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.

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

John Cox: on 8/16/22 at 0:40am UTC, wrote Our human sense of a flow of time only suggests that there are some...

PhysicsPfan: on 8/15/22 at 0:03am UTC, wrote The phrase above "...argued that time does not exist at all" shows how...

Amrit Sorli: on 12/3/21 at 15:31pm UTC, wrote We have only 2 times in the universe: - psychological time that has its...

Joe Nahhas: on 11/21/20 at 5:28am UTC, wrote Hacking Physical Reality Real Time Physics With Applications: The...

Joe Nahhas: on 1/31/20 at 1:33am UTC, wrote The above is a Fourier transform or a map or an integration into real time ...

Joe Nahhas: on 1/31/20 at 1:27am UTC, wrote I – (r / r₀) = e± i ω t = cosine ω t ± i sine ω t (1/T)...

Joe Nahhas: on 1/31/20 at 1:23am UTC, wrote Reality = r₀ and reality observed = r – (r / r₀) = e± i ω t =...

Joe Nahhas: on 1/30/20 at 16:38pm UTC, wrote Physical reality can be hacked and hacking physical reality exposes the...

FQXi FORUM
October 7, 2022

ARTICLE: Can Time Be Saved From Physics? [back to article]

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 27, 2019 @ 23:06 GMT
What is information?

Information is context/ relationship: categories of information (like mass, position and time) are relationships, where the relationships can be represented as equations or algorithms. Information is also the numbers that apply to these categories.

Does information “travel”?

Categories of information, e.g. velocity (speed and direction), and their associated numbers, apply to things like particles. Particles “travel”, but information is not like a particle.

Does “nothing—not even information—… travel faster than the speed of light”? Things like particles travel, but information obviously doesn’t travel in the same sense that a particle travels.

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 27, 2019 @ 23:19 GMT
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

Anonymous wrote on Apr. 27, 2019 @ 23:49 GMT
"however, it does not make sense to talk about the temperature of a single particle."

That has to go into the same box as [you can't define what a particle is]. So how can you say that? As for the 'illusionary time' or emergent time, that only holds if you assume ( as Eddington contended that we might as well ) that the scale of a span of duration in time, is the same as the scale for a span of seperation in spcae. If you assume that, then you are stuck with Minkowski's Blocktime and the subsequent paradoxes that then pretend.

report post as inappropriate

Roger Granet wrote on Apr. 28, 2019 @ 01:05 GMT
I guess I don't see the issue here, but that may be because I'm an amateur and don't know all the intricacies and all the math. For me, time is not fundamental. It's just a function of physical things happening (e.g., physical change). One could think of physical change as a tally of the number of events that have happened. If there were absolutely no physical change in the universe, there would...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Apr. 28, 2019 @ 03:07 GMT
"...information obviously doesn't travel in the same sense that a particle travels." L. Ford

I think that is a salient point, Lorraine, physics should be about what is physical, and what we use to distinguish that are tools more of the abstract.

With little care one can position two identical bar magnets so that like poles will allow the end of one magnet to be suspended against the acceleration of gravity above the end of the other magnet. Yet F=ma, and for there to be a counter acceleration to gravity, there must be something 'moving'. Whatever it is it is not something which can be siphoned off and collected. What can it be? jrc

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 28, 2019 @ 13:16 GMT
The problem is not philosophical at all. Einstein's relative time, from which idiocies like time travel into the future or "time is an illusion" are validly or invalidly deduced, is a consequence of Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate. Remove the falsehood and the problems with time will disappear.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate
Joe A Nahhas replied on Jan. 30, 2020 @ 16:38 GMT
Physical reality can be hacked and hacking physical reality exposes the erroneous scientific method as anthing but scientific and to start with physics in its entirety is based on light sources as a measurement tool and as used it only measure physics lab physical motion = 27.32+ days found in all physics experimentation measurements and the errors is textbooks of physics

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern wrote on Apr. 28, 2019 @ 19:45 GMT
"It just seemed so rock solid and such a striking departure from the way I figured things had to be."

The math is rock solid, unfortunately, the physics is anything but. The math's only connection to physical reality, rests upon a foundation of quicksand - a false premise about the physical world, identified over 40 years ago. For a striking departure from all the absurd interpretations of this phenomenon, see my recent "Socratic Dialog" with Tim Maudlin

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman wrote on Apr. 29, 2019 @ 02:06 GMT
I guess I've made this point before, but it bears repeating;

The only problem with understanding time is that we see it in reverse. As mobile organisms, we have a sequential thought process, in order to navigate. Then after a few hundreds of thousands of years narrating our journeys to one another and building civilizations out of the collective knowledge, this past to future sequencing...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Apr. 29, 2019 @ 22:28 GMT
Joe,

As children, we certainly only see the surface and many people don't get much beyond it, but some of us are curious about what goes on under the surface and what makes things tick. For instance, as a child, we might look out across the surface of the ocean and it doesn't occur to us of what might be beneath the surface, though we quickly get the sense not to go too far in.

As for seeing time in reverse, by looking only at the surface, a similar situation occurs when we look up at the sky and see the sun and the stars flowing across the sky, from east to west. Brilliant and predictively accurate geometric models of these actions, called epicycles, were constructed, based on these observations. When we tried to explain these models, by proposing crystalline spheres to carry the celestial bodies, we overlooked an important detail under our very feet. That it is this ground we are standing on, that is spinning the other way. West to east.

Spacetime is the modern version of those crystalline spheres. As a physical explanation for the very effective mathematical model of Special and General Relativity, it doesn't take into account that this narrative sequence, measured as duration, is effect, not cause. The present doesn't move, the events do.

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Apr. 30, 2019 @ 22:02 GMT
Joe,

When I was young, my eyes were better than they are now. Is that because they don't see the world as clearly, or is that it the world actually is fuzzier? By your logic, it seems it is that the world has grown fuzzier and that's why I don't see it as clearly.

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Apr. 29, 2019 @ 14:16 GMT
here is all you should know about time.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Apr. 29, 2019 @ 14:29 GMT
'Physicists in general, are" more inclined to dismiss passage, flow and the sense of openness of the future as illusions," - ' Jenann Ismael

That may be from an underlying expectation, for the sake of simplicity in mathematical analysis, that time only comes in one flavor. Physically it can be 'flowing' (for want of a better metaphor) but not going anywhere. More like the irreconcilable difference spatially between a cube and a sphere, and the inherent stress there-in between time and space is the origin of energy.

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 30, 2019 @ 00:03 GMT
Information (e.g. mass, position and time information) seemingly does not float in some abstract ether: information is context; information comes in categories which are relationships between other such categories of information; and category and number information is carried by things like particles and atoms.

But algorithmic information seems to exist in the universe: the equations of physics, which represent laws of nature, rely on the delta symbol, which represents change of number information that can only be derived algorithmically. (Note that, when looked at closely, these numbers don’t change smoothly, they “jump”.)

So, it might once have been thought that, apart from numbers and the symbols representing categories like mass and position, only the following symbols are required: + - ÷ x = to represent law of nature relationships. But in addition to these symbols, the representation of algorithmic information and its outcome requires the following symbols: IF THEN TRUE FALSE, and symbols like: < > . The “hidden” presence of algorithmic information in the equations of physics indicates that higher-level concepts are present in the universe, at a more fundamental level than might have been expected.

report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 30, 2019 @ 00:06 GMT
(continued)

So, the existence of information which comes in categories and is “carried” by things like particles, and the existence of algorithmic (i.e. higher-level) categories of information, are the link between particles, atoms and molecules on the one hand, and living things on the other hand.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Apr. 30, 2019 @ 01:49 GMT
May we accept the reasoning by Nicholas of Cusa who was born in 1401 in Kusa, nowadays Bernkastel-Kues at the river Mosel, who inferred from the absence of observable limits to the universe that the universe is endless and has therefore no center?

While Oresme, Buridan and a bit later Kopernikus criticized the geocentric model of Ptolemaios, and science replaced it by the heliocentric one, Cusanus concluded that there is no preferred point of reference in his center-less universe. Doesn’t this mean that Maxwell’s hypothetical light-carrying aether is merely a lazy unjustified analog of a mechanic medium and the negative outcome of Michelson’s experiments in Berlin/Potsdam and later in Cleveland was to be expected?

Isn’t therefore the historical basis of so far still not yet experimentally confirmed hypotheses by Lorentz up to Einstein’s relativity of time shaky if Cusanus was correct?

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 30, 2019 @ 06:04 GMT
Hi Eckard, the lack of limit to observation has been superseded by the so called cosmic background radiation which is an event horizon, from beyond which there are not any discernible signals. That puts a limit on what is observable on or near Earth.The Earth (and near Earth) is the centre of our observations and therefore our observable universe.

I note you just say "universe" and not observable universe. Existing now is not what is generated from processing of received EM radiation. We are 'blind' to what is out there now, making simple estimation from observation insufficient. I think relevant ideas are such as, how the universe has developed over time and how the EM radiation has reached the telescopes, taking into account the effects of gravity on light paths en route and the motion of the Earth and solar system.

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Apr. 30, 2019 @ 10:25 GMT
Georgina,

Keep in mind that causality doesn't apply to the current cosmological model. when there is a discrepancy between prediction and observation, some enormous patch is applied and everything continues as normal. What if accountants worked like that? Whenever there is a gap in the books, they just add a figure and call it dark money.

The first patch applied was when it was realized this redshift increases with distance at the same rate in every direction, so it was changed from an expansion in space, to an expansion of space, because Spacetime! Presumably then every point would appear as its own center.

Which totally overlooks the premise for spacetime, in the first place, that the speed of light is measured as a constant, in every frame. If it is being redshifted, obviously it's not constant to intergalactic space. Wouldn't the speed have to increase, if the distance is increasing, in order to remain constant?

Two metrics of space are being derived from the same intergalactic light. One based on the spectrum and one based on the speed. Since the expansion is still relative to the speed, as it's based on the redshifting of this light, that means the speed is still the denominator.

We are at the center of our point of view, so an optical effect would be a rational solution. In which case, that background radiation would be light shifted off the visible spectrum.

One solution is that multi spectrum light "packets" do redshift over distance, as the higher spectrums dissipate faster than the lower ones, so then the question is whether individual photons travel billions of lightyears, or we are sampling a wave front.

On light packets; https://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristov_WaveMo
tion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf

On the quantization of light; https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Reiter_challenge2.
pdf

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 1, 2019 @ 04:42 GMT
Georgina, John,

Only https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolaus_von_Kues provides the essential deatails in 3.7 Naturphilosophy, missing in the en version.

Supersede means replace something oldfashioned. Being just a little bit aware of newfashioned interpretations by Hubble,Gamov, Penzias, and Wilson, I don't exclude that Cusanus was correct when he imagined the universe extending beyond the observable part of it. Creationists are believing in a creator, the word nature means something that was born. When I am questioning Maxwell's medium, I feel reminded of de Guericke's experimentia de spatio vacuuo. Does energy flow really always need a carrier if there are no known carrier of electric and magnetic fields?

John, while "center of our point" sounds silly to me, I largely appreciate your reasoning.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Apr. 30, 2019 @ 14:33 GMT
So... John, Georgina and Eckard? Aside from differences of how we attempt to reason what time might be, and how it behaves... is Time existentially real? (I'm in the cheering section for a real physicality of Time.) :) jrc

report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Apr. 30, 2019 @ 21:55 GMT
arc,

As an effect of physical activity, time is as real as temperature, pressure, color and other such effects. The problem, is that we are assuming the narrative flow, along which the present moves, from past to future. Which physics codifies as measures of duration and then treats as though it is similar to a spatial dimension. Aka, the "fabric of spacetime."

The evident fact is the underlaying physical dynamic, distilling the potential down to the actual, which then recedes into residual. The present doesn't move past to future, rather the events move future to past, as the present is the physical state.

Not that anyone in the field seems willing to consider this, as it is outside the mathematical box.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 1, 2019 @ 00:43 GMT
Hi John, first you have to be clear what you mean by the word 'time'. Many different ideas come under that name. Some kinds of time: Time as seen on a clock, or another timing device ( a time and duration or elapsed time), time obtained from the motion of Earth relative to the sun- day/night and as read from a sundial (time of day), changing seasons too (time of year, also obtainable from a calendar), time as a dimension of a geometric model, passage of time as personally experienced (singular present and passage of time), t used in equations, a configuration of all simultaneously existing things (a time), change of the configuration of all existing things (passage of time), Mc Taggarts A time and B time.Clearly these are different ideas even though they share a name. You also need to be clear what you mean by 'existential'.

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on May. 1, 2019 @ 01:44 GMT
Georgina,

That would go to time being an effect, like temperature and pressure. Both of which exist in many different ways. Much like binary terms can be applied to many different situations; on/off, good/bad, in/out, etc.

Most specifically, it is a measure of duration, yet as I keep pointing out, duration is this present state, as the defining events coalesce and dissolve. What makes them all different is the energy involved. Be it a clock mechanically ticking, the earth turning on its axis, the emotions involved, when we are bored, versus entertained.

The only problem is when we associate all the masses of dynamics going on around us, to this apparent sequencing of events and try incorporating them into a singular narrative flow, rather than a universe of activities, all with their own dynamics.

report post as inappropriate

Muhammad Nadeem Siddiqui wrote on Apr. 30, 2019 @ 17:12 GMT
I have completed my research and experiments on discovery of new medium in Physics—The intangible Time Medium—which only transfer data and information.[https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/invention-natura
l-encryption-technology-neo-security-isi-siddiqui/]

I presented the the Law of Intangible Time Medium states that " The Universe all living and non-living things existed , being creating will soon be destroyed when a divine encoded message to be received by the all things existed . The encoded divine message which is already released to be transferred to all things via Intangible Time Medium.

Einstein said Time is the FOURTH dimension in Space and Time both are Tandem. My research proved that Time plays the role of intangible medium in transferring data and information.

According to the Law of Intangible Time Medium the encoded message for the destruction of the Universe had been released by Allah. That is when the destruction Message to be received by the galaxy or galaxies or the Universe it will be destroyed.

How the Divine message to be reached to the all material things ? The NET -- a new encryption technology is the answer of this query. Read the research paper on the NET on Link on Linkedin :https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/invention-natural-encryption
-technology-neo-security-isi-siddiqui/

mediasword@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Kuyukov Vitaly wrote on May. 1, 2019 @ 11:45 GMT
Idea holography the time. Perhaps time can be expressed as

[equation]

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...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Kuyukov Vitaly wrote on May. 1, 2019 @ 11:54 GMT
Holography the time

report post as inappropriate

Kuyukov Vitaly wrote on May. 1, 2019 @ 12:06 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.

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

Lorraine Ford wrote on May. 1, 2019 @ 23:08 GMT
Fundamental levels of reality do not have the wherewithal to analyse and recognise large- or small-scale patterns in the world. You need living things, with their ability to algorithmically analyse and collate information, to recognise patterns; and only human beings conceptualise history and large-scale time and space, and only human beings write poetry and prose.

But, in one sense, this history, poetry and prose is only the surface of reality. Using our human ability to manipulate objects, and our ability to algorithmically analyse and collate information, physics studies what underlies our everyday reality. They have found that fundamental levels of reality can seemingly only recognise relatively simple relationship and change: i.e. physics’ equations represent relatively simple relationship and change.

The precise concepts and equations of physics, which represent a relatively simple underlying reality, has allowed us to send exploratory vehicles into “space”: which indicates that physics is pretty-well correct, though not complete or perfect.

report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on May. 1, 2019 @ 23:10 GMT
(continued)

Physics debates whether or not, at a fundamental level, a simple time exists in relatively-simple relationship to other simple aspects of reality. They have found that, unless you want to complexify the situation, a simple type of time probably doesn’t exist. I.e. a time “dimension” probably doesn’t exist as a foundational aspect of reality, and the underlying relatively-simple time must have been derived from other simple aspects of reality.

What is not so debatable is that “recognition of change” exists in the underlying reality: i.e. the equations of physics represent change (of number) with the delta symbol. Clearly, quantum events are a source of number change, but it is not clear that there are any other factors causing number change. It may be that quantum events are the only source of number change in the universe. I.e. it may be that quantum events are the source of a relatively-simple sense of time, a relatively-simple “recognition of change”, a relatively-simple aspect of reality that can be represented as a relatively-simple equation.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on May. 4, 2019 @ 16:50 GMT
Eckard,

I'm a little surprised that nobody rose to your bait in debate on the argument of Cusanas, neutral centrality, Maxwell and the always ambiguous 'luminiferous aether'. All good points, especially with the number of unsolved mysteries of the classical age that have been subsumed by Quantum Mechanics.

I dug out an old (falling apart at the seams, actually) book by Isaac Assimov,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on May. 5, 2019 @ 01:03 GMT
jrc,

It seems to me the absolute equilibrium of space is implicit in Relativity, as the frame with the fastest clock and longest ruler would be closest to it. So space, without physical properties to quantify it, would have the non-physical qualities of infinity and equilibrium.

The primary physical properties occupying space are energy and mass. Energy expands to infinity, or until it is completely diffused. While mass collapses to equilibrium, or until it is completely dissolved back into the energy radiating back out. A cosmic convection cycle.

Perfect equilibrium may not be physical, but it is the essence of "rigidity." As in un-moved/unmoving.

I would submit space is the absolute and the infinite.

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on May. 5, 2019 @ 18:51 GMT
Joe,

As Emerson put it; "We are but thickened light."

What each of us perceives in that light is different.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on May. 4, 2019 @ 16:53 GMT
oops, that anon was me, jrc

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on May. 5, 2019 @ 17:24 GMT
JB MerryMan :-)

I can see where you are coming from, and instinctively we do associate a spatial realism with content. There was a video on a news program this morning that was amusing, entertaining and thought provoking. A small bird, sparrow size, had flown in an open window of what appeared to be a sunroom and was caught on a cell phone video as it landed on the back of a couch near a...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on May. 5, 2019 @ 18:47 GMT
jrc,

Then where would the mass originate, if the energy didn't eventually coalesce into form? I realize it doesn't actually go to infinity, but the general direction. Just as mass doesn't go to pure equilibrium, but to the edge of the eye of the cosmic storms, that are the black holes at the center. I think once we add up all the energy radiated out and then shot out the poles, nothing is left to actually fall into some other dimension. The combination being a cosmic convection cycle. Feedback between the processes and patterns generated.

My issue with time is posted further up the thread; That we codify the narrative past to future perception of change, turning future to past, by treating it as measures of duration, without acknowledging what is measured, action, is more elemental than the measure, duration. Duration is this physical state, as the events come and go, future to past. Potential, actual, residual.

There is a further issue I have with Big Bang Cosmology, in that I suspect the redshift is an optical effect and we are sampling a multi-spectrum wave front, not individual photons traveling billions of lightyears, so that cosmic background radiation is the light of ever more distant sources, shifted off the visible spectrum. The solution to Olber's paradox. Waiting on the James Webb to see what the observations show.

https://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristov_W
aveMotion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on May. 6, 2019 @ 00:01 GMT
JB Merryman,

Pardon my posting in this manner, I'll limit my usage as its a bit indulgent. It's simply that I had to get a new cheap laptop that is so overloaded by the Win10 OS that I don't use it if it requires 'creating an account', so if I can spout off in the "read article" box then I'm okay. And really, if my two cents were going to make me rich, I wouldn't be here anyway. So I'm fair game.

There have been a number of well formed comments in this topic, I liked Lorraine's concise observations and agree that however incomplete, our scientific achievements indicate that we are doing something right. Your own, Georgina's and Eckard's questioning conventional wisdom on the Cosmic Background Radiation and the limitations of observability of the universe have merit. But honestly, I am not sufficiently well versed in either the cross disciplinary theories and advanced mathematics, to weigh in.

What I'd kind of like to know is if you have given much thought to how in the cyclic equilibrium you perceive, that any physical relationships naturally exist which would limit energy coalescing into a finite range of mass accumulation in the general gravitational reference? And if so, how limited by comparison? cordially, jrc

report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on May. 6, 2019 @ 02:43 GMT
jrc,

I certainly admit to my own limits, so I'm not sure of your references. What I would guess is that as this gravitational contraction seems to be the opposite of radiant expansion, we should consider gravity as not so much a property of mass, but mass as an effect and part of this range of contraction. That every interaction, measurement, bound crossing, anything which might be conducive to producing form, is part of this spectrum of contraction, even photons coalescing out of fields. So that the effect attributed to dark matter is not due to some missing mass, as it is the effect of contraction and attraction across the entire spectrum.

Anytime energy coalesces, it takes up less space and anytime the form breaks down and releases energy, it takes up more space. So it can be geometrically described in terms of the space expanding/contracting, especially if one has dismissed space as an artifact of measurement.

Yet because energy that hasn't coalesced into a measurable unit can't be measured, than it is presumed not to exist. Consider Eric Stanley Reiter's entry in the questioning the Foundations contest of 2012;

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1344

Here is an essay I posted on medium a few weeks ago;

https://medium.com/@johnbrodixmerrymanjr/the-confessions
9967885aa68b3a7a14db68e96ed64

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on May. 6, 2019 @ 15:10 GMT
Fair enough JB,

the only thing heretical about you is that you don't do math, and as short as I am on math I'm in no position to chastise. But given the premise that an energy abundant universe compels Condensed Matter Physics, with its cookbook of Classical, Quantum and Relativistic recipes in application to materials and process engineering, experimentation and protocol criteria as well as the search theoretically for a Grand Unified Theory ---

... why is the coalescence of energy confined to such a small range of quantity assuming so few specific and apparently optimal size material particles, and only very tiny ones at that? Any thoughts? :) jrc

report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on May. 6, 2019 @ 22:31 GMT
jrc,

Math has to be taken in context. Epicycles really were brilliant math and likely contributed significantly to geometry, but the crystalline spheres, as a one to one physical correspondence, were lousy physics and that one to one correspondence is back in vogue today. Spacetime is assumed to be a one to one physical correspondence with the math of Relativity. Math is mapping and modeling, yet some(many) buy into the notion it is somehow "reading the mind of God," as the basis of reality, not a mapping of our perceptions of it.

Your question really has two parts; Why is there anything? And; Why is there what there is?

I can make some conceptual observations about the first, such as it is feedback between processes and the pattern arising from these processes. For example, life is a process, individual organisms are the patterns arising. Process goes past to future, while the particular patterns go future to past.

The second question requires far more examination of these processes and patterns and that requires a lifetime of dedication and in the company of others.

I don't claim to be a scientist. I just think the science ought to be able to answer basic questions, such as whether time is truly a dimension, aka "duration," along which the events exist and our position is subjective, or is it the dynamic of these events rising and falling?

Or how can one argue that "space" expands, when both the evidence and the logic assume this expansion is still relative to a static speed of light? REDSHIFT!!! Hello? That makes the speed the denominator!!!

How can you build complex conceptual structures on such logical mush and expect the result not to be more complex mush. GIGO.

I give credit, where credit is due.

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on May. 6, 2019 @ 22:39 GMT
As for the predictiveness of these theories, epicycles were extremely effective in predicting celestial configurations, such as eclipses years in advance.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew wrote on May. 8, 2019 @ 02:26 GMT
Callender calls atomic time the time of physics and he callsmemory decay time subjective psychological time. I agree that time does indeed have these two dimensions. There is an objective atomic time in the ticks of the Cs-133 atom resonance at 9.2 GHz and a subjective memory decay time that ticks at the mind’s lowest EEG delta frequency of ~1.6 Hz.

We call the decay between precursor and outcome memories subjective time because memory decay is unique to each person and our memories and therefore time can change with circumstances. So in a very true sense, there are two dimensions to time and both emerge from discrete event changes. Quantum phase decay is an objective time just as atomic time and these two represent a two dimensional time that appears in many scientific measurements.

Matter and action are the only two true constants in the universe and for every outcome in the universe, there are precursors. Time emerges from the change between a precursor and its outcome. Science assumes that phase decay time necessarily occurs in atomic time ticks, but a pulsed universe gives a universal decay time. Therefore, every precursor in a pulsed universe is subject to this universal decay time that then defines the precursor outcome. It is the action of universal decay between a precursor and outcome that is what we call time and also gravity. This means that atomic time actually evolves in the context of universe decay time and this atomic time evolution between precursor and outcome at the atom scale is charge.

report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on May. 8, 2019 @ 10:17 GMT
Steve,

Just because everything is connected, doesn't mean all of reality is singular, just networked. Yes, there are more elemental states and to the extent they are composed identically, they function at identical rates. That is the ground, the absolute. It is the relationship between the absolute and the infinite on which the tension between mass and energy functions. Time is an effect of this dynamic. There is't one true time like there isn't one true temperature. There is a temperature of absolute zero, so absolute time would be zero, as well. An inert present. Atomic clocks vary, according to gravitational effects. Action is contextual. A pure action, thus rate of change, without context, would be contradictory.

Nodes and networks. Even when they assume the entire universe is one node, they end up proposing a network of multiverses, because the singular is an entity and an entity needs a process to produce it.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on May. 12, 2019 @ 01:59 GMT
Reality is not singular, but reality is discrete and as you say, outcomes connected to precursors. The universe is finite in extent and in divisibility and so there are no infinities or infinitesimals. Matter and action are the two primitive dimensions and so it is action and not energy that make up reality. Time simply emerges from the changes that occur and has no independent existence.

There is a temperature of absolute zero, but it is not possible to ever realize T=0 since there is always action. Both time and temperature are convenient objective metrics of the world that people can agree how to measure. Atomic clocks do vary, but the universe decay time is absolute. Action is not rate of change but rather is the product of matter and time or matter and displacement. In other words, both time and space emerge from matter action, not the other way around.

It is pure action than exists, not time or temperature...and remember, energy is simply matter by Einstein’s proportionality and does not have a separate existence. There are actually no singularities in the universe, only at its boundaries where they belong, Black holes are simply a manifestation of matter action and do not exist in space time.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on May. 8, 2019 @ 13:36 GMT
In the context of time dependent decay, and then saying that time emerges from that decay rate, why is it that in this observer preferred manipulation of putting in by hand an earth based time interval, do its proponents always neglect to include radiological decay in the arguments about atomic resonance? It remains, that the only referrnece for time anywhere is somewhere between nil and light velocity. Like it or not, if the reality was that gravity simply dampens atomic resonance (of a cessium atomic clock) then that dampening should also be evident in radiological decay rate of Plutonium 239 powering deep space probes three times longer than their earth based design life expectancy. And if that were true, how could the census estimate of radioisotopes in the aggregate Earth's inventory, have survived the eons of interstellar extremely low gravity to eventually become gravitationally bound in an accretion of building the planet in the first place? And if one's arguments of emergent time depend on how mass decays, then its incumbant on the argument to also quantitatively account for how mass accumulates to be in existance as a state from which to decay. And provide a mathematically consistent rationale of why energy accumulates into such a small range of very small mass quantities. jrc

report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on May. 12, 2019 @ 14:42 GMT
The universe decay occurs on the universe scale, nuclear decay occurs on the nuclear scale and atom decay occurs on the atom scale. These are completely consistent decays, just different from space and time. The weak nuclear force is how nuclear forces couple with charge.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on May. 8, 2019 @ 23:51 GMT
Prof. Agnew, Steve,

Firstly, my respect for both the heritage and the legacy work at the Hanford Reservation. Few realize that the N Reactor was the only breeder the U.S. ever built that was the same design type as the RBMK 1000 series such as at Chernobyl.

Quite apart from any differences on the subject of the nature of time, could you please clarify nomenclature of 'matter decay'. Not in academic terms, but as you might explain it to educated friends and associates whom though not in physics, know that matter as it is commonly referred to is made up of molecules of elemental isotopes and that atoms are comprised of sub-atomic particles. E=mc^2 is a bounded equality but provides no proportionality constant to differentiate a physical property that could be termed 'matter' as a state, regardless of any specified quantity. What is Matter? In what manner do you characterize it to decay? As a degradation of the physical property itself, or as an exponential decay over distance of intensity or influence of gravitation, magnetic and electrostatic response associated with it? JRC

report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on May. 12, 2019 @ 15:00 GMT
Matter decay is in some sense so ubiquitous that we overlook it. The earth spin slows down, the moon’s orbit expands due to matter decay, the IPK kg standard decays, pulses all decay, and atomic clocks dephase from each other...all the the same rate of 0.26 ppl/yr.

Stars all decay by radiation, galaxies all decay into black holes, and black holes are the endpoint of all matter. The collapse and decay of matter is all around us and yet science claims that the universe expands and does not decay. The reason is that force or action grows at the same rate as matter collapses and so science has the illusion of deep space and the CMB as expansion when it is actually collapsing.

Matter along with action are primal beliefs about the universe that simply are the way the universe is. Energy is just a different measure of matter and space and time both emerge from matter action.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on May. 13, 2019 @ 14:49 GMT
One of the more interesting intrinsic decays is that of the neutron star pulsar, which not only ticks like an atomic clock but also decays. Pulsar decays include gravity wave radiation, but there is also the intrinsic decay of 0.26 ppl/yr, which is unexplained...except of course for mattertime.

The matter action causal set is so sweet since it unites gravity and charge with photon exchange. Charge is due to single photon exchange at the atom scale while gravity is due to biiphoton exchange at the universe scale.

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox wrote on May. 9, 2019 @ 13:37 GMT
I keep rereading comments and this article, and recollecting past dialogues, and can't help finding more agreement generally that what first would appear. Everyone uses surprisingly different words and turns of phrase to present remarkably similar if nuanced ideas. Yet historically it seems, humans never agree about Time, it is instinctively too precious and personal to each of us. If Time is physically real, then what we call emergent is really a particular manifestation and perhaps a distinction can be drawn between *emergence* and *transcendence*. Time seems manifest in many ways. I looked up the first post I made to the fqxi forum 6/7/13, topic/969#post_75736 and remember then thinking I was probably way out in left field, but I've learned much since then and much of how others think and how broad the mainstream really is. Whatever Physics and physicists do, I think Time will survive. :-) jrc

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on May. 9, 2019 @ 16:11 GMT
Well, Joe,

fortunately for humanity there safety of nuclear waste at Hanford is not entrusted to you.

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox wrote on May. 12, 2019 @ 14:02 GMT
Steve,

It is commendable for any professional to clearly differentiate one's responsibilities in maintaining best practices, from any personal pursuit of purely hypothetical theorizing. So while I might disagree with your primary premise, I recognize your prerogative to attempt rationalization of the QM paradigm. And I would not fault anyone for following their mathematical results even if it conflicts with consistent observation that the universe is not shrinking.

However, it is not true to say or assume that "energy is simply matter by Einstein's proportionality". You may theoretically associate energy with matter, but E=mc^2 doesn't differentiate matter from either energy or mass. Mass is simply a masse of energy until a unit quantity specific to a unit volume is determined which would exhibit the characteristics associated with the physical property of matter.

I do agree that electric charge is a constituent characteristic of matter, but it is not the sole criteria of that property. Charge is one of those Energizer Bunnies that were bred in the classical era under the Newtonian Regime which we still know only by name. Positive and Negative have no physical meaning other than through interactive operation and by original arbitrary assignment. A general definition of Charge is long overdue and regardless of whether any theory holds up in entirety, any theory which produces a viable definition of Charge would be well worth the effort. cordially jrc

report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on May. 13, 2019 @ 15:00 GMT
The same evidence that the universe expands is also, strangely enough, consistent with matter collapse. This is because as mass collapses, that action is the source of force and means that force grows in concert with matter collapse.

Force growth along with matter collapse red shifts galaxy light and shrinks the universe. Of course, this is completely consistent with QM and with quantum gravity as well. The shrinking universe means that a single black hole is the destiny of the universe and the start of a new antiverse expansion of antimatter in antitime. We of course are in the universe collapse of matter in atomic time.

Electric charge is simply a manifestation of quantum phase at the atom scale, Gravity is a manifestion of quantum phase at the cosmic scale...how simple is that?

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on May. 15, 2019 @ 03:28 GMT
The point is...there is no time or space without matter actions. Am I wrong?

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox wrote on May. 13, 2019 @ 16:20 GMT
Steve,

Pardon my posting this way instead of logging in, lot's of reasons including some(thing)body getting my email address and wanting me to buy a new bathroom, meaning its hunting my bank routing number.

We aren't going to agree, of course, but so what? But we have similar conceptual issues. In a sense I agree that matter decay is the source of force, but I treat it as attenuation of density rather than decay. I can get my head around Black Holes being where mass:energy goes to die, and I don't think that *information* is so exclusive that there can't be more of the same to be generated in natural course.

I have to be careful with 'phase' it can be two different things. An oscillation, or a state. - jrc

report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on May. 15, 2019 @ 03:40 GMT
We are not going to agree...but discourse is what it is all about. Well...if you want to explain the universe, the c/alpha is constant has to be. Of course, what I was going for is that c * alpha would be constant, but that did not work out. However, I found that (c*alpha)^2 could still be constant if phase was a parameter.

Quantum phase is certainly not something that we think of often, but is an important part of reality. It is ironic that the decay of the universe is what makes reality work the way that it does. This simply makes sense...

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox wrote on May. 15, 2019 @ 15:09 GMT
Thanks Steve,

I'm still real fuzzy but its worth trying to understand how others tackle issues. I'm often struck by how little is actually known, and how much progress has been made with ad hoc measures that become a standard operating procedure. The Schrodinger Wave Equation fit with the Bohr model quantum leap, and ever since everyone says "Wow! how did He come up with that? Where do the terms come from?". Pardon my cynicism but maybe they came from Schrodinger hunting around until he found terms and arrangements that would fit. It is a computational tool, it doesn't prove the Bohr assumption.It is quite possible that matter naturally assumes optimal quantities and shapes that emerge from the interaction of elemental isotopic matter quantities. The mass deficit has to be accounted for eventually.

In the frenzy of developments of the spin co-ordinate system, c/alpha made a good computational fit but Spin began with the failure of Newtonian Gravity in a classical model which assumed that the total mass of a nucleus and electron would exist at constant density as 'hard' particles. So there is a lot of room to revisit the many Classical unknowns which have become incorporated into the modern Quantum and Relativistic Standard Model. jrc

report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on May. 16, 2019 @ 03:56 GMT
Actually, I am amazed by how much is known and yet misinterpreted...I agree that most of current science is ad hoc and highly patched, but it still works very well...at least to 0.26 ppb/yr.

You are very correct in your cynicism of quantum and gravity equations. They both were simply adopted by science because they worked and gravity still does not work with quantum, but so what else is new?

Classical hard particles are, as you know, really not possible and there must be soft edges to all particles. Quantum gives soft edges to all particles, but the cost is superposition and entanglement, which complicate our lives.

What quantum gravity gives us is a very, very large number of low energy states that current science does not know what to do with. Okay. As soon as science can measure the decay of 0.26 ppb/yr, matter time will be the bee's knees and so we simply wait for more precision...

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox wrote on May. 16, 2019 @ 15:17 GMT
Steve,

I suspect the low energy states are physically just the residual. The current picture of quantum gravity reminds me of those old Lava Lamps that were all the rage a half century ago, and about as energy inefficient. Those things looked so cute and cuddly, people would get stoned and burn themselves very badly. ;-) jrc

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox wrote on May. 16, 2019 @ 18:00 GMT
Let's consider Time in a Bottle, otherwise called Quantum Gravity.

For simplicity analysis employs a spherical measure space for a single locality, it gets messy in aggregate. The mathematic properties of a sphere are few and simple. It is the most efficient encapsulation of space because the surface in any direction from zero point center is always the same distance. A uniform change in...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 17, 2019 @ 00:34 GMT
John,

Isn't the encapsulation an artificial way of regarding 'empty'( of particulate matter) space? And the packing of the chosen shapes more so? It is not as if 'empty' space has a cellular structure. It doesn't have membranes separating parts of it. You said in an earlier post it could just as well be thought of as cubes (words to that effect, as I recall.) So what happens in the spaces between the packing of the largest spheres is academic rather than something physical. When you fill the spaces with smaller and smaller spheres you are introducing scale. But there is no difference between the space in the big spheres and the small. The separation and treatment is all academic rather than pertaining to the physically real.

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox wrote on May. 17, 2019 @ 14:08 GMT
Georgina,

I think I covered all that pretty clearly in my first paragraph, and you could make the same psychological arguments in the semantics of "enclosing" space. Pure geometry IS artificial. The point of distinguishing analytical from pure geometry was to demonstrate that it is the choice of maths in application which dictate profoundly different outcomes in analytical distribution (of density variation, as stated) from the geometric properties of a single, simple shape. I of course can be faulted for brevity in description of a couple principal methods of distribution, but the point was that methodology is much more limited in geometry than in the abstractions of mathematics at large. There are many whom enjoy extraordinarily complicated math and analytics, and make careers of it, and I'll leave it to them to argue the details.

As to a previous post, I made a point of it being conjecture. ie: that space and time are fundamentally physical and a dynamic of differing and indefinite scales is the origin of energy. And such conjuring can not be elevated to hypothesis because (in my book) a hypothesis must be testable. I'm going to leave the door open a bit for Fred Hoyle, he may have been at least some right. Hope this clarifies, :-) jrc

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew wrote on May. 17, 2019 @ 18:52 GMT
Since your arguments begin with a sphere volume, your apriori assumption is that space and time exist. Therefore, your arguments get mired in the spacetime tar baby that resists renormalization and therefore quantum gravity.

That is why a matter-action causal set offers nice alternative a priori assumptions from which time and space then emerge. Attached is an example of a Hasse diagram that shows the causal link between precursor CMB and stars to galaxy outcomes.

You can see more at Quantum Action Causal Set

There are lots of measurable decays: pulsar decays, black hole mergers, neutron star mergers, earth spin, earth moon orbit, Andromeda-Milky Way galaxy separation, Allan deviation decay of atomic clocks, IPK mass, and so on. In other words, decay is so common that it hardly matters that there is nothing that really seems constant.

attachments: cmbToStarsToGalaxies.JPG

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox wrote on May. 17, 2019 @ 19:52 GMT
Okay, okay Steve and Georgi,

my a priori conjecture is invalid, your"s is not.

I'll let my argument stand, Quantum Gravity is Time in a Bottle. If linear operations renormalizing (adjusting skew by introducing a time interval so that alignment is re-established with the preconceived initial condition of the normal line [analogous to a plumb line in a local gravitational reference]) protracted measures, were the answer to Quantum Mechanics' long quest to devise a gravitational rationale, one would have to think it would have happened by now. And why putting in that time interval demonstrates that time emerges from anywhere but your own hand, could only be conjecture. A nonlinear approach to unification of the primary forces in a spherical condensate would fit the bill, and it rests on only a conjecture that the primordial condition is a continuous field of energy. Which came first; Time, Space or Energy is moot, a chicken and egg salad sandwich.

Smile! maybe we'll be able to see each other through the fog. :-) jrc

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew wrote on May. 17, 2019 @ 20:37 GMT
Since time and space have not worked out very well for science, resolution is definitely not clear. What is there to measure?

What we have now is a Higg's field and energy equivalent to mass, but a continuum that cannot be quantized...and yet we know it must be quantized somehow.

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox wrote on May. 18, 2019 @ 02:20 GMT
That's fair, Steve. Einstein spent the last half of his life trying to conceive a unified field, and since then few have even tried. One has to think that if success were going to come from the equations of GR, it probably would have happened by now.

report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on May. 18, 2019 @ 22:08 GMT
Stringy and loop quantum are the two big contenders, but neither has a measurable yet. Just watched a great Utube, Jim Baggott's Why Is Space Itself is Quantum In Nature. It was not that technical and he did a really good job on loop quantum, which I don't much like but has a large following of sorts.

What I like about both stringy and loopy theories is they are both different forms of finite aether particles and so theory does seem to be heading back to Newton's aether for gravity...

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Jun. 5, 2019 @ 14:04 GMT
Among the many,many things that Einstein never said, was that the passage of time is not real.

What he said was that time is relative to where the observer is, and how fast she is tavelling.

Think locality.

report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 5, 2019 @ 23:45 GMT
1.That there is signal transmission duration is factual. (Affecting 'when' of receipt) 2.That there is change to the configuration of material existence happening is also factual. 1.and 2. are not the same.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 6, 2019 @ 23:33 GMT
1. is relevant to sight and hearing, sonar, radar and radio and television, measurements from observation including astronomy. 2. is relevant to changes to and of atoms, the particles they are composed of, and of materials and objects composed of particles, chemistry and materials science. Relevant to change, including motion, happening unobserved.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 8, 2019 @ 00:08 GMT
Have you seen ' Richard Hammond's Invisible Worlds" - BBC One?

Also-the seen product of vision is not the see-able (visible) source external to the observer.

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jun. 11, 2019 @ 20:58 GMT
Physics studies our experience of the universe. But the universe is not made of experience. It is made of stuff or substance. The universe is a logical system which means it was created from logic and operates according to logic.

This logical system allows only one type of substance and only one type of cause in order to operate logically. This means that at the most fundamental level, these operations are essentially logical; the very reason mathematics are so efficient.

Now take an unknown and a known. Unknown = time. Known = clock. The clock reacts or 'operates' with Time. For a logical operation to occur between the two, they both must be of the same nature. Conclusion: 1) the clock is made of time, albeit a complex form of it. 2) Time is the unique stuff or substance in its most simple state.

Since it makes everything, it would be impossible to detect directly or 'empirically'. Can infer its existence only from secondary inferences.

You have Dark Matter. We swim in it and are made of it. Only our minds can grasp that...

Finally, we do not perceive (human) Time directly as an experience because it is a substance. The sense of Time is a deduction we make from the experience of change. If any of our sensory organ could detect time, that organ would be saturated because time is everywhere...

report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 25, 2019 @ 23:15 GMT
A clock is as material device that generates events with regular intervals between. It counts or provides the means for the number of generated events to be counted. It thereby enables quantification of endurance of features of material reality, existence, or changes to material reality by comparison of the subject of inquiry and the number of generated clock events. E.g. How many clock events does it take for all of the cookies to be removed from this jar when given to the class. The measured enduring features and changes are of the spatial arrangement of uni-temporal material reality. The clock is also a material thing in uni-temporal space, with changing spatial arrangement of parts enabling 'time keeping' i,e, calibrated event generation,(counted or countable), for comparison.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Jun. 26, 2019 @ 02:26 GMT
Very good! A clock makes very regular events and events are things that happen to matter. In other words, time emerges from things that happen and time is not then a separate substance...

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 26, 2019 @ 06:40 GMT
Thanks. I didn't make clear that not only is the clock generated event, such as a mechanical tick, a particular change of spatial arrangement of parts, but the intervals between correspond to a particular regular change of the spatial arrangement of the apparatus; Such as the swing of a pendulum or particular motion of a spring driven wheel. 'Interval' sounds temporal but can be appreciated as corresponding to changing spatial configurations of matter, when clocks are being considered.

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Jun. 12, 2019 @ 13:07 GMT
Marcel-Marie,

"Finally, we do not perceive (human) Time directly as an experience because it is a substance. The sense of Time is a deduction we make from the experience of change. If any of our sensory organ could detect time, that organ would be saturated because time is everywhere... "

That pretty well summarizes my view from a conference paper and PowerPoint of 2007:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275521377_Time
_Change_Self_Organization

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jun. 15, 2019 @ 02:35 GMT
John R. Cox,

re:quantum gravity

The concept of spacetime is a bridge between the universe and our reality. Space in our reality is time in the universe out there. The concept is necessary for us in order to be able to keep doing physics. The universe does not have this requirement and therefore it has no use for 'space'. I other words, 'space' plays no part in the working of the universe.

Gravity is time evolving at a diferent rate from place to place. Now, let's go quantum.

1) Time and probabilities:

The cloud of probability of a single free particle in a gravitational field does spans over different rates of time. The cloud is therefore skewed vertically because the particle does spend relatively more time at the bottom than at the top of the cloud. Easy for the mind to grasp. Probability is time dependent and time is running at a different rate in gravity which brings different probability of existence a.k.a. motion. The universality of the effect of gravity commes from its effect on anything that 'exists', irrespective of size, mass etc.

O.K, where do I get 'existence' from?

2) From "finding' to 'being' or 'existence':

The probability of finding a particle in A, as successfully described by shroedinger equation, is equal to the probability of existence of that particle in A. Once the equation is proven exact, we may replace the 'finding' by the 'being' or existence of the particle. The particle MUST BE there with the same (relative) probability as that of being found!!

This conversion from a physical to a metaphysical perspective is necessary in order to understand the universe without us being in the way. Very useful if we are careful.

In conclusion, quantum gravity is simple if we assume this metaphysical perspective, and Shroedinger's equation actually tells us what determines the probability of existence of a particle in a place. Look it up, knowing that the rate of time is 1 on T.

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jun. 15, 2019 @ 03:01 GMT
The universe is NOT a big thing. The universe is just a BIG picture we create with our perception and conscious minds. WE are the camera that makes the picture. We integrate the light signals like a camera does.

(The Sun 8 minutes away can be seen at the same time as the Moon half a second away. The simultaneity of perception of their light signals does not mean that they exist at the same time i.e. simultaneity of existence. Only integration over time gives this impression).

So, yes! Our universe is a big picture essentially coming from the VISIBLE information.

Other than that, IMO, there is nothing else with eternal surfaces, or eternity, or infinite surfaces, infinite dimensions, or other combinations of same etc.

report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 16, 2019 @ 08:20 GMT
A video shows George Smoot who got a Nobel prize in 2006. In "Mapping the University and its History" he presented not just a lot of simulations without fully revealing the assumptions behind them but also an interesting to me measured picture of the stars with very high resolution and said just three of the many visible light spots are stars, the many other ones are galaxies because the look like spirals or at least elliptic.

I hope that John Merryman can better explain to me the CMBR event horizon and how it explains the age of the observable universe. I am still a bit familiar with microwave measurement.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Jun. 28, 2019 @ 00:38 GMT
In Quantum Mechanics, time emerges from measurement rather than time 'being' in the first place. This is due entirely to the methodology which is dependent on the Schrodinger Wave Equation which itself lacks a time parameter. The time span is in practice assigned by the experimenter and is based on the convention of duration as predicated on Earth's rotational observation. Theoretically, time is therefore treated as an emergent phenomenon, however discretionary.

report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 28, 2019 @ 01:36 GMT
It may be useful to employ the word "timing' for comparison of an event or persisting phenomenon with the calibrated sequence of events generated by a timing device. Expressed as a timing span over which the comparison is made; rather than a time span.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 28, 2019 @ 06:06 GMT
Analogy for measuring a time span: measuring the length of a fuse from the burning end as it burns. Then giving the length of the entire fuse from start to end of burn. (The fuse has burned away and does not have that length.) When the final clock'time' comparison is made preceding 'times' have ceased to be.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 29, 2019 @ 07:34 GMT
Anonymous, do you think the scale used for time on Earth is problematic? Intelligent 'time-telling' life from other star systems would likely use a scale appropriate to their experience. If communication about foundational time was happening between the Earth's human's and extraterrestrials elsewhere then a common scale based on a regular cycle experienced in both habitats would be useful. Overcoming the need for conversion from one scale to another each time. Maybe a cycle based on the chemistry of an abundant element, would suffice.

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox wrote on Jun. 29, 2019 @ 16:35 GMT
Georgi,

interesting way to pose that conundrum. I would have to go with radiological half-lives as a standardization metric based on the evidence available from direct observation. While the available census does support a constant rate of decay regardless of strength (or perhaps depth would be a more practical characterization) of an isotopes location in a gravitational field, that census...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 30, 2019 @ 04:20 GMT
John, the co-ordination of clock time for distant locations is a different subject to what would be a good common scale for use at different star system locations for comparison with local happening or duration and sharing that locally obtained knowledge with the other star system's intelligent 'time-telling' life forms. That is just like choosing pounds or kilograms, cm.s or inches, Fahrenheit or Celsius. I was thinking lithium is pretty prevalent and oxygen too, so maybe the scale could be based on the lithium flame. Not useful if a rare element is chosen that one of the involved planets might not have

report post as inappropriate

John Cox wrote on Jul. 1, 2019 @ 00:57 GMT
Dr. Agnew,

It is a pleasure that you treat theory as Theory, it shows in your adherence to axiomatic integrity even given the hard sell that your own theorizing results compel. It's always best to learn what any theoretical paradigm fully consists of whether or not in agreement with one's own preference, for my preference may be oranges but that does not constitute a valid argument against apples. As with mathematics and the choices thereof, the necessity is that one does not violate one's choice of axioms while accommodating accepted conventions of knowledge. Chemistry was still King in Maxwell's day or his results would not have compelled On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. Best Wishes, jrc

report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 4, 2019 @ 15:17 GMT
It is a pleasure to discover different people's ideas and this is the most important aspect of the FQXI website. Frankly, while the FQXI experts are interesting, but really it is the comments that interest me, not the dogma of time and space.

My own journey has been a long one and has twisted and turned and continues. The chaos of classical noise simply overwhelms measurements on earth and even in low earth orbit and so measuring the decay of matter and growth of force will take careful measurements at the Lagrange points millions of miles from earth's gravity noise over many months to finally show discrete matter action.

My theory is fairly complete, but by no means complete and so is definitely falsifiable. That makes it fun to see how it nicely completes physical reality. For example, science is convinced that dark matter exists and so if they find dark matter is real, that would kill matter time. The galaxy forces of spacetime dark matter are simply a manifestation of star radiation and star motion. This is called gravitization in matter time and is a vector force of gravity that complements gravity scalar force. Gravitization is then the gravity analog to magnetization from charge motion.

Although black holes are singularities in spacetime, in matter time, black holes are just the eventual destiny of all matter decay and force growth. This makes black holes a little less mysterious but it does mean that science has the universe expansion exactly backwards. The universe pulse is simply a cycle of antimatter expansion and force decay followed by matter collapse and force growth. We are now in the matter collapse and force growth phase.

report post as inappropriate

John-Erik Persson wrote on Jul. 9, 2019 @ 20:10 GMT
Craig

Time can be saved by abolishing time dilation by revealing the wrong arguments provided by the assumed transverse effect in the MMX tests and thereby also giving up the wave or particle paradox. See link below!

From ___________________ John-Erik Persson

The most fundamental paradox

report post as inappropriate

Bruce Camber wrote on Jul. 11, 2019 @ 00:25 GMT
Planck Time (tP) opens basic questions. First, tP is a direct correlation and necessary relation with a length and light in much the same way Einstein's well-known equation, e=mc2 necessarily and dynamically relate mass, energy and light. These four Planck base units are each natural units that use only the most fundamental universal constants to define them. What if these define the very first moment of space, time, mass and energy? What if the universe starts cold? What if the first expression of these five facets of our reality first manifest as a sphere? John Archibald Wheeler suggested quantum foam. Others are suggesting that we call these spheres, planckspheres. What if there is an application of cubic close packing of equal spheres (ccp) at this scale and the stacking amounts to a doubling? Within 202 doublings (or base-2 notations), these Planck base units have become the age of the universe, the size of the universe, the total mass of the universe, and the total energy of the universe, and yes, it is still happening right now. The universe is expanding! Exploring such a simple model has been our effort since December 2011: Homepage Review the chart of the numbers and to get a sense of the emergence and natural inflation.

report post as inappropriate

Bruce Camber wrote on Jul. 11, 2019 @ 00:27 GMT
Planck Time (tP) opens basic questions. First, tP is a direct correlation and necessary relation with a length and light in much the same way Einstein's well-known equation, e=mc2 necessarily and dynamically relate mass, energy and light. These four Planck base units are each natural units that use only the most fundamental universal constants to define them. What if these define the very first moment of space, time, mass and energy? What if the universe starts cold? What if the first expression of these five facets of our reality first manifest as a sphere? John Archibald Wheeler suggested quantum foam. Others are suggesting that we call these spheres, planckspheres. What if there is an application of cubic close packing of equal spheres (ccp) at this scale and the stacking amounts to a doubling? Within 202 doublings (or base-2 notations), these Planck base units have become the age of the universe, the size of the universe, the total mass of the universe, and the total energy of the universe, and yes, it is still happening right now. The universe is expanding! Exploring such a simple model has been our effort since December 2011: Homepage Review the chart of the numbers and to get a sense of the emergence and natural inflation.

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Jul. 21, 2019 @ 09:33 GMT
time has only the math existence, time as the 4th dimension of space is Einstein's mathematical Trick.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Sep. 12, 2019 @ 14:17 GMT
While Craig Callender in his video spoke in a murky manner that was difficult to completely understand for me, I am nonetheless sure, his focus on psychological time cannot hide that the so called physical time does definitely not provide a complete picture of reality. When Einstein denied the now, he referred just to models that are thought as complete, i.e. equations considering merely a finite amount of influences and implying a predetermined future.

Common sense is more prudent. I guess, the here and the now are essentially the only two genuine singularities of reality, the only two natural (in the sense of non-arbitrarily chosen) points of reference. In reality, there is no negative already elapsed time as there is also no negative distance.

Using the symbol box is clever - when operating with models. Cf. also my cusanus.docx and cusanus vs SR.docx.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Nov. 11, 2019 @ 17:13 GMT
The confrontation between different viewpoints is always an interesting procedure to approach a better understanding of our reality. The article and the conference which has been organized about the thematic “time” is an effort going into that direction.

Now, since our life is irremediably going from one unavoidable event (the birth) to another one (the death), two fix points in any human trajectory, it is difficult to not see a link between the concept of time and the one of thermodynamic state (the comparison is not new). In my mind, this does not mean that the time does not exist; on the contrary, I would say it is the proof of the existence of time in an obvious three-dimensional space.

What is the nature of time? This is the real question. I belong to the group of persons believing that the time can be described by an arrow, a vector; at least in each small enough volume. I have developed a theory with this idea, pushing the calculations of the variations of the basis vectors until the second order and trying to build an extension of Einstein’s general theory of relativity… (the literature around that theory is on a temporary website: cosmicstrings.de). Provided, I did not make too much mistakes, the results are surprising.

I am only an amateur (no professional) but, I like all these discussions around the foundations of our knowledge.

report post as inappropriate

Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Jan. 7, 2020 @ 15:49 GMT
Time has only the math existence and Higgs mechanism is pure failure

report post as inappropriate

Joe A Nahhas wrote on Jan. 31, 2020 @ 01:23 GMT
Reality = r₀ and reality observed = r

– (r / r₀) = e± i ω t = cosine ω t ± i sine ω t and a Fourier transform or a mapping into real rime observation of reality exposes that 410 years of physics are visual effects of physics lab physical motion or Earth's motion and it say Earth is moving in 27.321 days and the Sun in moving in 365.256 dats and the distance equivalence of (27.321 days, 365.256 days) = (r , c) r = Earth's theoretical radius and c = 299792458 meters hypothesized by Ole Roemer as light constant speed

(1/T) ∫_o^T▒〖(r/(r₀))dt 〗 = (1/T)∫_0^T▒(cosine ωt+ i sine ω t)dt

Observed along the line of sight = (1/T) ∫_0^T▒(cosine ωt)dt

= Sine ω T/ ω T = Spin speed/ Visual orbital speed

The angle ω T = (C/R)

= 2 Ω; Ω = ecliptic plane angle

R = Earth’s radius = 6371000 meters

C = 299792458 meters

II – (θʹ / θʹ₀) = e± 2 i ω t = cosine 2ω t ± i sine 2ω t

(1/T) ∫_o^T▒〖(θʹ / θʹ₀)dt 〗

= (1/T)∫_0^T▒(cosine 2ω t ± i sine 2ω t)dt

Observed along the line of sight:

= (1/T) ∫_0^T▒(cosine 2ωt)dt

= Sine 2ω T/ 2ω T

report post as inappropriate

Joe A Nahhas wrote on Jan. 31, 2020 @ 01:27 GMT
I – (r / r₀) = e± i ω t = cosine ω t ± i sine ω t

(1/T) ∫_o^T▒〖(r/(r₀))dt 〗 = (1/T)∫_0^T▒(cosine ωt+ i sine ω t)dt

Observed along the line of sight = (1/T) ∫_0^T▒(cosine ωt)dt

= Sine ω T/ ω T = Spin speed/ Visual orbital speed

The angle ω T = (C/R)

= 2 Ω; Ω = ecliptic plane angle

R = Earth’s radius = 6371000 meters

C = 299792458 meters

II – (θʹ / θʹ₀) = e± 2 i ω t = cosine 2ω t ± i sine 2ω t

(1/T) ∫_o^T▒〖(θʹ / θʹ₀)dt 〗

= (1/T)∫_0^T▒(cosine 2ω t ± i sine 2ω t)dt

Observed along the line of sight:

= (1/T) ∫_0^T▒(cosine 2ωt)dt

= Sine 2ω T/ 2ω T

report post as inappropriate
Joe A Nahhas replied on Jan. 31, 2020 @ 01:33 GMT
The above is a Fourier transform or a map or an integration into real time gives sine w t / w t = spin speed/orbit speed an w t = C/R C = 299792458 meters claimed by Ole Roemer as light speed and r = Earth's theoretical radius.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Nahhas wrote on Nov. 21, 2020 @ 05:28 GMT
Hacking Physical Reality

Real Time Physics

With Applications: The Sun’s motion in 365.256 days cycle wrongly assigned to Earth and Earth’s 27.321 days cycle wrongly assigned to the not moving and Sun’s light reflecting Moon Burning 500 Years of Classical Physics & 120 Years of Nobel Quantum Illusions Relativistic Delusions modern physics not as a has been a physics but as a never was any physics

By first and only Physicist Joe Nahhas

report post as inappropriate

Amrit Sorli wrote on Dec. 3, 2021 @ 15:31 GMT
We have only 2 times in the universe:

- psychological time that has its origin in the neuronal activity of the brain

- duration that is the results of the observer measurement

all the rest

- coordinate time, proper time, cosmological time, thermodynamic time.....is pure imagination

https://bistra.si/images/2021/Time_as_the_Result_of_Measurem
ent.pdf

report post as inappropriate

PhysicsPfan wrote on Aug. 15, 2022 @ 00:03 GMT
The phrase above "...argued that time does not exist at all" shows how constrained we are by space and matter. Of course time doesn't 'exist'; it occurs. We think that 'things' [matter] can exist in a dimension. We never grant that (kinetic) energy might occur on its own in a dimension (time).

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox wrote on Aug. 16, 2022 @ 00:40 GMT
Our human sense of a flow of time only suggests that there are some physical conditions from which that sense emerges. Yet our senses also tend to lead us to discount Time in any real way. The problem still remains that for there to be measurement of observation there must be something in between any two detectable objects we observe. If there is neither Time or Space in a physical reality then our measurements are predicated on a comparison of prior observations in which we arbitrarily assign a span of duration and a span of distance with the assumption that the scale of each is the same as the other. But there exists no observable to base that assumption on, only that everything isn't in the same place all at once.

All measurement therefore depends on some other measure evolved from Earth based common notions of size and motion intuitively conceived in antiquity. Eventually, that ad hoc methodology did arrive at some irrefutable if inconvenient conclusions, perhaps the most notable being the calculable constancy of light velocity by Maxwell. Not for all the commonly cited rationale however valid, but for the often ignored simple condition of the light velocity proportionality between the intensity of the electric field and the magnetic field in a point charge; because for any chemical reaction to take place in one locality, that same proportionality would have to be the same for any chemical reactions to be predictable in any other localities. The postulates of Special Relativity are a consequence of that inconvenient truth.

So we do have at least one universal bounded interval from which to protract scales of measure in reality. And that argues well for a multidimensionality of physically real Spacetime. Let the games begin!

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.