Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help

amrit: on 12/30/08 at 15:01pm UTC, wrote Buck idea of atemporal space and time as a coordinate of motion works...

Eckard Blumschein: on 12/29/08 at 0:50am UTC, wrote High Buck Field, Someone who suggests something revolutionary in...

Buck: on 12/28/08 at 15:05pm UTC, wrote Hello Amrit, I appreciate your essay and find myself becoming more and...

Buck: on 12/28/08 at 14:56pm UTC, wrote Hi John, Thanks for your clarifications, and I think I've got the jist of...

John Merryman: on 12/18/08 at 12:21pm UTC, wrote Buck, In reference to the idea of what I might call this description of...

amrit: on 12/17/08 at 15:37pm UTC, wrote Dear Buck According to my research with clocks we measure numerical order...

John Merryman: on 12/16/08 at 22:21pm UTC, wrote Buck, If you're referring to my observation, no. How about the "Emergent...

Buck: on 12/16/08 at 20:40pm UTC, wrote Hi John, Thanks for the repetition, I think reading the reply to Ken was...


Dr Narayan Bhadra : "For the explanation of Gravitational forces we need to go beyond the..." in The Noise of Gravitons

Dr Narayan Bhadra : "STRUCTURE FORMATION OF BIO-ELEMENTS Dr. Narayan Kumar Bhadra Lakshmipur..." in The Noise of Gravitons

Ulla Mattfolk: "In a statement posted on its website on 27 June, SNRIU said that "due to..." in Global Collaboration

Ulla Mattfolk: "Cont. Of the nuclear countries Sweden and Germany has said no thanks, they..." in Global Collaboration

Steve Dufourny: "Jonathan Dickau ,hope you are well, always cool to have your points of vue,..." in 16th Marcel Grossmann...

Steve Dufourny: "This platform is about theoretical physics, it is irritating to have these..." in 16th Marcel Grossmann...

Steve Dufourny: "I recommand this you tube of Professor Ellis about mind, intelligence,..." in George Ellis - How can...

Steve Dufourny: "irritating these posts, they shall disappear simply because under review..." in George Ellis - How can...

click titles to read articles

The Math of Consciousness: Q&A with Kobi Kremnitzer
A meditating mathematician is developing a theory of conscious experience to help understand the boundary between the quantum and classical world.

Can We Feel What It’s Like to Be Quantum?
Underground experiments in the heart of the Italian mountains are testing the links between consciousness and collapse theories of quantum physics.

The Thermodynamic Limits of Intelligence: Q&A with David Wolpert
Calculating the energy needed to acquire and compute information could help explain the (in)efficiency of human brains and guide the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence.

Gambling Against the Second Law
Using precision thermometry to make mini heat engines, that might, momentarily, bust through the thermodynamic limit.

Mind and Machine: What Does It Mean to Be Sentient?
Using neural networks to test definitions of 'autonomy.'

June 30, 2022

CATEGORY: The Nature of Time Essay Contest (2008) [back]
TOPIC: Revolution in the Understanding of Space-Time: A Project by Buck Field [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Buck Field wrote on Dec. 3, 2008 @ 10:04 GMT
Essay Abstract

As a fundamental unit common to all natural processes, time is linked to every scientific endeavor. Physics, which deals most directly with time itself, lacks a unified model capable of explaining observed anomalies and theoretical conflicts, leading the overwhelming majority of scientists to conclude that a revolution in our understanding is necessary. Lacking this new and transformative paradigm, physics research is unlikely in the foreseeable future to complete the Einsteinian revolution. As theoreticians correctly recognize the need for a revolutionary new cosmological model, postulating new dimensions, forces, and types of matter, experimentalists quite reasonably conclude: “in the absence of useful theoretical guidance, observational exploration must be the focus of our efforts”. In this essay, we identify core knowledge and elements of a cognitive framework for rationally identifying revolutionary approaches and ideas. We argue that defining and understanding the paradigm change we seek, based on what is known about the next revolution in physics, is a crucial component of a successful effort. Our development of a clear, elaborated definition of this transformative future model is drawn from the current state of physics, philosophy of science, scientific revolutions, and accepted standards in project management. Historical archetypes of scientific revolutions are presented to illustrate defining attributes in transformational paradigm shifts and provide insight. We argue that because research to create a revolutionary new space-time model is a temporary effort to deliver a unique result, standards of project management are appropriate and valuable to apply. A partial structure of the revolutionary paradigm can be constructed based on known attributes of time’s fundamental relationship to various physics specialties and the unique characteristics of transformative models.

Author Bio

Buck Field completed his undergraduate work in information systems at Southern Illinois University, and MBA from the University of Texas at Dallas. Buck’s academic research has been generously supported by: The Project Management Institute, IBM, NSF, Wolfram Research, Microsoft, and Fermi National Laboratory. He performs analyses, presents lectures and training internationally on topics of professional ethics, organizational systems, and project management. Buck is currently seeking funding for development of organizational standards in support of the NSF’s Transformational Research Initiative to create revolutionary advances at the frontier of human knowledge.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share

John Merryman wrote on Dec. 3, 2008 @ 18:32 GMT

How about a very simple paradigm shift?

Currently time is assumed to be a form of dimension, or projection along which physical reality travels from past events to future ones. If we view it as a consequence of motion, rather than the basis of motion, it goes the other way. As each circumstance is replaced by the next, these events go from future potential to past circumstance. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. Not the earth is traveling along a meta-dimension from yesterday to tomorrow.

Temperature is also a consequence of motion. As an average, it can be represented as a point on a scale, but as units of motion, time cannot be represented as a point, unless the motion has stopped. So any measure of time is necessarily fuzzy, since even initiation and conclusion references cannot be dimensionless points in time.

Dimensions are projection and while they effectively describe direction and distance in space, another measure of space is volume. The same logic which equates time with spatial distance could also be used to argue temperature is another parameter of volume, since the temperature of a given amount of energy can be proportionally affected by changing its volume.

As reality seems to be a fluctuating vacuum, I suppose time and temperature would be descriptions of the fluctuation, while dimensions and volume would be descriptions of the vacuum.

Bookmark and Share

Buck wrote on Dec. 4, 2008 @ 12:37 GMT
Hello John,

Thanks for your comment, I’m always interested in paradigm shifts.

[It is accepted that physical reality travels from past events to future ones.]

That is the common conception, yes.

[proposal: view time as consequence of motion, temp a consequence of motion.]

I see no internal inconsistencies with that view.

[time cannot be represented as a point, unless the motion has stopped]

True, but I’d like to be sure we clearly distinguish instantaneous time-point snapshots from a moving system. Also, what would you say about an instantaneous measure of position or a rate of change in motion…are they meaningless?

[We might argue temperature is another parameter of volume, since the temperature of a given amount of energy can be proportionally affected by changing its volume.]

This appears possible – although highly speculative since the underlying mechanisms for our perception of a given volume, distance, and time is unknown. Could it be that for us to perceive “volume” requires a particular energy level, frequency, and movement (via that energy fluctuation) combination? I don’t think this has been answered. In my essay, I argue (plead?) that we avoid investing piles of money and lifetimes of effort in repairing broken paradigms, and therfore it is absolutely critical to acknowledge observations for what they are, distinguish them from rules, relationships and/or transformations, and document our assumptions. This stuff is of primary concern to managers, policymakers, and administrators, but it is vitally important for researchers and experimentalists to gain understanding basic assessment criteria, which comes from unambiguous definition and communication of a shared, (preferably practical), goal.

For that reason, until there’s sufficient justification to consider currently "fundamental units" real, I consider my best contribution will be developing model assessment systems to improve the quality of information available within the research enterprise, focusing on controllable attributes of proposed models and approaches based on criteria for revolutionary models.

BTW - Your essay has a nice lyrical ending on the circle of life that was enjoyable also.

Thanks again for your feedback!


Bookmark and Share

John Merryman wrote on Dec. 4, 2008 @ 18:07 GMT

"True, but I’d like to be sure we clearly distinguish instantaneous time-point snapshots from a moving system. Also, what would you say about an instantaneous measure of position or a rate of change in motion…are they meaningless?"

How far down into the system do you freeze those snapshots. A nice Nikon can produce an amazingly clear picture of a person in motion, but what...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share

F. Le Rouge wrote on Dec. 6, 2008 @ 12:05 GMT
Einstein is not a revolution. He only tried as H. Poincaré to put Time again in Empiricim for metaphysical reasons (same for Bergson).

But the Time of Einstein is as much conventional than it was before Einstein in Empiricism. In other words Einstein, Poincaré or Bergson before are not able to understand that Empiricsm INTRODUCED the value of Time (because of the ballistic experiences).

It is the reason why Einstein was disappointed to be treated as the 'Relativity Master': he wanted to be the Master of INFINITY, without understanding that Relativity and Infinity are equivalent. This is why Einstein is driving to the same skepticism than the father of Empiricism R. Descartes.

Bookmark and Share

Buck wrote on Dec. 6, 2008 @ 12:35 GMT
Hello John,

Thanks for your reply.

[How do we measure the sub-atomic level?]

This is a good question. You answer this by pointing out we measure energy content in relation to the measuring device. I’m unclear on the argument that “meaning is inherently static” – Most of my paper is devoted to changes in meaning, at least for observations and measurements.

You make a good point that meaning is relational – and the relational nature of cognitive frameworks should be better emphasized in my future work – certainly my main source for such frameworks comes from “The Cognitive Structures of Scientific Revolutions”, and they do a better job than I did in this essay.

[From the inside, we can see the complexity of particular detail, but not the whole.] This is a real problem! I think we can simply keep making our best guesses at “fundamental” relationships and throw out the less useful one by one.

[Those of us on the outside can look at the situation and see little no effort to step back and see if the initial assumptions are correct.]

True, although we share this weakness.

[Does reality travel along a meta-dimension from past to future, or does the rotation of the earth turn tomorrow into yesterday?] As you say: One is theory, the other is observation; I would say that depending on one’s point of view, both could be correct. For me, a more useful question is: what are we trying to accomplish with a theory of a flat/round earth? Stable or roatating? Meta-dimensional/dimensional/illusory time?

[Are these people with all the PhD's questioning my logic, or just ignoring it?] I have to admit: I’m pleasantly surprised whenever anyone reads my material & finds it interesting. I would guess that it is a question of time and priorities – I’ve got one huge paper to complete and another small one due in less than 2 weeks…so I barely get to read these essays & comments!

Thanks again for your feedback.

Bookmark and Share

Narendra Nath wrote on Dec. 6, 2008 @ 13:36 GMT
Dear Buck.

it was late that i came to see your essay. It is refreshing from a rational view point as to what can be considered a Paradigm shift in Physics and the concept of time in the context of cosmology. However, we are all humans with our biases and it is not easy to arrive at a common agreement about what are the substantial and peripheral issues.

Let me present to you a few points that i consider significant:

1. What one considers archaic may turn out to be revolutionary. Time decides such issues.

2.Nature has put up the universe for us to understand how it is running, the rules of the big game. We can't question 'why' , as the same has been fixed by the logic of the Creator! The known phenomena are required to be understood in a logical way through critical analysis of the observed facts, the overall encompassing of the picture behind apparently different phenomenon. That is our approach should be such as to accommodate explanations indicated elsewhere too. Thus, we can hope to build a harmonious picture that conform rather than contradict explanations required to understand different processes/phenomenon.

3. Time is a variable that comes naturally from the motions of different types that are encountered in nature. There is a wide range frequencies involved, theoretically from 1 upwards. Here 0 has a significance . That is where i see the role of 'consciousness' a non-physical entity to enter in the scientific domain, say provide answer to what existed prior to the Big bang! May be there was a potentially powerful Unified field , with intelligent design for the evolution, as being observed now.

4. the management issues highlighted by you can not direct the trends physics may take in going ahead, including the possible expanding paradigms. finally, all need confirmation through observed data.

To conclude, i enjoyed reading your essay, without taking out a print. It can have some disadvantage by way of my missing some points you raised therein!

Bookmark and Share

John Merryman wrote on Dec. 7, 2008 @ 00:32 GMT

I posted a longer reply on my thread.

It must be interesting to shine a light into this discussion and try making sense of it from an organizational perspective, with the way in which everyone uses their history to define the topic. It certainly provides a broad cross section of knowledge and its application.

Bookmark and Share

Buck wrote on Dec. 9, 2008 @ 22:54 GMT
Hello F.,

Thanks for your comments. I agree that Einstein "is not a revolution", but acknowledge that his work is generally acknowledged to be the start of a shift in cognitive frames.

I'm unclear on your points regarding "ballistic experiences" and the claim empiricism "INTRODUCED" the value of time, since empirical references to time antedate Descartes by millennia.

Bookmark and Share

Buck wrote on Dec. 9, 2008 @ 23:22 GMT
Hello Narendra Nath,

Thank you for reading my essay and sharing your thoughts.

1. While it is true that “what one considers archaic may turn out to be revolutionary”, I am not aware of examples, and would appreciate instances where this true, especially if these examples contain elements that can be generalized.

2. You reference “critical analysis of the observed facts”. Unfortunately, we can only observe light, heat, pressure, etc. “Facts” are not something we can observe. Remaining faithful to this distinction is why I rely heavily upon the sunrise example, because most people understand that although we see it, it doesn’t really exist.

3. While “consciousness” is not physical in the same sense that a neuron is physical, it is a process of physical components like “rotation” or “combustion” are processes of physical components. To avoid error, we use a conservative approach to reality, which requires plausible evidence for any propositions; this precludes consideration of theories involving “Creators” or “Intelligent Designers”, which would violate several of the minimum requirements listed in the paper for a model to be regarded as scientific.

4. You bring up the very proper criteria for assessing scientific theory as consistency with observations. I may consider emphasizing this in the future if it remains unclear to readers.

Thanks again for your feedback.

Bookmark and Share

Buck wrote on Dec. 9, 2008 @ 23:33 GMT
Hello John,

“Physics doesn't make sense, just the equations have to work.”

Do you think physicists develop consistent mathematics for some reason other than to make sense of reality?

Bookmark and Share

John Merryman wrote on Dec. 10, 2008 @ 02:46 GMT
No. Obviously they are trying to make sense of reality. The problem, as I see it, is that they haven't fully examined the preconceptions on which they base their theories. In the context of my own point about time being an effect of motion and therefore the events going future to past, rather than reality traveling along a meta-dimension from past to future, one of the usual dismissals I get is that modern physics isn't "intuitive." To me, this is ridiculous, since it is the assumption we are traveling along some linear projection from past events to future ones which is the intuitive understanding of time. It's called narrative. History. Beginning to end, Cause and effect. It all seems quite obvious, but as I keep pointing out, macro arrangement of activity creating events is effect, so time is an abstraction, like temperature. Now read through all these essays and consider all the extremely brilliant thinking and lifetimes of effort being put into trying to explain the fundamental processes required to carry us along this "dimension" of time. The block timers of varying degrees of orthodoxy and all those trying to develop dynamic models. They are all trying to make sense of reality. In terms of time going past to future. Can you truly say you can unravel these Gordian Knots of logic? Frankly my daughter is better at math than I am and she is taking AP classes in eighth grade. I have just found that when everyone is trying something and failing, usually there is something basic which is being overlooked. Consider the current credit crisis; Money is saved by lending it to someone else. This means total savings isn't determined by what is reserved from earnings, but by what can be prudently loaned. So to increase saving, we lower loan standards, create imaginary investment vehicles, etc. and run up a credit bubble. They have happened throughout human history. This one has just been magnified by modern technological efficiency. (Borrowers need to be nurtured, not strangled.) Not to get off topic, but people are very good at ignoring the obvious, especially when everyone else is doing it.

So I ask you, which is more logical; That tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates? Or that we travel along a meta-dimension from yesterday to tomorrow?

James Stanfield( makes the point as well, but he doesn't emphasize it as the essential cause of confusion.

Bookmark and Share

Chris Kennedy wrote on Dec. 11, 2008 @ 18:43 GMT
Hi Buck,

Great Essay. It is my hope to read as many as I can before the voting deadline. You bring up some key phrases that sum up what we face when trying to learn more about the nature of time. Relativity's Linkage of space and time (and the ability or inability to explore a mechanism) is more important than people think. And the logical self-consistency of theories is something that should be taken much more seriously than it is.

I see you have been communicating with John Merryman. Although we have a different approach, I think John and I share an identical or at least almost identicle opinion of what the "nature" of time really is. Here is something I stated to John on my thread:

I think that time is a macro effect of the most fundamental behaviors among particles, forces and fields. I think these behaviors define time and in fact are time. Now, if the most fundamental behaviors can all be accurately described as motion, then – okay by me. But if some behaviors on the quantum level (maybe in a gray area around uncertainty and entanglement) no longer make sense to be described as motion, then it is safer for me to refer to the fundamental activities as “behaviors.” In either case, committing to that is different than simply using motion to measure time. Because even if time were something other than what I believe it to be, it would still be possible to use motion to measure time and compare times. In other words, if particles, forces and fields existed “in” time in a more passive sense and their behaviors were just a visible symptom of what “time” they existed in due to their local environment, then we could still measure their motion to tell us the rate at which their time is flowing.

What I do in my essay is explore how my theory of time relates to Einstein's relativity, since that is still the framework where the scientifically acceptable reasons for time dilation exist.

Take care and keep up the good work.


Bookmark and Share

Buck wrote on Dec. 13, 2008 @ 15:16 GMT
Hello John,

I apologize for the delay in responding, I’ve been swamped. Your claim that standard model assumptions have not been adequately analyzed is well-supported. A problem I have understanding “motion giving rise to time” is that without time in which changes of relative position can occur, in other words, I seem trapped in the block time paradigm. As you recognize, a vague hand wave of “modern physics isn't intuitive" is a fallacious defense unless the criticism it addresses is equally vague – as you point out, a severe fallacy is the lack of consistency in asserting this to defend the intuitive block time model. If we have a scientific hypothesis to replace the block time model, its value remains unrecognized for the time being. Imposition of strong scientific assessment criteria for proposed models and methods rules out some well-accepted, foundational principles in physics, such as superposition.

As for your question of “which is more logical?” I think the motion option needs a better description, like “change of macroscopic material spatial relationships” to be more precise and more easily generalized than the more lyrical “earth roatates” example.

What observational change would we expect if time were merely an abstraction rather than a dimension?

Bookmark and Share

Buck wrote on Dec. 13, 2008 @ 15:39 GMT
Hello CJ,

Thanks you for the kind words. What I understand of the approach you and John share regarding motion is intriguing. I also appreciate your struggle to find the best, safest descriptors by your suggestion of “behaviors”. I look forward to reading your essay, after I post a defense of FTL research. This was recently challenged as an unjustifiably fanciful goal.

While doing that and getting to your essay, I would like to pose the same question to you that I did for John: if your theory is correct, how would observations or theory be different than block time and/or other alternatives?

Bookmark and Share

Buck wrote on Dec. 13, 2008 @ 15:57 GMT
I recently received an offline criticism it may be helpful to share:

____________Criticism Begins___________________

"FTL research would be very unlikely to pass peer review. Faster than light travel is only allowed in principle, to my knowledge, in severely warped spacetimes. Research in such an area is far too speculative to displace other worthy projects of a more conventional...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share

John Merryman wrote on Dec. 13, 2008 @ 21:19 GMT

Since I'm being somewhat repetitive, I'll go all the way and simply repost this reply to a response from Ken Wharton, who is a strong proponent of block time;


Humor me for a moment and reconsider a reality in which change and motion are acceptable. The arrow of time goes from what comes first, to what comes second. For the observer, past events proceed future ones, so we observe time as going from the past to future. On the other hand, these events are first in the future, then in the past, so their arrow goes the opposite direction. Throughout history, in fact the very description of the narrative construct we call history, the understanding of time is of the first arrow. That events proceed along this universal path, whether Newton's absolute time, or Einstein's relative time, from past to future.

Yet the only reality ever experienced is of the present. So lets examine the consequence of viewing reality as a fixed present consisting of energy in motion, thus causing change and as each arrangement described by this energy is replaced by the next, these events go from future potential to past circumstance. Therefore past and future do not physically exist because the energy to manifest all such events is only manifesting one moment at a time.

So rather than a fundamental dimension, time becomes an emergent description and consequence of motion, similar to temperature. Temperature, as a scalar average of motion, doesn't exist if we only consider singular motion, but only emerges when measuring a mass of activity. So time, as a sequencing of units of motion, doesn't effectively exist if we cannot define a progression. It is just quantum fuzziness. The present can't be a dimensionless point either, since it is a description of motion and would only be dimensionless if all motion has stopped, so, like temperature, the measurement becomes fuzzy when examined closely.

Whether time proceeds along some dimension from past to future, or is caused by the progression of events from future to past, might seem semantic, yet consider the consequences; If time is that dimension moving toward the future, we need to explain how it deals with potentialities. Either we go with multi-worlds, in which all potentials are taken, or block time, where the potentials are illusionary and it is fundamentally deterministic. Now if we view it from the other direction, where time is the events moving from future potential to past circumstance, the collapsing wave of probabilities makes sense, since it is only energy in motion and time is simply an emergent description of the process, not some fundamental dimension.

What is primitive is the narrative assumption that time is a linear projection from the past into the future.

Bookmark and Share

Paul N. Butler wrote on Dec. 14, 2008 @ 09:07 GMT

I read your paper and I agree that it is important to find valid methods to evaluate new concepts for validity. In today’s world concepts that are in any way far removed from currently accepted beliefs tend to be either ignored or ridiculed without adequate investigation into their validity.

I would suggest getting away from the old Copernican revolution replacing the...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share

Chris Kennedy wrote on Dec. 15, 2008 @ 18:45 GMT
Hi Buck (and John),

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


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

view entire post

Bookmark and Share

John Merryman wrote on Dec. 16, 2008 @ 01:34 GMT

Those "behaviors" which do not create time coordinates time can be defined as a form of temperature, i.e. an average level of motion.

This is a comment I made in George Ellis' discussion;

ge, Peter, Tom,

The principle by which time consists of discrete units is not exclusive to the microcosmic. Think in terms of geologic earthquakes, political upheaval, or economic collapse. While the surface description is basically static, underlaying tensions are building that are not linear and thus the sudden change isn't completely predictable. Ref. Complexity Theory. So to, two points in time may not be connected in a linear fashion, but could have a hologram of the entire universe between them, but they are still connected, otherwise they would be outside each others light cone and effectively not exist to one another.

The reason block time and multi-worlds are necessary is to explain probability in forward moving time. The future is defined by probabilities and if time is a linear dimension from past to future, the need is to explain how the issue of chance is resolved. Block time is essentially determinism, where the probabilities are an illusion and ultimately time is laid out in a linear dimension. Multi worlds takes the opposing view and argues all possibilities branch out into separate realities. There are varieties of combinations of these two extremes, as evolving block time would be.

The advantage of time as an emergent description/consequence of motion is that since this series of events is being both created and erased by this jumpy/continuous motion, time is the series of events going from being in the future to being in the past. So the issue of probabilities is resolved by the collapse of potential into the actual. It is also efficient in that the same energy manifests all points in time and doesn't require additional dimensions of energy to manifest each and every moment.


As the interludes between the transitions are non-linear activity, they are best described in scalar/averaging terms, such as temperature, pressure, etc.

As opposed to time being a vector.

Bookmark and Share

Buck wrote on Dec. 16, 2008 @ 20:40 GMT
Hi John,

Thanks for the repetition, I think reading the reply to Ken was helpful to helping lift the fog a bit and making it easier for me to conceptually grasp this model.

I'm still curious about the observational consequences we might expect from the "Emergent Description Model".

Does this view even have a name?

Bookmark and Share

John Merryman wrote on Dec. 16, 2008 @ 22:21 GMT

If you're referring to my observation, no. How about the "Emergent Discription Model"?

I don't know that it has observational consequences, other than explaining how we exist in this current moment along a series of numerous other such moments, without having to resort to complex explanations that require accepting a wide variety of imaginary propositions, as some would have us believe. The past does not physically exist. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

The future doesn't require multiple realities to appear with every quantum event.

Chance is not an illusion, with all of history laid out in block time.

Time is not a dimension. It is a process. It's not about "being." It's about "doing."

I realize it goes against what we have been taught, but it really isn't difficult to think of time as the future becoming the past. I made the point to a teenaged daughter of a friend once and her reply was; Well, duh! When I make the same point to people with doctorates in physics, they can't explain how I'm wrong, they just repeat what they have been taught to think.

I like to think I'm right, but if I wasn't and someone explained to me what I'm missing, it wouldn't distress me all that much, as there are many other things to think about and the people I live around are not particularly philosophical anyway and usually just ignore me when I get too analytical. Frankly it disturbs me more to think I might be right and just have no way to get anyone to understand. It creates that bottled up feeling.

Bookmark and Share

amrit wrote on Dec. 17, 2008 @ 15:37 GMT
Dear Buck

According to my research with clocks we measure numerical order of events that run into atemporal space.

Time is an observer effect, a mind model.

attachments: Phenomenology_of_Time_and_Quantum_Gravity.pdf

Bookmark and Share

John Merryman wrote on Dec. 18, 2008 @ 12:21 GMT

In reference to the idea of what I might call this description of time, the concept which seems to be presenting itself is "emergent linearity."

This is because it seems non-linear activity is a more fundamental state, given that much of it is in larger states of equilibrium, or cycles, where some overall balance exists. Even the concept of entropy only really refers to the effective direction of motion within a closed system, yet there don't seem to be any ultimately closed systems. Even the idea that the universe is a singular unit runs up against any number of issues, from where the initial low entropy singularity came from, the possibility of other such universes, unaccounted energies, etc.

So it seems time is a subjective linear projection distilled from this larger context. This plays out in many forms. In fact the very concept of "form" denotes such a projection, as it is created, evolves and absorbed back into the larger network. So its internal timeline goes from start to finish, as its external existence goes from being in the future, to being in the past, whether the form is the lifespan of a fly, or the history of the earth.

E. O. Wilson described the brain of an insect as essentially a thermostat. This really is how reactive life forms perceive reality, as reacting to variation of the present energy, as opposed the the higher order linear ordering of events.

So while our brains exist in the state of present energy which is creating the series of events and thus going from one to the next, our minds are the record of these events, that are receding into the past.

Just as each of us in this contest are trying to formulate and follow the evolving logic to create a sense of our own continuity, to pick our own thread of logic out of the larger field of energy and thoughts, so to is time that emergent linearity that bubbles up out of the field and then folds back into it. Sometimes as part of larger patterns being woven into ropes of time. Sometimes just floating out there on their own.

Bookmark and Share

Buck wrote on Dec. 28, 2008 @ 14:56 GMT
Hi John,

Thanks for your clarifications, and I think I've got the jist of your theory and I tend to agree. The many-worlds solutions violate one of the basic premises of science: that there is "a" reality to investigate.

It seems like a good idea to point out that there really is no evidence to support the existence of past as a traversable, extant dimension... I appreciate that you have done so.

Bookmark and Share

Buck wrote on Dec. 28, 2008 @ 15:05 GMT
Hello Amrit,

I appreciate your essay and find myself becoming more and more interested in the singular, instantaneous existence model which describes "now" versus the "block time" models. A very enjoyable read.

I hope to obtain funding to refine the assessment criteria, (and develop a glossary and project plan), and I believe that the phenomenology of time view which you propose would fare well under these criteria. I look forward to investigating these ideas in greater depth.

Thanks for sharing them!

Bookmark and Share

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 29, 2008 @ 00:50 GMT
High Buck Field,

Someone who suggests something revolutionary in mathematics will certainly not be a candidate for the Fields medal.

It depends on whether or not my essay is correct how to judge it. It is definitely highly uncommon and overly unwelcome.

May I hope for a Field vote?

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share

amrit wrote on Dec. 30, 2008 @ 15:01 GMT
Buck idea of atemporal space and time as a coordinate of motion works well.........

Eleven steps to right understanding of time

1. Motion of objects and particles do not happen in time, it happens in space only.

2. Time is what we measure with clocks: with clocks we measure duration and numerical order of massive objects and elementary particles motion into space.

3. As a “fourth” coordinate of space-time time is a “coordinate of motion”, it describes motion of massive bodies and particles into space.

4. Space-time is a math model only; space-time does not exist as a physical reality.

5. In a model of space-time we describe motion of objects and particles into space.

6. Space itself is atemporal.

7. Humans experience atemporal space as a present moment.

8. Past and future exists only in the mind; physical past and future do not exist.

9. Time as a coordinate of motion in atemporal space exists only when we measure it.

10. Time as a “coordinate of motion” is not elementary physical quantity as energy, matter, space and motion are.

11. Universe is an atemporal phenomenon.

Bookmark and Share

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.