convinced that focusing on many details, while necessary, is distracting, and that it is better to focus on the root false premise – Einstein's introduction of multiple time dimensions into the problem at the 'definition-of-terms' level, and since all theoretical arguments are then framed in these terms (i.e., inertial reference frames) then the falsehood permeates every logical argument thereafter.

Einstein complemented the introduction of his false premise of multiple times with his imaginary invention of perfect, weightless clocks, that somehow magically measure time in each time dimension. With real physical clocks, based on mass and inertia, the increase in relativistic mass causes clock's inertia to increase, and since every real clock depends on inertia this provides a universal explanation of 'time dilation' in all SR experiments.

My best to all,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 20, 2019 @ 04:09 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Let me guess: You are hoping for more attention to your 57 pages paper „Everything’s relative, or is it?“. Did you therefore refuse discussing just selected details at FQXi ? Can you please guide me to forums that are better suited?

Being a German, I understand “or is it” in the cautiously doubting naïve sense of “oder etwa nicht”. Having...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 20, 2019 @ 19:48 GMT
Dear Eckard,

When I began ~2 years ago I believed special relativity was simple. I no longer believe that. Over a year’s effort produced ‘Everything’s Relative, or is it?’ and I hope to soon publish another 6 months follow on effort. I often spend 2 to 3 hours face to face with quite competent physicists (all older) and know how very hard it is to “unlearn” Relativity concepts.

Einstein embedded his false premise (multiple times) in his definition of inertial reference frame and formulated all of his principles and postulates in terms of inertial reference frames. Thus the game is lost before it begins. One accepts his false premise or one cannot discuss relativity. This leads to length contraction, relativity of simultaneity, etc.

I claim gamma is an inertial factor, applied to mass, NOT velocity, whether in particle physics or in inertial clocks. This causes real clocks to slow down because their increased inertia resists the restoring force (accel) common to all oscillating systems, and accounts for ‘time dilation’.

The gravitational field has energy and is physically a real ‘medium’ in which light can propagate. This ‘ether’ equivalent establishes a preferred frame, canceling Einstein’s “no preferred frame” as the basis of “space-time symmetry”.

I wish that you and I could meet face-to-face. It would be enjoyable and far more efficient than these comments. My opinion is that reading the essay four or five times would be necessary to understand well the alternate theory.

Thank you for suggesting that my theory is correct.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 20, 2019 @ 19:50 GMT
“1) Einstein hid his false premise in the definition of inertial reference frame and then based all axioms on this”.

I rather directly attribute his key mistake to the obvious misuse of Poincarè synchronization based on two reference frames.

report post as inappropriate

Kjetil Hustveit wrote on Mar. 2, 2019 @ 17:34 GMT
I always find it fruitful to try to explain the universe in a completely background independent way. How to explain everything without time, space and forces and matter? I think some of the equations from loop quantum gravity may hint about something as they don't take time into account. Time, as almost everything else must somehow be emergent from a very simple ground structure. And time like everything else must be local. Such that I experience my own time, exactly like you, when reading this experience your own. Although the difference is way too small to notice.

I think what we eventually experience as time is a result of a really simple mechanism. If we take a really broad view of what the universe is we can say it is a huge heap of lumps of information that is related to each other. When some relation changes, time ticks. Each change of relation is not completely deterministic - there is always some random element, hence time has a direction. The cause of the change can be thought of as a point of action, something that instigates a change. The total number of these points is by the way the total energy in the system.

These ideas leeds us inevitably to ponder upon if conservation of energy is a fundamental property or if it is a result of a higher order error correction algorithm like, say spacetime. Anyhow it is indeed fortunate for the stability of the universe that we have a maximum speed limit and a swift mechanism for decoherence.

report post as inappropriate

Alex Rhatushnyak wrote on Mar. 4, 2019 @ 06:57 GMT
Bird's-eye view of time and evolution

is in the attached single-page document.

https://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/226

attachments: bev_otae.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward wrote on Mar. 5, 2019 @ 03:45 GMT
Hi Alex, what exactly did you want to draw our attention to at the fQxi page address mentioned? I've looked at the page but don't know what it is I should be 'seeing'. Could you give a very brief summary of the linked one page document. I don't know you and do not know that the link can be trusted. I am interested if you have a novel way of thinking about time. I'd say time is my primary interest.

report post as inappropriate

Alex Rhatushnyak replied on Mar. 5, 2019 @ 13:31 GMT
> Could you give a very brief summary of the linked one page document.

Georgina, it's already a very very brief summary,

but here it is again in PNG format instead of PDF.

attachments: bev_otae.png

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 5, 2019 @ 21:21 GMT
Alex,is there nothing you can say about it? Is this the same as Max Tegmark's bird's eye view of the universe or something different? Is it looking at space-time from the outside or a different kind of time? What assumptions must be made to envision the birds eye view? How is this helpful?

report post as inappropriate

Ilgaitis Prusis replied on Mar. 18, 2019 @ 12:11 GMT
To Erick, Georgina and all.

Now I read your discussion about reversibility of time. You all are right. The problem is that there are several types of motion. The time is only characteristic of motion. So there are several types of time. The time is irreversible in the irreversible motions. For example, accelerating expansion of Universe. It is absolute time, independent from other motions and irreversible. The time is reversible in the reversible motions, for example, different waves. It is local time. More in: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331440555_About_Arr
ow_of_Time

Ilgaitis

report post as inappropriate

Saibal Mitra wrote on Mar. 10, 2019 @ 22:52 GMT
https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.1615

Each instant of time a new Universe

We present an alternative view of quantum evolution in which each moment of time is viewed as a new "universe" and time evolution is given by correlations between them.

report post as inappropriate

Ilgaitis Prusis wrote on Mar. 18, 2019 @ 11:17 GMT
In the nutshell about nature of time.

Time per se does not exist. There is only motion. The concept of time allows you to compare motions. All clocks compare motions. Absolute time is the effect of expanding Universe. Time have 3 dimensions. In the direction from past to future active is only present. The past is no longer, but the future is not yet. The present have 2 dimensions in the cosmic scale distances. More in: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329453486_Pioneer_A
nomaly_and_Dimensions_of_Time

Ilgaitis

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 20, 2019 @ 00:00 GMT
Re “There is only motion”:

Yes, but what causes this “motion”? The laws of physics are merely relationships. The laws of physics attempt to represent change of number via the delta symbol, but they don’t explain why change of number should ever occur. The laws of physics assume change of number, but physics has no explanation for change of number.

report post as inappropriate

Ilgaitis Prusis wrote on Mar. 20, 2019 @ 10:46 GMT
Dear Lorraine,

The initial cause of motion is force. The laws of physics are attempts to explain laws of nature. There is no numbers in the nature. The numbers are imagination of human mind. In the nature are merely forcefields and its sources (mass, charge etc). All other arise from mutual action of forces.

Best regards

Ilgaitis

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 21, 2019 @ 02:16 GMT
Ilgaitis,

Re “There is only motion” [1]; “The initial cause of motion is force” [2]:

Yes, a force is a result of a quantum mechanical particle interaction, involving quantum jumps, that changes the motion of particles. But the motion of things is closely related to the question of time: how would we detect time if we never observed motion?

The laws of physics don’t change, so how does physics represent motion, given a frame of reference? Motion can be thought of as a change in the numbers that apply to some of the variables (e.g. position, velocity, acceleration, energy, momentum) in the equations that comprise the laws of physics [3]. These laws don’t ever initiate number change: the laws of physics merely represent number change relationships using the delta symbol. But seemingly all number changes in the universe are initiated by quantum mechanics e.g. the quantum jumps in particle interactions.

So, our sense of time comes from the number changes initiated by (what we call) quantum mechanics.

1. Ilgaitis Prusis wrote on Mar. 18, 2019 @ 11:17 GMT

2. Ilgaitis Prusis wrote on Mar. 20, 2019 @ 10:46 GMT

3. The laws of physics are assumed to represent laws of nature.

report post as inappropriate

Ilgaitis Prusis replied on Mar. 21, 2019 @ 10:05 GMT
Dear Lorraine,

Thank you, now I understand that we are talking about different things. You writing about difficulties of quantum mechanics to interpret the time and movement, but I am talking about movement of celestial bodies. In the my case no problems to observe motion of Sun or Moon. My sense of time is based on motion of Sun. There is no need for quantum mechanics.

Do you look at everything from a Quantum Field Theory (QFT) perspective?

QFT, like all mainstream physics, is based on the assumption that space is eternal endless container. It is “free imagination of human mind” (Einstein). This leads to many unsolved conundrums.

I prefer facts: there is expanding Universe with mass and therefore gravity. All other (space, time, etc.) are consequences of that. As a result, all physics puzzles vanish.

Best regards

Ilgaitis

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 22, 2019 @ 00:24 GMT
Ilgaitis,

I probably essentially agree with part of what you are saying:

I would say that space and time are not the most fundamental things that structure the universe: space and time information is derived from other types of information, via information relationships (i.e. law of nature relationships).

Space and time information, and seemingly all other information about the universe, is subjective information, not absolute information. I.e. the categories of information (e.g. “space”, “time”) seem to be somewhat absolute, but the numbers that apply to the categories are not absolute.

Lorraine

report post as inappropriate

Ilgaitis Prusis wrote on Mar. 22, 2019 @ 10:01 GMT
Hi, Lorraine

If I understood correctly you think the information is primary. Everything else (matter, space, time etc) comes from information. If so, there is question: what is information? I have not been able to find the definition of information.

Ilgaitis

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 22, 2019 @ 19:56 GMT
Hi,you can consider informations like codes sent from the center of our universal sphere,the central biggest BH sending primordial informations implying all.The waves particles duality is correlated.In my model of spherisation,I consider quantum sphères sent from this central cosmological singularity and they are'coded'implying'properties'of'matters'and'waves'energy Inside this space time.Informations can be ranked and of course we must differenciate the primordial informations with others kinds. Regards

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 22, 2019 @ 20:01 GMT
The Density also can be studied for the ranking of different informations.The spherical volumes also like the thermodynamics corrélations and QFT.The importance correlated with the sortings,synchros or superimposings so appears and so the ranking.

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford wrote on Mar. 22, 2019 @ 22:19 GMT
Ilgaitis,

Information is all we have about ourselves, our world and the universe. But we know the rest of the world and the universe exists independent to ourselves e.g. because we don’t choose to be maimed and killed in car accidents, and we don’t choose to drown in a tsunami. However, we are not 100% independent of the world and the universe, because we realise that we are part of the world and the universe.

Information is what is represented symbolically e.g. as words, sentences and equations. These symbols representing information are written on paper, spoken as soundwaves, or stored and manipulated in computers (where the representations are re-represented as binary digits). We can assume that, underneath all the representations, is something real: something that is not a representation. Law of nature relationships, mass, velocity, space and time are real. However, it is clear that mass, velocity, space and time are relationships, and relationship between relationships.

As observers, information is our context with respect to the rest of the world. Information is not relationships between things (e.g. observers, chairs and piles of sand are things). Information is relationships between our knowledge of things. If there is such a thing as objectively true information, it is not useful to us: the only useful information is contextual information.

Lorraine

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 23, 2019 @ 10:23 GMT
Hi Lorraine,thanks for sharing your ideas,it is well explained.Regards

report post as inappropriate

Ilgaitis Prusis replied on Mar. 23, 2019 @ 16:35 GMT
Hi, Lorraine

This is the best explanation of the information which I have ever read.

Best regards

Ilgaitis

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 23, 2019 @ 17:02 GMT
It is well explained but we need to rank and differenciate the informations.For example we have primordial informations in our quantum series implying properties.We have the binar informations invented by us the humans and we have informations due to communication and encodings in brains.That permits to better understand the consciousness even in considering the 3 main systems.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Mar. 23, 2019 @ 04:53 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

I asked “how to unlearn Maxwell’s hypothetic (light carrying) medium?”. When Einstein himself uttered: we don’t need the ether, this additionally contributed to massive distrust among the 100 authors who naively focused on paradoxes that are deeper rooted in Maxwell’s hypothesis of a medium analog to air that carries sound. Why was the ether felt as an indispensable credo to Lorentz? Shouldn’t he have realized that acoustic media are subject to various physical influences on the wave speed, e.g. what gas, temperature, pressure, wind, etc. while electromagnetic waves may propagate within empty space with universally constant speed c?

You mentioned (on p. 14) that Einstein referred to “Fizeau’s experiment upon which I [Einstein] based my special theory of relativity”. I overlooked this detail. Can you please give a reference?

More than a decade agoI attended a conference in Pine Mountain which is not too much remote from your residence (in Huntington/Alabama?). Meanwhile I didn’t even leave my home in Magdeburg for properties near Berlin. So there is no chance for a face-to-face conversation.

I am however ready to take issue concerning what I consider to be better explained including the 2c fallacy.

My very best regards

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 23, 2019 @ 18:53 GMT
Correction:

I meant Huntsville, not Huntington.

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 26, 2019 @ 18:16 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I don’t believe the analogy of pressure waves in air have much bearing on electromagnetic propagation in a medium.

I include below an interesting quote I just found, the link follows.

“However, there is another indisputable source of gravitational waves that we know about exceedingly well. This source is an electromagnetic wave. The argument is very simple: where there is an electromagnetic wave, there is an energy-momentum tensor. By the field equations of general relativity, wherever there is an energy-momentum tensor, there is a non-vanishing Ricci tensor, hence a non-vanishing Riemann tensor which invariantly characterizes the presence of spacetime curvature. This field of spacetime curvature is necessarily localized within the region of the energy-momentum tensor (one cannot boost from the speed c) and it flows with speed c. So we draw the following conclusion: electromagnetic waves have an intrinsic duality: they are necessarily also gravitational waves. Thus the detection of gravitational waves is the routine of our everyday existence as we detect electromagnetic waves.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5852e579be659442a01f2
7b8/t/586c1b8d893fc03b140b25c7/1483479950312/Cooperstock_201
5.pdf

I do not recall which reference the Fizeau quote came from.

I lived in Huntsville when I worked at NASA, I left to pursue microprocessor design and moved to Silicon Valley. I’ve been on the California Coastside for almost 40 years. I agree that it would be wonderful to meet and discuss things face-to-face, but it won’t happen.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 28, 2019 @ 18:20 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Let me go on preferring to trust in what you ascribed to HH on your page 20: "Michelson's experiment(s)is taken to imply that there is no ether. ... One paradox is (already) too much."

Your Cooperstock paper deters me by using various tensors and the notion spacetime.

While I am not at all interested in em propagation in a medium, AE is ascribed also on p. 20 to state: "Fizeaus's experiments and stellar aberration were the phenomena upon which I most strongly based my theory".

What about your correct attribution of gamma to energy, i.e. v_squared, not to v. I found in the four annus mirabilis papers:

Photonic effect

Brownian motion

Special Relativity

Mass-energy equivalence

nothing that justified SR. On the contrary, the first page of SR indicated to me that AE was aware of the issue v vs. v_squared.

We should deal with more issues in which we agree.

My best regards,

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Mar. 23, 2019 @ 17:25 GMT
“Existence” takes meaning from its logical opposite, nothingness.

Existence from nothingness is not possible because of the rule of non-contradiction.

But, between “existence” and “nothingness”, a dynamic process can happen, which is neither.

So, we have a dynamic process. Starts as a small point. But look out the window and it is a big universe. This process is spontaneous (nobody is pushing) and generating (makes more units of itself, not superimposable= big universe). A spontaneous and generating process is …. An explosive process. The Big Bang was not an event. It was the beginning of a spontaneous process that is still happening right now.

The whole universe is made of this substance-process which, in its simplest form, we call TIME. This is why, as we know, at the atomic and sub-atomic level everything moves, jiggles, vibrates, … by itself.

Dark matter is just this time process clumping on itself and giving the impression (effect) that we interpret as the presence of some unseen dark mass…

See my last essay for more details

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford wrote on Mar. 24, 2019 @ 22:05 GMT
Steve and Ilgaitis,

Thanks for your vote of confidence in my description of information. But please note that my view of information is not physics’ view of information.

I distinguish:

1) information, which has inherent context with respect to the rest of reality; from

2) A) coded representations of information (e.g. words, numbers, equations, binary digits are coded representations), and B) mathematical calculations of probability performed on coded representations (which results in a number i.e. Shannon information), where both A and B are symbolic representations which have no inherent context with respect to the rest of reality.

I’m saying information is an observer’s subjective experience of relationship and context, where this relationship and context is real: it is not a symbolic or coded representation of relationships and context. Physics is saying that information is objective facts, symbolic representations without context.

Physics’ view of information is muddled, and somewhat mystical, because physics fails to distinguish between information and coded representations of information. Physics usually believes that coded information IS information. And physics contends that numbers that have no context, can have “surprise value” or equivalently “reduction in ignorance/uncertainty”, and that this surprise value is a feature of information.

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 25, 2019 @ 00:46 GMT
P.S.

Computers use electricity and integrated circuits on silicon chips to represent zeroes and ones and represent Boolean AND/OR/NOT logic.

In quantum computers, quantum states are used to represent the quantum version of zeroes and ones; and special quantum logic gates/circuits are used to represent a special, looser, quantum logic, which provides the correct solutions with only a calculatable probability.

We use these quantum states to represent a code, so that we can do certain types of mathematical calculations.

But these quantum states are not actually a code. So, notions like the “computational capacity of the universe” [1] are completely misguided.

1. “Computational capacity of the universe” by Seth Lloyd, October 2001, https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0110141

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 25, 2019 @ 19:21 GMT
Hello Lorraine,

Best Regards :)

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 29, 2019 @ 19:03 GMT
In reply to Eric's original query; there is a precise match!

You appear to be talking about theories of Quantum Gravity or Geometrization, Eric. There is some resemblance with the conditional application of direction in CDT (Causal Dynamical Triangulations), where adjoining geometric segments must have the same time direction. But I see a pretty precise match with a recent paper by Paola Zizzi, which talks about a specific configuration of gates constructing spacetime in the early universe, in the context of a Quantum Growing Network.

Entangled Space-Time is found at arXiv:1807.06433

I hope the paper above is relevant to this discussion. I only discovered this thread today, but I recently submitted a paper for publication on the origin of time. So I think I might have something worthwhile to say. But I will wait until I've looked through the many interesting comments above. I intend to rejoin this conversation in earnest, when I have a little more time to spare.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 29, 2019 @ 19:17 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

Happy to see you again,thanks also for sharing your paper.You are relevant.BestRegards

report post as inappropriate

Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Mar. 31, 2019 @ 17:52 GMT
the only time is NOW

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 7, 2019 @ 23:40 GMT
Information is not objective [1]. Information is the only possible knowledge that components of the universe can carry i.e. incomplete subjective knowledge of their context within the system.

This contextual information is not about relationships between the components of the system; and obviously, information has nothing to do with binary digits, which have no inherent context, and which can only ever symbolically represent information.

Contextual information is about relationships between categories of knowledge, where “lower-level” categories of knowledge are e.g. mass, position, velocity (speed and direction) etc.

But seemingly, time is a primitive “higher-level” category of knowledge, which can only be acquired via algorithmic analysis of “lower-level” information. Living things acquire sophisticated “higher-level” knowledge about their context, which is necessarily built upon analysis and synthesis of “lower-level” information. But one must ask: what is the use of this “higher-level” information if the information is not associated with “higher-level” outcomes i.e. outcomes that can’t be provided by law of nature relationships?

1. The Quantum Question of an Objective Reality, by Gabriella Skoff, 21st March 2019: “The researcher’s findings suggest … that in quantum physics there is no objective reality; that reality itself is observer-dependent... this conclusion …calls the concept of objective fact—the very pursuit of science itself—into question.” https://projectqsydney.com/2019/03/21/the-quantum-question-o
f-an-objective-reality

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 8, 2019 @ 00:45 GMT
More correctly, time is a “higher-level” category of information, which can only be acquired via algorithmic analysis of “lower-level” categories of information, where the quantities/numbers applying to these categories have changed. The sense of time is due to the sense of change.

Some people would claim that this number change needs no explanation: that (what we would represent as) number change is just what the universe does, end of story. But this type of defeatist attitude is contrary to the spirit of physics. And in fact when looked at closely, number change is quantum: there is no smooth number change in the universe. This raises the question: should the numerical outcomes of quantum events be seen as “higher-level” outcomes, as opposed to the “lower-level” numerical outcomes that are due to law of nature relationships?

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 8, 2019 @ 01:21 GMT
Eric Aspling,

Re “Understanding the Irreversibility of Time”:

Algorithmic information IS one-way information.

report post as inappropriate

Ilgaitis Prusis replied on Apr. 8, 2019 @ 16:25 GMT
Dear Lorraine,

Your answer is incomplete. Algorithm is sequence of operations in time. There is other way: analog computing. In this case information is distributed in space and one gets result simultaneously.

Best regards

Ilgaitis

report post as inappropriate

Zhigang Lu wrote on Apr. 10, 2019 @ 03:52 GMT
It is good to see so many thoughts about time here. I have been fascinated by the puzzles in physics and started to think they might all be related to the nature of time. For example, to make sense of wave-particle duality, we can assume that time itself has duality. If time is a complex axis which includes two stages (continuous and discrete), then particle and wave are two natural phenomena we can observe as outcome. And it also answers some ancient paradox about motions, e.g. Achilles and the tortoise, flying arrow etc.

I will explain in details if anyone interested and if it fits to this topic.

report post as inappropriate

Zhigang Lu replied on Apr. 17, 2019 @ 19:59 GMT
Here is some thoughts about time and its duality nature, too long and too much diagrams so I have to put it in the attachment. It is actually kind of "Alternative Models of time" to explain reality, hope my poor English doesn’t bother your reading :)

abstract: Wave–particle duality is an ongoing conundrum in modern physics. Most physicists accept wave-particle duality as the best explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena; however, it is not without controversy.

Albert Einstein once wrote: It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do.

Since the meaning or interpretation has not been satisfactorily resolved, physicists have various views about the nature of duality, which includes Both-particle-and-wave view/Wave-only view/ Particle-only view/Neither-wave-nor-particle view etc.

If there are two kinds of reality at different times, it is easier to make sense of the duality by understanding the nature of time. Could time itself be composed of two aspects as well?

We will raise this conjecture to the status of a postulate, and also introduce the concept of discrete time domain, in which all wave or energy appears to be particles. The theory to be developed is based on the relationships between discrete time observation and continuous motion process. Quantum experiments such as double-slit experiment, Wheeler's delayed choice experiment and Schrödinger's cat etc. are discussed and explained on this postulate.

report post as inappropriate

Zhigang Lu replied on Apr. 17, 2019 @ 20:03 GMT
the attachment

attachments: 1_To_make_sense_of_wave-particle_duality.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 14, 2019 @ 00:14 GMT
Ilgaitis,

Re Ilgaitis Prusis replied on Apr. 8, 2019 @ 16:25 GMT:

We represent law of nature relationships (which represent categories like mass, time and position) with equations, symbols and numbers. A law of nature relationship that is written using symbols on a piece of paper, or symbolically represented within a computer, is a “dead” thing with no power over the universe. In comparison, real law of nature relationships are “living” relationships which have real power and effect in the universe.

Laws of nature don’t operate “in” time. Law of nature relationships connect natural categories like time, energy, mass and position: in the “living” laws of nature, time is just another category of information. So, laws of nature “sit above” time.

We, and computers, take time to work out the results of equations which are meant to represent “living” laws of nature. To calculate the position of a particle in “the next step in time”, will take us, or a computer, many “steps in time” to do the calculation. But “living” law of nature relationships are not performing calculations, they don’t operate “in” time, i.e. they don’t operate in time steps.

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 14, 2019 @ 00:15 GMT
(continued from above)

To symbolically represent time steps in the universe you need to use algorithms, and you need to know what the algorithms are meant to represent. As above, these algorithms represent something “living” that has real power and effect in the universe; and these algorithms represent something that “sits above” time, because time is just another category of information in these algorithms. In addition, these algorithms don’t necessarily represent something that is “set-in-stone” like the law of nature relationships are seemingly “set-in-stone”.

Lorraine

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 25, 2019 @ 01:22 GMT
See post “Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 25, 2019 @ 01:16 GMT”, which is a clarification of the above 2 posts.

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 15, 2019 @ 00:13 GMT
Are there aspects of the universe that can only be represented algorithmically, and does this relate to the question of Time?

1. Statements like the following represent the type of information that law of nature categories and their associated numbers provide:

Relative speed = 23 (in some system of units)

2. Statements like the following represent higher-level information (this is information about information, where comparisons have been made, and questions asked about more fundamental-level information):

Relative speed > 17 is true

Relative speed = 23 is true

Relative speed has changed

The delta symbol in physics’ equations (that represent laws of nature) represents higher-level information.

3. Are there aspects of the universe that can only be represented algorithmically? These algorithms would necessarily couple higher-level information with “higher-level outcomes” i.e. outcomes that cannot be achieved via laws of nature alone, because laws of nature are not affected by higher-level True/False information. Clearly, higher-level information can have no function, or reason to exist, in the universe unless it is coupled with higher-level outcomes.

Statements like the following represent higher-level information coupled with higher-level outcomes (outcomes that cannot be achieved via laws of nature alone):

IF relative speed > 17 is true, THEN make relative position = 41 (in some system of units)

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 15, 2019 @ 00:22 GMT
(continued from above)

4. The above statement represents a genuine change of number for the relative position category. Something new has been added to the system: a genuine change of number, as opposed to a change of number that can be fully accounted for by the law of nature relationship structure, without adding any new numbers to the system. So, the above statement, in the context of the laws of nature, contains a higher-level category of information that could potentially be acquired:

IF relative speed > 17 is true, THEN relative position = 41 AND change is true

This can seemingly also be represented as something like the following:

IF relative speed > 17 is true, THEN relative position = 41 AND time = time + 1

5. So, Time is a higher-level category of information: it represents whether it is true or not that genuine change of number has occurred in other, lower-level, categories of information.

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 19, 2019 @ 00:02 GMT
Re Lee Smolin’s public lecture webcast “Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution”, 17 April 2019 [1]:

Theoretical physicist Lee Smolin seems to link people who don’t believe in rationality and evidence (is he perhaps referring to climate-change deniers, or Donald Trump?) with physicists he calls “anti-realists”:

The theory [Quantum Mechanics] these anti-realists [Bohr and Heisenberg] made was not consistent with realism… Now, does this matter?...among the things that we are concerned about…there seem to be a lot of people out there in the world who are gaining or interested in gaining power who don’t believe in rationality, in evidence and so forth… “A simple criterion for science to qualify as postmodern is that it be free from any dependence on the concept of objective truth”. Let that sink in (Smolin and audience members laugh)… “By this criterion…the…interpretation of quantum physics due to Niels Bohr and the Copenhagen school is seen as postmodernist.”

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 19, 2019 @ 00:05 GMT
(continued from above)

Lee Smolin represents a very large group of “realist” physicists and philosophers. They have no physics that can account for a situation in which we (and other living things) can intervene and change the world. So their views logically imply that, because we have never, and can never, intervene and change the world, it is the pure and unaided unfolding of laws of nature that caused plastics to litter the planet, damaging wildlife and ecosystems.

Lee Smolin, and all of us, have acquired “higher-level” [2] knowledge of the world, and yet there is no physics that can account for higher-level knowledge; and there is no physics that can link this acquired higher-level knowledge to outcomes in the world – according to physics the only possible outcomes are those determined by laws of nature. So, according to Smolin’s view of the world, we can’t intervene and make genuine changes to reality (e.g. to avert climate change, and clean up plastic pollution), we just have to hope that the laws of nature, which are based on “lower-level” information, and have no connection to higher-level knowledge of the situation, will somehow fix the problem.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zri9gS1w5ok , quote starting at approximately 19 minutes in.

2. https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3255#post_150459

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 19, 2019 @ 00:27 GMT
P.S.

Re Time:

I'm contending (https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3255#post_150460) that Time IS a type of higher-level knowledge.

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 19, 2019 @ 22:42 GMT
Re Lee Smolin’s public lecture webcast “Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution”, 17 April 2019 [1]:

Theoretical physicist Lee Smolin says that a theory (e.g. quantum mechanics) that is complete shouldn’t depend on our intervention. But he is assuming that he already knows what the world should be like: he is assuming that the world is such that elements (e.g. living things) can’t and don’t “intervene” and change the world. I.e. he wrongly assumes that the world is such that, when looked at closely, it is nothing but the unfolding of laws of nature that caused plastics to litter the planet.

Smolin also implies that quantum mechanics must be wrong because the people who formulated the theory had “anti-realist” beliefs. But who would think, for example, that a universe with laws of nature and massy-mass that you could kick would appear out nothing and nowhere? Whatever way you look at it, the foundational aspects of the universe are necessarily “anti-realist”.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Apr. 19, 2019 @ 23:25 GMT
I’m arguing that information doesn’t float in some hypothetical ether. I’m arguing that it is things like particles, atoms and living things that carry/ experience information, including Time information. So, this is the information that particles carry:

1) Categories of information, in the form of law of nature information relationships, which we represent with equations.

2) Quantity/ intensity information, which we represent with numbers that apply to the categories.

3) “Quantum mechanical” information. I’m contending that this comprises higher-level information coupled with outcomes, which can be represented as an algorithmic statement:

3.1) Higher-level true/false conditions and number-change (Time) information

is coupled with

3.2) Higher-level number-change outcomes involving “quantum jumps” of number.

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 19, 2019 @ 23:27 GMT
The above post was from me.

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 25, 2019 @ 01:16 GMT
Time is like a measure of number jumps. Time is a category devoted to number-jump change in the numbers that apply to other categories of information. While other numbers may go “forward” or “backward”, Time merely records that change has occurred, so it always goes “forward”.

The time category, like the mass and position categories, is an information relationship which we can represent mathematically (or algorithmically in the case of time); and relative masses, positions and times, can be represented by specific numbers. The imaginary set of all possible position numbers is known as “space”, and the imaginary set of all possible time numbers is known as “time”.

So, you have time as an information category (i.e. a relationship), time as a specific number, and time as an imaginary set of possible numbers.

The question is: does a law of nature relationship (like the mass, position and time categories) exist “in” the time that is the imaginary set of possible numbers? Clearly, it doesn’t: the time category is not a number, so it doesn’t exist in the set of possible numbers representing time. But specific time numbers, applying to specific things like particles or people, can be imagined as existing in an imaginary set of possible time numbers.

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 25, 2019 @ 01:18 GMT
(The above post is a clarification of the posts “Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 14, 2019 @ 00:14 GMT” and “Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 14, 2019 @ 00:15 GMT”.)

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 25, 2019 @ 02:33 GMT
Lorraine, there is a difference between (unmeasured) 'passage of time' and timing, a measurement. Records can be made using timing but 'passage of time' does not require conducting timing measurement in order to occur.

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 27, 2019 @ 21:56 GMT
Georgina,

At a fundamental level, time does not exist. The equations of physics, which represent laws of nature, show that at a fundamental level, time does not exist.

The equations of physics show mathematical relationships between categories of information, where mass and position are examples of categories of information. But the equations of physics show that time cannot be represented in a mathematical relationship between fundamental categories of information.

Instead, time is a category that represents change of number for other categories of information: change of number can only be represented by an algorithm; time is information about information, i.e. time is a higher-level category of information.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Merriam wrote on Apr. 26, 2019 @ 01:36 GMT
Here is a new theory of time. It answers a lot of questions.

https://philpapers.org/rec/MERANT-2

Georgina Woodward thanks for your help on a very very early version of the paper, I will put you in the acknowledgements in a future version.

report post as inappropriate

Kuyukov Vitaly wrote on May. 1, 2019 @ 12:01 GMT
Holography the time. Perhaps time can be expressed as

$t=\frac{Gh}{c^4}\int\frac{dS}{r}$

Where S is the entropy of entanglement of an arbitrary closed surface. r is the radius to the surface point. Integration over a closed surface.

This is very similar to the analogy. Time behaves as a potential, and entropy as a charge.

From this formula there are several possible consequences.

1.Bekenstein Hawking entropy for the event horizon. Light cone case

$r=ct$

$S=\frac{c^3}{Gh}r^2$

2.Gravitational time dilation. The case if matter inside a closed surface processes information at the quantum level according to the Margolis-Livitin theorem.

$dI=\frac{dMc^2 t}{h}$

$\Delta t=\frac{Gh}{c^4}\int\frac{dI}{r}=t\frac{GM}{c^2r}$

3.The formula is invariant under Lorentz transformations.

4.If this definition is substituted instead of time, then the interval acquires a different look, which probably indicates a different approach of the Minkowski pseudometric with a complex plane

$s^2=(l^2_{p}\frac{S}{r})^2-r^2$

Where is the squared length of Planck

$l^2_{p}=\frac{Gh}{c^3}$

Quantum tunneling of noncommutative geometry gives the definition of time in the form of holography, that is, in the form of a closed surface integral. Ultimately, the holography of time shows the dualism between quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity.

report post as inappropriate

Kuyukov Vitaly wrote on May. 1, 2019 @ 12:11 GMT
Holography the time

report post as inappropriate

Kuyukov Vitaly wrote on May. 1, 2019 @ 12:13 GMT
t = Gh \$ dS/r

report post as inappropriate

Paul Merriam wrote on May. 14, 2019 @ 21:17 GMT
Vitaly, in one of your papers you transformed t = i(tau). What is imaginary time? What is it like to go through it? What happens as you go back in time?

report post as inappropriate

Jorma Seppaenen wrote on Jun. 4, 2019 @ 16:01 GMT
A View to Time, inter alia

The Big Picture - Universal Time

Carlo Rovelli presented in his book "The Order of Time" the fundamental idea that universe is consisting solely of processes, also matter is a process, chancing by time. Some processes might be reversible, so that of their point of view it makes no difference witch direction time flows. This are not Carlo's...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate