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 forums@fqxi.org 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.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger 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
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 12/5/11 at 2:14am UTC, wrote It is the body that dreams, not the mind. Physics is extensively involved,...

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 12/5/11 at 1:58am UTC, wrote Time ultimately depends upon gravity. Distance in space consistent with...

Paul Reed: on 9/25/11 at 4:12am UTC, wrote John/Ray/et al I have just had a look at Sorli/Block Universe, as per your...

John Merryman: on 9/24/11 at 16:41pm UTC, wrote Paul, Entropy needs a boundary to keep fresh energy out.

Paul Reed: on 9/24/11 at 14:18pm UTC, wrote John Your post 23/9 16 32 1 Think of frame in terms of ‘with respect...

Paul Reed: on 9/24/11 at 13:24pm UTC, wrote John It might be logically, but only in respect of what constitutes...

Zeeya Merali: on 9/23/11 at 17:08pm UTC, wrote Hi John, Georgina, Paul and Wilhelmus, I just tried moving this discussion...

John Merryman: on 9/23/11 at 16:52pm UTC, wrote Paul, This would seem clear enough not to have to restate. In fact, our...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "With the “A.I. Feynman” software, Silviu-Marian Udrescu and Max Tegmark..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Georgina Woodward: "Coin toss co-state potentials: With the measurement protocol decided, in..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Steve, Sabine Hossenffelder has written an interesting blog post on her..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "If we correlate with the consciousness, can we consider that all is..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Ian Durham, Maybe still for the rankings and the links with this..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Steve Dufourny: "Georgina,in the past we have discussed about this Fith force after the 3..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "An other point very important considering this nature.Ecology is so..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

janey hug: "Vape Juice Wholesale When it pertains to vape juice, you require to obtain..." in Ed Witten on the Nature...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi BLOGS
October 22, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Greetings from FQXi’s "Setting Time Aright" Meeting [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Aug. 29, 2011 @ 14:40 GMT
This year’s FQXi conference, incorporating a cruise from Bergen, Norway, around the Scandinavian coastline to Copenhagen, Denmark, is now firmly underway. (At about 2am last night, I began to contemplate the irony of setting a conference aimed at “Setting Time ARIGHT” on a ship--the National Geographic Explorer—that was tipping, rolling and pitching and knocking physicists over.)

The meeting has ambitious goals. Under the umbrella of finding the truth about the Nature of Time (no small feat as those that followed FQXi’s essay contest on time, a couple of years ago, and the latest grant rounds know), there are related sessions aiming to uncover the truth about the Origin of Life, Existence, Memory, Universe, Choice, the Multiverse, Quantization, Complexity, oh… and finally, the truth about Truth itself.

Unlikeprevious FQXi conferences , this meeting brings together evolutionary biologists, cognitive psychologists and neuroscientists, as well as the usual physics and philosophy suspects. The opening panel, led by co-organizer Sean Carroll (who has had a thing or two to say about the reality of time (“[fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/318 ]it’s real and underappreciated” and it’s arrow in the past) set out some of the questions to be answered at the meeting, including:

1) Is time real?

2) Why does time have a direction?

3) How does complexity evolve?

Your own answers to those questions are, of course, welcome below.

From the physicists’ point of view, time’s arrow is related to an increase in entropy in the universe, though Carroll noted that the matter open for debate is whether that is _all_ that time’s arrow is, and also begs the question: Why did the universe start off in such an unlikely low entropy state in the first place? (Read more about Carroll’s answers, which brings the idea of the multiverse and the possibility that time could run in different directions in other universes, in Miriam Frankel’s article, “Time and the Multiverse.”)

Setting the tone of the rest meeting, these opening questions were themselves immediately questioned. Philosopher of physics, David Albert asked what gives anyone the right to say that the world started out in a highly improbable state. “If you put it that way, there’s a puzzle about where you get your ideas of what is likely and what is unlikely.” You can’t have got the idea that the state of the world is unlikely by looking at the world. Probability, he argued must come from what the world is like, not just from logical considerations.

Is time real? Julian Barbour is famous (winning the FQXi essay contest) for saying that time doesn’t exist (quoting Mach’s view that it is “utterly impossible” to measure the change of things with time because time is an abstraction defined by looking at the change of things). He describes time as a series of instants or snapshots, noting that people don’t experience the flow between these instants.

Yet, even if Barbour is correct, and time does not exist on the fundamental physical level, humans still _feel_ that time flows. Why? As a taster of things to come Kathleen McDermott talked about how as a cognitive psychologist she has been looking for different neural patterns using fMRI associated with the mind projecting to the past (remembering) versus projecting to the future (imagining what might happen) and found a surprising result: Although, McDermott note, it feels different when we carry out the two thought processes, and we rarely confuse our memories and our thoughts of the future when we are thinking, her team have not found little difference, seen in fMRI, between remembering the past and imaging the future.

I’ll blog about the Memory session in more detail later on (along with the some of the other talks from various sessions)and powerpoints of the talks and video will follow soon. Also stay tuned for live stream from the public event on the Nature of Time, from Copenhagen. But for now, this looks to be an exciting meeting (and not because it gives us the opportunity to admire Slartibartfast’s handiwork for ourselves).

(All photos courtesy of Olaf Dreyer.)

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Aug. 29, 2011 @ 15:12 GMT
In our 4D causal universe, we, as human beings, roam around thinking that reality is changing around us, it is obviously changing because for that we have our seasons, we count our years, months and seconds, though every clock we are observing is giving us the time from the past, absolute simultaneity does not exist like Einstein informed us already, so the now is not existing. Our brains are creating a movie within our awareness of the past and the hopes and fears for the future, we try to regulate this experiences through mathematics and physical laws that we agree upon together, but what are we agreeing upon ? All the events of the past ? Are they a guarantee that the unknown future will behave according to the same laws as we agreed upon ? Our consciousness , the result of all the experiences we were aware of , shaped by our individuality and intelligence, and so giving birth to an ego with very special points of view and opinions, creates the pseudo life-line we are living, this life line includes the past and the future. Time exists only in our consciousness.

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sridattadev wrote on Aug. 29, 2011 @ 15:25 GMT
Dear All,

There is no entropy in Singularity or Absolute equality. Singularity is not only out there in the outer space, it is also inside of us with in the innner space. To know one's absolute self is to know the absolute truth.

God does not throw dice -- Albert Einstein

even if God or Singularity or Universal I does throw dice, I will always see what I want for I is on all the sides of the dice.

Love,

Sridattadev.

attachments: 1_UniversalLifeCycle.doc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 29, 2011 @ 20:17 GMT
Bon Voyage. I hope you all have a very nice time

I will be very interested in the answers arrived at by the delegates and their reasoning.

I wonder do any of them ever read the fqxi blog comments?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

J.C.N. Smith replied on Sep. 14, 2011 @ 12:02 GMT
Good question, Georgina! I suspect that the answer is no. If those interested in the topic had been reading blog comments carefully in the past, these questions might no longer be considered open. For example, constructive steps toward answering the first two questions may be found here and here.

The lack of constructive dialogue and feedback from the powers that be is discouraging. We can only hope that persistence will pay off eventually.

Cheers!

jcns

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 29, 2011 @ 21:09 GMT
I am happy that they chose to invite psychologists and neuroscientists to the discussion this time, because the way nature wired us to learn about reality says a lot about the nature of what is real. So maybe it's more likely everyone will learn something.

I also am interested in what will come out of this meeting, Georgina, and I wish those attending a good time. As to the other question; even if it's unlikely that most of the participants will ever see our comments, it still contributes to the process of increasing awareness - if we do share our thoughts.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Member Ian Durham replied on Sep. 3, 2011 @ 19:23 GMT
I don't have time to go through *all* of the comments here, but I'm certainly perusing them. Don't know about anyone else, but I'm sure a few are.

By the way, I hope everyone has patience about getting more updates. It was a very hectic schedule and some people are probably not even home yet.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 29, 2011 @ 22:32 GMT
The block universe is unacceptable but still both postulates of special relativity are true? Is such a stance consistent?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_space_
and_time

"According to special relativity each point in the universe can have a different set of events that compose its present instant. This has been used in the Rietdijk-Putnam argument to demonstrate that relativity predicts a block universe in which events are fixed in four dimensions."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2408/

"This paper pursues two aims. First, to show that the block universe view, regarding the universe as a timelessly existing four-dimensional world, is the only one that is consistent with special relativity."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 04:35 GMT
Choosing one of the following pictures about the nature of time is tantamount to answering the question:

Is Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate false or true?

1) The Conventional View: "In daily life we divide time into three parts: past, present, and future. The grammatical structure of language revolves around this fundamental distinction. Reality is associated with...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 12:20 GMT
Let me call your attention to an example of maximum honesty and courage in science:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2308/1/presentism_an
d_qg_vp_3_dd.pdf

PRESENTISM AND QUANTUM GRAVITY, by Bradley Monton, Department of Philosophy, University of Kentucky

"I am a presentist: I believe that only presently existing things exist. Contrast presentism with eternalism: the eternalist believes that past, present, and future things all exist. Assuming that there are three spatial dimensions, the eternalist believes that the universe is fourdimensional, and while there are different events in different regions of this so-called "block universe", the universe as a whole does not change. The presentist, in contrast, believes that the universe is three-dimensional. (...) The point of this paper is not to argue for presentism, but to defend presentism from a particular type of argument that is often taken to refute it. The form of the argument is as follows:

(1) Presentism is incompatible with relativity theory (usually the focus is on special relativity).

(2) Relativity theory is our most fundamental theory of physics.

(3) Presentism is incompatible with our most fundamental theory of physics. (From (1) and (2).)

(4) Presentism is false. (From (3).)

(...) But regardless of the strength of the arguments for presentism, the presentist is not required to endorse a non-traditional understanding of relativity. The presentist can simply say that presentism is incompatible with special and general relativity, and hence special and general relativity are false."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 14:10 GMT
Einstein's second postulate is not even wrong. Let me justify this judgment as an important insight that is not at all off topic but relates to overdue corrections of the notions of reality, time, and number.

Those who were not happy with the many weird consequences of special relativity while rather helpless in front of seemingly overwhelming experimental support questioned the constancy of the speed of light with no avail. Einstein was not wrong when he reiterated what has been accepted since Maxwell: Light propagates in empty space with a constant velocity c independent of how the emitting body moves.

However, Einstein's generalization of Galileo's relativity, i.e. his first postulate, claims something that is based on the very old idea that time extends from eternity to eternity. Such scale can be shifted back and forth at will. One needs an arbitrarily chosen point of reference.

In order to understand the crucial difference, one has to be aware that in reality the traceable past is quite different from merely expected future while such distinction is missing in present physics. Einstein, Hilbert and others denied this. The late Einstein admitted that "the Now worried him seriously". He suspected something outside science (cf. Zeh: The arrows of time).

There is only one admittedly quite simple solution: The description of reality must not include the future. Coordinate systems that are bound to reality must not be shifted. Ordinary people understand: Nobody can manipulate his age. This argument implies: Poincaré's synchronization and second-order effects based on round-trip-experiments mingle past and future. While some relativistic formulas may be valuable approximations, all attempts to declare ether-based theories just equivalent to special relativity are certainly doomed to fail.

The different roles of past and future in reality do obviously not depend on our perception. Hilbert tried fitting reality to his version of mathematics. Let's try the other way round.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Zeeya wrote on Aug. 29, 2011 @ 22:33 GMT
Hi Georgina,

Some of the participants do check out the blog, but not all. If you have a pressing comment aimed at one specifically, I can pass it on for you and invite them to reply.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dan T Benedict wrote on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 03:26 GMT
Zeeya,

You wrote: "and we rarely confuse them" followed by "her team have not found little difference".

These two phrases are in contradiction to each other. I take it that you intended to write: her team have not found *much* difference

or

her team have found little difference. Either of these two phrases would have supported the first phrase.

Just thought I should point out this slight error to you,

Dan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 07:58 GMT
Hi Dan,

Sorry for the confusion. I meant that McDermott noted that in everyday life we rarely confuse the two processes--remembering the past and thinking about the future--they feel very different to _us_, so _we_ don't confuse them when we are thinking. But when her team looked at fMRI they didn't see a huge difference between the two -- which surprised her, given how different they feel. I've added a few words to try and clarify that.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 10:33 GMT
Dear Zeeya,

"... found little difference, seen in fMRI, between remembering the past and imaging the future." Maybe I overlooked the due clarification:

Remembering the past and imaging the future must not be confused with the considered process in reality. A picture of a past process is always a picture. Hopefully you can agree on what I tried to define as reality.

When I hope the arrow of time will kill unrealistic theories, the latter includes some fundamentals of mathematics as well e.g. the theory of relativity and the mysterious putative symmetry in quantum mechanics. We do not need fMRI as to understand that pictures and theories are essentially different from what they reflect.

Isn't the criticism of Pentcho Valev justified?

Regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 11:28 GMT
Dear Zeeya,

Re MRI similarity: It is interesting but not -very- surprising. Recalling the past and imagining the future are similar processes in that both are making imagined representations from internally stored data. Recall of a memory or generation of a novel imagined event from memory of previous events, and so what might reasonably be, in the future.I don't think we generally imagine the future to be completely different from all past experience so past experience is a good reference on which to base the prediction of the future.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 03:38 GMT
The point I've made a little too frequently is that while our perception of time is a linear progression from past event to future ones and we try to incorporate this into physical models, the reality is the reciprocal, that it is the changing configuration of what exists that turns future probabilities into past circumstance. We don't travel the fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 08:11 GMT
i) Sound science should ascribe the property of being real to the presumed basis of what we may observe. Traces of past processes are accordingly real. Even possibly correct theories are not a primary basis of observation and therefore not real.

ii) Let me mock: We need the arrow of time as to kill unrealistic theories at its very roots.

iii) So far and perhaps for good there is no border to be seen to the universe. While life recycles anything it might be seen as a spiral rather than a cycle.

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sridattadev wrote on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 14:25 GMT
Dear All,

Be it thinking of the past, being in the present, or imagining the future, I is the only constant. Enjoy the moment wherever or whenever you are for I is with you always.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 15:07 GMT
McDermott's result reminds me of Proust's tale of remembering in exquisite detail the experience of eating a madeleine in his youth.

The continuous memory of that experience in the past is projected in the form of a discrete narrative in the future. The closer we get to reality, the closer we get to realizing that the world may be made only of information, after all -- a sum greater than its parts. Menos Kafatos and Robert Nadeau decribe it more than adequately, I think, in _The Conscious Universe_ as a continuum of consciousness that constructs reality and compares it to experience:

"The primary source of our confusion is analyzing the results of the experiments testing Bell's Inequality is that we have commited what Whitehead termed the 'fallacy of misplaced concreteness.' We have accepted abstract theoretical statements about concrete material results in terms of single categories and limited points of view as totally explanatory. The fallacy is particularly obvious in our dealings with the reults of the Aspect and Gisin experiments. Although the results 'infer' wholeness in the sense that the they show that the conditions for the experiment constitute an unanalyzable and undissected whole, the abstract theory that helps us coordinate the results cannot 'in principle' disclose this wholeness. Because the abstract theory can deal only in complementary aspects of the complete reality dsiclosed by the act of measurement, that reality is not itself -- in fact or in principle -- disclosed.

"Uncovering and defining the whole in mathematical physics did seem realizable prior to quantum physics because classical theory was presumed to mirror exactly the concrete physical relaity. An equally important and essential ingredient in the realization of the goal was the belief in classical locality, or in the essential distinctness and separability of space-like separated regions. Becaue classical epistemology and the assumption of locality allowed one to presume that the whole could be described as the sum of its parts, it was assumed that the ultimate extension of theory to a description of all the parts would disclose the whole. With the discovery of nonlocality, it seems clear that the whole is not identical to the sum of its parts and that no collection of parts, no matter how arbitrarily large, can fully disclose or define the whole. As we saw earlier, this also appears to be the case for the whole of the biota in biological reality." (second edition, Springer 2000, pp 140-141).

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 15:40 GMT
Generally, the unnatural reconfiguration of sensory experience (including visual) does reduce (and is reducing) the understanding. Modern physics has seriously failed in this regard.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 15:55 GMT
True gravitational and inertial equivalency and balancing involves/includes instantaneity and combining, balancing, and including larger and smaller space as the same space. Combine and include opposites.

Fundamentally, Einstein's theory of gravity has little viability/credibility --the degree to which it lacks fundamental completeness is consistent with the serious lack of new, SUBSTANTIAL, fundamental, and encompassing observational evidence in support thereof. Indeed, at bottom, we need to demonstrate the integrated and interactive nature of observer, space, observed, thought, gravity, touch, being, experience, etc. (ALL TOGETHER).

Einstein's theory of gravity is a relative fragment of the central order.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 16:10 GMT
There was "overwhelming experimental support" for general relativity as well but now it is almost officially admitted that, at least for fifty years since Einstein devised it, everything was just fraud. See this:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/thread/1298964544
/last-1299740352/

GLORIOUS CONFIRMATIONS OF DIVINE ALBERT'S DIVINE THEORY

Best regards, Pentcho

Eckard Blumschein wrote: "Those who were not happy with the many weird consequences of special relativity while rather helpless in front of seemingly overwhelming experimental support questioned the constancy of the speed of light with no avail. Einstein was not wrong when he reiterated what has been accepted since Maxwell: Light propagates in empty space with a constant velocity c independent of how the emitting body moves."

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 20:36 GMT
Those who read French will be shocked by Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud's paper:

http://irfu.cea.fr/Phocea/file.php?file=Ast/2774/RELAT
IVITE-052-456.pdf

Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud, Relativité: Les preuves étaient fausses

"Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves, issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas. Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées."

Pay some more attention to the Sirius B fraud which is discussed also here:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AAS...21530404H

Open Questions Regarding the 1925 Measurement of the Gravitational Redshift of Sirius B, Jay B. Holberg, Univ. of Arizona.

"In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the "Einstein shift" in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams' 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with Eddington's estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). IT HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR SOME TIME THAT BOTH EDDINGTON'S ESTIMATE AND ADAMS' MEASUREMENT UNDERESTIMATED THE TRUE SIRIUS B GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT BY A FACTOR OF FOUR."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 16:31 GMT
1) Is time real?

Yes time is real. Distance is questionable. We receive information and interpret that information creating an image. Whether the image is telling us about the existance of distance or if the information is all that exists, we would not know the difference. We do not draw ourselves an image of time. However, we do continue to receive information as time passes. In other words, that which we know exists for certain, information, does not require distance for its existence, but, does require time for its continued existence.

2) Why does time have a direction?

Time has direction only in the sense that it passes without slowing, stopping or reversing. It does not have direction in the sense that vectors are defined. It is not a vector. No one can point out the direction of time. Regardless of where one points, either physically or through an image, time continues to pass. Its passage is not restricted or altered by information.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 17:04 GMT
James,

I need to lie down. You're starting to make sense to me. :-)

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 17:10 GMT
Hi Tom,

I had to resist the recurring thought of putting a note on that message:

'Don't mention this to Tom. He is correct about the universe consisting of information.'

It is the definition of information that must be debated and clarified.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 17:32 GMT
James,

LOL. Physical theories emply a physical definition of information, whose least unit is the quantum bit. In my model, time is a metric, identical to information, and infinitely orientable over n-dimension manifolds. So you see, everything you said above is entirely consistent with my view.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 17:37 GMT
James,

Is the information the description of "energy," or is it foundational in and of itself?

It seems to me that information is description and thus subject to change. If it is only information, then it would be a "blocktime" reality, in which all "information"/description is permanent, just that it is only subjectively accessible.

It would seem to me that if the passage of time is real, in that the configuration of what exists is constantly changing, then the information, the description of state and change of state, is description of the underlaying energy.

Otherwise, what is information, if it is not subject to change?

Newton proposed conservation of energy, not conservation of information. If the amount of energy doesn't change, then creation of new information would require destruction of the old. "Can't have your cake and eat it too."

Spacetime does suggest blocktime, but than it does treat time as a real vector, not a narrative invention.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 31, 2011 @ 15:01 GMT
John and Tom,

John: You are putting forth a montage of theory and using it as if it represented reality. The standard for reality is not theory. I said that what we know exists for certain is information. Information is not theoretical. Almost everything that you said in your message would have to be undone in order to evaluate reality. I think that you don't want to hear this and I don't want to engage in it. This is not a dodge. I have put forward many statements over a period of years putting forth my view about the role that theory plays in obstructing our view of the real universe.

Step number one would be to finally and correctly define mass. The corrective steps that follow after that go on and on. My message had to do with the central experience we all undergo. We receive information. I applied that known for real experience to the concept of time and came out in favor of time being real aznd distance being questionable. I do not feel weak about this at all. I stand by it. I cannot accept the premises of your message. Therefore, since you feel very strongly yourself about your views, I suggest that your time would be better spent in attempting to win agreement from real physicists.

Tom: None of this position that I have taken with John changes my opinion as I expressed it about the role of information in the universe. I think that this point comes before all debates concerning theory. Disagreements over theory are something to be resolved, but, my message had nothing to do with theory. It was meant to deal strictly with the opening role that information plays in the analysis of the nature of the universe.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 17:58 GMT
" ... what is information, if it is not subject to change?"

Physically real.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Aug. 31, 2011 @ 02:04 GMT
Tom,

So the impression of the earth rotating on its axis, as one day flows into the next, must be an illusion?

Just what is "physically real?"

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 31, 2011 @ 08:14 GMT
"Just what is 'physically real?'"

That which is " ... independent in its physical properties, having an effect but not itself affected by physical conditions." (Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity.)

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Aug. 31, 2011 @ 09:51 GMT
tom,

Doesn't that put Relativity in the category of religion, with spacetime as its god and Einstein as its messiah?

It's no wonder Relativity and QM don't operate by the same playbook and the only way to integrate them is with multiworlds.

What happens when conceptual immovable object meets conceptual irresistible force? Cognitive dissonance.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lev Goldfarb wrote on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 18:20 GMT
May I be so impolite as to suggest (and I'm prepared to bet a hundred bucks on it) that the conference "on time" will, quite appropriately, be a complete waist of time. Why?

As I have been arguing, it appears that time cannot be approached relying on any of the conventional scientific/philosophic languages, independent of how many scientists and from how many sciences you invite. Time seems to require a much much more radical beginning, and I just love it. ;-)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Member Ian Durham replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 20:51 GMT
Well, it surely has not been a waste of *my* time. I have been particularly interested in the non-physics talks since it is interesting to see how non-physicists look at time. Nevertheless, I think there are some very concrete - and positive - things that could come out of this conference.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lev Goldfarb replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 21:56 GMT
Hi Ian,

Given so many clever people on the payroll, "some very concrete - and positive - things" have been coming out *quite regularly* over the last century, but what have we gotten out of all of this?

Please, don't get me wrong, Ian. You are a nice guy, but, I believe, time is not about cute or interesting ideas: it's about truly radical ideas, and that's from a *completely* different opera.

I'm glad though that you are enjoying the ride.

As Ray likes to say, do have fun!!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Aug. 31, 2011 @ 00:40 GMT
Sorry Ian, business as usual in physics is coming to an end. I'm making sure of it. You can say physics and non-physics, or physics experts and non-physics experts, but any complete understanding of time requires the successful incorporation of instantaneity. I am the only one to have done this.

Modern physics distorts/reconfigures sensory experience and then tries to find the truth therein. Sorry Ian, physics (with all of the money and lies therein) is basically coming to an end, and not soon enough.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 31, 2011 @ 00:57 GMT
To what extent is modern physics dissatisfied with natural experience and determined to make it unnatural in conjunction with making money from this and distorting/lessening the understanding generally thereby?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 31, 2011 @ 04:36 GMT
To the extent to which the Big Brother's world is dissatisfied with "two and two make four" and determined to believe that two and two make five:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-7.html

George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY refuted the assumtion that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source (Einstein's 1905 light postulate) and confirmed the assumption that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of the light source as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. Then a century of lying reversed the situation and nowadays it is firmly established that the experiment has gloriously confirmed Einstein's 1905 light postulate. Some Einsteinians do teach the truth but just for fun - the rest of the world couldn't care less about what they teach:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 31, 2011 @ 17:41 GMT
Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw and almost all other professors teach that, according to Maxwell's theory, the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0
306817586

Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw

p. 41: "The first of Einstein's axioms is that Maxwell's equations hold true in the sense that light always travels through empty space at the same speed regardless of the motion of the source or the observer."

Yet Gabrielle Bonnet and Stephen Hawking teach that, according to Maxwell's theory, the speed of light does depend on the speed of the observer:

http://culturesciencesphysique.ens-lyon.fr/XML/db/c
sphysique/metadata/LOM_CSP_relat.xml

Gabrielle Bonnet, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon: "Les équations de Maxwell font en particulier intervenir une constante, c, qui est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide. Par un changement de référentiel classique, si c est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide dans un premier référentiel, et si on se place désormais dans un nouveau référentiel en translation par rapport au premier à la vitesse constante v, la lumière devrait désormais aller à la vitesse c-v si elle se déplace dans la direction et le sens de v, et à la vitesse c+v si elle se déplace dans le sens contraire."

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/
0553380168

Stephen Hawking: "Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton's theory had got rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to be measured relative to. It was therefore suggested that there was a substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in "empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed relative to the ether would remain fixed."

Of all the Einsteinians all over the world not one could think of a reason why the truth (What did Maxwell's theory really predict?) should be established. But some are inclined to abandon the sinking ship and and look for another money-spinner. Sic transit gloria mundi.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Aug. 31, 2011 @ 16:32 GMT
A poll:

What is more physically real than ephemeral:

1) The present.

2) Events.

3) Both.

4) Neither.

5) Not relevant.

6) Don't know.

Any explanations would be appreciated.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 31, 2011 @ 21:27 GMT
John,

the particular wording of your poll makes it problematic to answer and it isn't an easy anyway. First physically reality has to be defined but I think you are asking this question in order to get a clearer understanding and thus possibility of an alternative definition of it, to the one given by Einstein.

If using Albert Einstein's definition, as Tom does, all of space-time...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 02:11 GMT
Georgina,

As Einstein said, time is what you measure with a clock. A clock has two components, the hands and the face. Essentially the hands represent the present and the face represents events. The classic assumption is that the present moves from past events to future ones. Which makes the events the stable foundation and the moving present as the dynamic. Now if various clocks record time at different rates, the logical presumption becomes that the present moves along this vector from past to future at different rates, which makes the idea of simultaneity suspect.

On the other hand, if we consider the present as stable and the events as the dynamic, it starts to make more sense....

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 04:59 GMT
John, let me make your logical sequence complete, in conformity with Einstein's 1905 logic:

If the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the light source, then "various clocks record time at different rates, [and] the logical presumption becomes that the present moves along this vector from past to future at different rates, which makes the idea of simultaneity suspect."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Aug. 31, 2011 @ 16:50 GMT
John,

I know what "Events" objectively means in physics.

Can you explain what "The present" means in the same context?

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Aug. 31, 2011 @ 17:23 GMT
Tom,

That which is manifest.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 31, 2011 @ 17:48 GMT
I see. So "Event" and "The Present" are identical.

Right?

Tom

(reposted in correct thread.)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Aug. 31, 2011 @ 17:37 GMT
I see. So "Event" and "The Present" are identical.

Right?

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Aug. 31, 2011 @ 18:34 GMT
Tom,

"Events" would include past and future ones as well. Presuming one is not of the blocktime persuasion and convinced they all exist along the time vector.

By "present" I mean that which is judged to be physically manifest. Georgina has been developing this idea extensively. Per example, the starlight being received by a telescope is manifest, but the event of that light leaving the star is no longer existent and therefore not manifest, even if the residue we are measuring is.

To get a feel for how I am modeling this and not just how you are translating it, I really do not see the time vector as fundamental, so there is only energy/mass occupying space. What I see as duration, ie. the chronological span from one reference/event to the next reference, emerges from the working out of processes involved in transitioning between these points of reference. This is why I am so insistent on describing it in terms of the changing configuration of the present, turning future into past, as opposed to the present moving from past to future. Therefore one must account for that entire, wholistic range of input and not just the focused, reductionistic measure of duration between particular events.

A point I brought up, in arguing against Julian Barbour's winning Nature of Time essay, was that he described the only measure of time, "worthy of the name," was that of least action between configuration states, but this implies a multitude of measures and all are entangled and must be considered, for the full effect of transforming from one state to another.

Block time is often compared to a movie, or book, in that all events are stored in it and we just happen to be on particular pages. For me, the present is like the projector light, shining on the events as they are occurring, with future events not as a predetermined thread, but a funnel of possibility that coalesces at the point of projection, then once past, the energy manifesting these events dissipates and only a small portion leaves some record. Thus even the past is subject to interpretation. Especially since the continual addition of subsequent events constantly changes any event's relative position to what is currently present.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 31, 2011 @ 21:12 GMT
John,

All that I can see after this presuming that you do, is that you end up with two additional "presents" that you label "past" and "future" -- yet with no differentiation in principle from your original claim that Present = Event.. Or maybe 3 presents equal 3 events, which is the same thing.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 02:39 GMT
Tom,

I'm not sure how you arrived at that interpretation. When did I say present=event?

As I said, I see time as an effect of activity, much like temperature. That there is only activity in space. Time is change of configuration. Light doesn't have internal structure and so it doesn't change, thus for light, there is no time. It just exists. Now for mass and the passage of light from source to receiver, there is change and so there is time, but it all exists in the context of what exists, ie, is present.

Activity occurs in the present. Past activity is no longer occurring and future activity has yet to occur. This doesn't mean they are not defined by particular events which did occur, or might occur. When those events are actually occurring is only when they are the present.

As I point out to Georgina above, when we view the present as moving from past to future, it does seem as thought the events are the stable context and it is the present which is ephemerally flitting about, but if we view the present as the only constant, then it is the events which are in constant flux.

I'm certainly not trying to get you to agree with me, but simply trying to make my point as clear as possible.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author DiMeglio wrote on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 00:40 GMT
Modern physics is in the business of making money by reducing/reconfiguring sensory experience -- and distorting/lessening the understanding in keeping therewith -- by making money in keeping with making experience, and us as well ultimately, inanimate. I'm not going to just sit by and watch. Sorry.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lev Goldfarb wrote on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 23:48 GMT
Zeeya,

How are you?

All your loyal subjects are *eagerly* waiting for the news from the mount Olympus as to how to "set time aright".

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 3, 2011 @ 08:08 GMT
Dear Georgina, I have not studied your model but the description you give here suggests that perhaps the "non simultaneity" allowed in it has nothing to do with the relativity of simultaneity rigorously deducible in Einstein's special relativity. Einstein's relativity of simultaneity is a deductive consequence of his 1905 two postulates, just like "time dilation" and "length contraction". So it is quite possible that your "non simultaneity" is true in the sense that it correctly reflects the objective reality while Einstein's relativity of simultaneity is unacceptable simply because one of the postulates is false. Pentcho

Georgina Parry wrote: "Dear Pentcho, It is better if our models of reality are consistent with observations rather than contradict them. Unlike Presentism, which regards the "now" of the observer to be all that has existence, the uni-temporal veiw that I have set out on this site does not necessitate the denial of the validity of relativity.

It requires acceptance that what is observed (present-now) is never seen absolutely simultaneously to the creation of the sensory data that allows the observation to be made. But follows transmission of the potential sensory data from object/origin to observer/reciever. Allowing relativity and non simultaneity.

It is also necessary to accept that the objects, about which the data informs us, exist independently and simultaneously in space without a time dimension. Separate and independent from the manifestations observed, which are created as the -output- from processing of -sensory data input- from the unobserved Object universe.

This together with the first assumption allows the Grandfather paradox to be overcome and gives an open future allowing sequential unidirectional causality and potential free will, as the future is not entirely pre-written.

-This- model of reality fits observation and answers previously unanswered questions and overcomes paradoxes. Unlike conventional present-ism that you are advocating. I do hope you will be able to take the time to consider what I have been saying on this site. Georgina."

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 3, 2011 @ 09:26 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

The relativity and non simultaneity I am talking about is a consequence of the non infinite speed of data transmission of all kinds.It exists because the present-now of an observer is constructed by processing of input sensory data -received- together from the uni-temporal environment, and which data is received together when, depends upon observer reference frame. For an observer with a different reference frame different data will be intercepted from the environment together. So the observed present-now output manifestations of events will not be the same.

The present-now output manifestation of each observer is a patchwork representation of reality that joins together the products of data that has taken different lengths of time to reach the observer from its origin, the object from which it was emitted or reflected. That is to say the observed present of the observer is a temporal fabrication, as things that were separated over time are seen together, due to the input together of data, allowing their representation, in a single manifestation output. Which contradicts conventional presentism, but not observed relativity and non simultaneity.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 3, 2011 @ 16:10 GMT
If some day Einstein's relativity of simultaneity is rejected (e.g. because scientists can no longer tolerate the implication that arbitrarily long objects can be trapped inside arbitrarily short containers), will "the relativity and non simultaneity" you are talking about suffer in some way?

Pentcho

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 3, 2011 @ 22:04 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

No.

Because the objects themselves don't exist spread across space-time but only the potential sensory data from which to construct their manifestation in uni-temporal space. When input to the sensory system or artificial detector.

The actual object, in uni-temporal space, is not sensory data emitted or reflected from it, or the manifestation reconstructed from received data.

As the experienced present now manifestation is constructed from the sensory data, not the object, there will still be relativity and non simultaneity due to the non infinite transmission speed of data.

It does not rely upon a block time model being an objective reality. It means that that block time model is only a model of how the manifestation of reality will be expereinced by different observers, receiving sensory data already within the environment.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 3, 2011 @ 12:59 GMT
Dear Zeeya,

there were some really interesting questions on the agenda. Will some more of the discussions be shared here? I think it would be good. The MRI scan tidbit was good but a mere morsel from the banquet. Please can we have some more?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Domenico Oricchio wrote on Sep. 3, 2011 @ 13:10 GMT
I have some problem that I don’t totally understand.

What is the time? The time measure is obtained in General Relativity using photons, the photon is an interaction boson and a curvature, then there is the time if there is a curvature (movement and interaction).

An elementary measure is obtained by a movement of an elementary particle, but there is not a time direction: we can reverse the movement, and we cannot see the difference in the time direction; only in a macroscopic system there is a time direction.

We can take a macroscopic system near 0°K, this system have only a total wave function, and a single curvature function, then in this system exist a time direction (a difference between past, present and future)? But if we use radioactive material, there is a variation of the radioactive emission? I think that between two global quantum jump there is not a time direction.

The Universe have a global wave function, it is possible that the quantum jump (particles decay and radioactive emission) can be the ticking of the Universe?

If we use the total energy of the Universe to obtain a single photon emission, then there is a minimum time measure using the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (estimating the energy of the Universe).

Saluti

Domenico

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 5, 2011 @ 10:29 GMT
Dear Eckard, a close inspection of the Michelson-Morley experiment leads to two conclusions:

1. If the implications of length contraction are realistic (arbitrarily long objects CAN be trapped inside arbitrarily short containers and the bug in the bug-rivet paradox CAN be both dead and alive), then Einstein's 1905 light postulate is true.

2. If the implications of length contraction are absurd, then the light postulate is false and the antithesis given by Newton's emission theory of light is true.

I am afraid the Michelson-Morley experiment leaves no room for your qualification of the light postulate as "not even wrong".

Best regards, Pentcho

Eckard Blumschein wrote: "Einstein's second postulate is (formally) not even wrong. The article by Shtyrkov I referred to gave "reason for the hypothesis of light-speed constancy with respect to the observer to be revised". To me this reference to the observer is obviously wrong. However, it was the self-cheating hidden trick in Einstein's relativity."

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 5, 2011 @ 21:16 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

Cf. Proc. NPA .

The following abstract refers to a paper "Discovery of the influence of earth-motion on aberration of electromagnetic waves from a geostationary satellite - New test of special theory of relativity (2007 in Russian):

Influence of uniform motion of the Earth in the space on aberration of electromagnetic waves propagating from a source installed on a satellite was discovered during tracking of the geostationary satellite. For the first time the parameters of the Earth’s motion were measured on this base without studying a position of stars on the sky. The annual averaged orbital velocity of Earth turned out to be equaled of 29.4km/s. The parameters of galactic motion of Sun system have also been measured and obtained values are 270o for apex right ascension, 89.5o for apex declination and 600km/s for velocity of Sun’s system. The results obtained are in close agreement with the data accepted in astronomy. Such results are direct evidence of a fact that velocity of the uniformly moving system (in our case the Earth) can be measured with a device in which the source of radiation (geostationary satellite) and detector (antenna of the Earth telescope) are fixed with respect to each other and the system itself. This fact is foundation for assertion of Special Relativity about light velocity constancy with respect to the observer to be error.

A 2011 paper (also in Russian) deals in particular with Michelson's experiment.

Regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 5, 2011 @ 22:14 GMT
Dear Eckard, false theories die but, contrary to Kuhn's and Popper's prophecies, no scientific revolution takes place and no "less false" theories replace them. Rather, their incorruptible corpses continue to grow and in the end become an essential feature of our civilization. Disappearance of the false theory's corpse would imply disappearance of the civilization itself.

Regards, Pentcho

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 6, 2011 @ 09:34 GMT
Correction Proc. NPA : Vol. 3, No. 1, p.188-192 Shtyrkov, Eugene I. :"Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with Geostationary Satellites"

I apologize for misspelling bourabai.

Any factual comment is welcome.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 6, 2011 @ 03:58 GMT
I thought these snippets of info. were interesting. Adding further to the evidence that the expereinced present-now is not "out there" fixed eternally in space-time but manufactured by the observer.As I have been saying.

Sabine Hossfenfelder reports on the "Setting time aright", conference on her web site "Backreaction".

She says on her blog "David Eagleman gave a very engaging talk about how our brains slice time and process information without confusing causality. The difficulty is that the time which different sensory inputs needs to reach your brain differs by the type and location of input, and also the time needed for processing that might differ from one part of the brain to the next. I learned for example that the processing of auditory information is faster than that of visual information. So what your brain does to sort out the mess is that it waits till all information has arrived, then presents you with the result and calls it "right now," just that at this point it might be something like 100ms in the past actually."

She says, "Even more interesting is that your brain, well trained by evolution, goes to lengths to correct for mismatches. Eagleman told us for example that in the early days of TV broadcast, producers were worried that they wouldn't be able to send audio and video sufficiently synchronized. Yet it turned out, that up to 20ms or so your brain erases a mismatch between audio and video. If it gets larger, all of a sudden you'll notice it."

I have said the space-time image reality expereinced is separated from the Object reality of uni-temporal space by the non infinite data transmission time and the time taken to process the data received. The different speeds of processing different parts of the data and compensation for the slower speed of sound transmission is interesting, I have not read about this before. There is not just a delay then between receiving the sensory data and experiencing the comprehensible outcome but a delay that varies and is not standard for all data types.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Sep. 6, 2011 @ 09:59 GMT
Georgina,

I frequently notice "muscle memory" working a few micro seconds faster than conscious rational consideration. The thinking function seems like more of an over-ride switch, than a direct component.

Having spent my life working with horses, it gives me a bit of sensitivity to the ways all the various senses are hardwired and softwired together. Then dealing with groups of both people and animals, this wiring is really just further extended. You might say that at the political level, there is lots of hardwired reactivity, with rational thought processes left way behind. This facilitates herd behavior necessary for survival, but often requires significant breakdowns to change behaviors.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 6, 2011 @ 11:11 GMT
John,

Agree about muscle memory or reflex actions. A lot occurs subconsciously and the conscious mind just gets to make decisions on what is delegated to it. The body is capable of many reflex reactions and is able to respond before the conscious mind is aware of any requirement for action.

I think I mentioned a long time ago now that, in threatening situations the subconscious mind can prepare the body for fight or flight prior to alerting the conscious mind to the threat. Enabling immediate action to occur upon the decision to act, rather than trying to act with an unprepared body. This is commonly reported as a feeling that something is wrong or fear or unease prior to being aware of the particular threat, which is due to the effect of adrenalin release on the body.

So the "now" of the conscious mind is delayed and occurs after the awareness of the subconscious mind. Again evidence that the expereinced present(-now) manifestation is generated by the brain and does not exist externally to the organism.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Sep. 6, 2011 @ 16:17 GMT
Georgina,

It also depends on what one considers as the consciousness. Having grown up around people who are primarily physically engaged(One cousin was in the Olympics, twice, in the 80's and have the daughter of another set to go next year.), while being a bit introspective myself, I do see there is a quite a bit of subjectivity which frequently isn't always considered by the sorts of people who tend to study and write.

Considering that motion is primarily light, for people who exist mostly in the present, there is much more of a sense of connectedness between consciousness and action. There isn't so much of that cartesian distinction between body and mind.

Then when you analyze how that separation develops, the gaps start to fill in and the barriers break down, so that both the consciousness of the body and the mechanics of the mind make themselves more apparent. Even the necessity of the gaps and divisions in compartmentalizing consciousness, such that both complex organisms and complex societies can form, become evident.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 6, 2011 @ 22:39 GMT
Have I clearly explained the significant difference between what I am saying, and Sabine Hossenfelder PhD is saying? Does anyone have any opinion?

I have been working on overcoming the ambiguity of temporal language and elucidating the temporal arrangement of reality on this site over several years. Though Bee is an fQXi member she has not contributed to the discussion on the blogs here to my knowledge. She has certainly never introduced herself to me.

I understand from what I have read that it is a sign of a crackpot to attempt to contact qualified scientists for their opinions on one's work without prior introduction. So I should not do it. If one does not work in an academic institution or have any affiliation with one, and qualified scientists ignore what one says on the site of the organisation to which they belong, how does one get feedback to know if what one is saying meets the -required academic standard- and whether anyone would be prepared to review it for publication?

I am trying to do things in a correct and acceptable manner. Trying to get the ideas -presented here- reviewed and making sure they are expressed in a comprehensible and acceptable way, from outside of Academia. I am frankly tired of it.I don't think that where ideas are made publicly available alters their veracity (or lack of), it is just a question of etiquette and perceived respectability due to prior peer review. Have I had sufficient peer review here yet or not?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Sep. 7, 2011 @ 02:41 GMT
Georgina,

There isn't any objective judge to consider ideas. Everyone interested in these discussions have come to them with very extensively thought out world views and are mostly interested in promoting those ideas. To the extent anyone succeeds, it's usually a consequence of being closely related to and building on a general consensus. To the extent anyone from outside the accepted framework has an idea given serious consideration, it will only happen when the established framework breaks down and new ideas get some breathing room and a little light. Otherwise these discussions are mostly useful for developing an effective understanding of how reality functions for personal insight.

The little things, we can push. The big things, we can only ride.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 7, 2011 @ 04:17 GMT
John,

Thank you for your kind reply. I am tired, frustrated and impatient. I have spent so much time on developing a working and acceptable construct that will answer the ******* foundational questions. I daren't think how many hours of -unpaid work- when I could be doing other things, spending time with my family or earning a living and improving my quality of life rather than just draining all of my time and energy into what appears to be a stagnant irrelevant hole, that even the FQXi members ignore. It isn't a little thing, its very, very big thing. Do I just attempt to get a respectable journal to publish now? I would really just like one of the FQXi members to say yes you are now finally talking sense and this ought to be published in a scientific journal, rather than just in these blog threads.**** personal insight.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 7, 2011 @ 05:24 GMT
Hi Georgina,

I can totally emphathize with your frustration. I feel the same way. I am sorry; I wish I could be more help.

Jason

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 7, 2011 @ 08:26 GMT
Thank you Jason. I'll get over it.

Perhaps the perceived respectability of publication is just an illusion anyway, a carry over from former years when there were not so many opportunities to publish and it actually used to mean something.

Publish or perish, Guardian UK article

I wonder what the general opinion is amongst the FQXi community. Is publication in a reputable scientific journal still the benchmark of respectability? or a waste of paper and ink! When ideas can be reviewed online and might potentially even be given more careful consideration than via the traditional peer review process.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Reed wrote on Sep. 7, 2011 @ 09:32 GMT
Georgina

Rather than commenting on specific points. I'll make (of necessity in a forum) two short statements, which will hopefully move the discussion on.

Reality

As we are aware of our existence, that invokes a possible boundary. So, it has to be assumed that our understanding of reality involves presuppositions and limitations, because there is always the possibility of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 7, 2011 @ 13:39 GMT
Dear Paul,

I do not share your presentist's credo. Can we experience future time? Doesn't a causal order also play a role if we do not and possibly cannot at all experience but merely reconstruct it from traces?

Be cautious with the notion point in time:

I agree with Peirce who spoke of real numbers as mere potentialities, and I add that we should restrict measures to the Euclidean notion of number, i.e. to a limit from the side of origin.

Zeh made us aware of the difference in meaning between "of time" and "in time". Let me be even more specific: In case of elapsed time, there is no difference. However, according to all experience while at variance with modern theories, nothing exists in advance.

Regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Rick Lockyer replied on Sep. 7, 2011 @ 15:43 GMT
Is time real?

No, actually it is complex. I am both serious and joking about here. Serious in as much as IMHO it has mathematically speaking both a real and (hate the use) imaginary component. Joking in as much as I fully understand "real" was not implying the mathematical definition.

I think people are really overthinking this. Of course time exists. I feel it is a huge waste of energy to argue whether or not a tree falling in a forest makes a sound if there is nobody there to hear it. Seems the non-existence camp is of this ilk. Time exists independent of human perception.

There is the metrology of time, that is the tick tick tick of a clock, or the physically impossible photon travelling at fixed speed between two mirrors as the whole system moves through space.

There is the human perception of the passage of time, most noticeable while we are on the freeway going to work stuck in traffic as we watch the clock.

There is the mathematics of time, where we may ponder time reversal or any number of physically unattainable realities.

Finally, there is the physics of time, where we must explain our surroundings with mathematics in a way consistent with what actually happens around us, and quite independent of our existence.

For me, these four need not be in complete agreement with each other. If we perceive three spatial dimensions and time, and come around to being OK assigning it dimension, even this does not preclude the physics needing Octonion mathematics to span (mathematically) the required number of (mathematical) dimensions. The two up on 4D presented with Octonions can't be perceived by our senses. But then, it should not need to in order to be informative and enlightening.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 7, 2011 @ 16:21 GMT
Hi Rick,

I agree. Within the Minkowski metric, space is considered 'real', and time is considered 'imaginary'. It is true that we measure time as a 'real' quantity with real ticks of a clock, but covariant and contravariant operators reintroduce the required [SQRT(-1)]^2 to make spacetime hyperbolic.

I think this is part of my problem with Joy Christian's 7-sphere analysis. Everything is real as long as we stay on the space-like hypersurface (we must constrain our analysis to constant time), but we introduce complex numbers if we accidentally 'mix' time-like radial and space-like surface effects.

I agree that time really must exist, but its properties (sequencing of events, speed of light, hyperbolic spacetime, irreversibility and 2nd law of thermo, & CP violation) seem odd in comparison with properties of space.

Have Fun!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 7, 2011 @ 10:56 GMT
Georgina

The value of your work is inestimable. But a little extension into it's greater implications may be needed for it to be noticed, or anything published. You also need to build a better ontological and falsifiable basis and point them out simply and clearly. Though it seems publication is becoming less about science than.. well..;

http://www.guardian .co.uk/commentis free/2011/ aug/29/academic- publishers- murdoch-socialist

Of course no-one dares complain and shout the truth or they won't be published!

I believe my comment to Joy on..."To be or not.." also explain the issue. We must prove the endurance and validity of humankind's survival by proving our tenacity and communicative skills as well as any scientific brilliance!

I confirm you're still cited in the Nobel Prize winning joint paper, now almost complete - but don't hang about waiting for that - or any peer support from those in other inertial frames here.!

Best regards

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 7, 2011 @ 20:24 GMT
Peter,

I thank you for your words. But I must take both your flattery and self awarded Nobel prize with the same pinch of salt.

Implications!

It is not yet another hypothesis about some minor occurrence in space-time but the temporal framework in which observations can be understood. IMHO Physics is not about building temporal and spatial fantasy realms out of mathematics and imposing them on objective observation. But interpreting observations in a way that is consistent with both the observation and basic physics and biology, that avoids paradox and counterintuitive outcomes, and contradiction between self complete and correct mathematics.

It makes me very annoyed when I am told I must show how it can be disproved. OK don't accept it and have the myth of objective science within a framework of complete, contradictory, counterintuitive, paradoxical fantasy! That is the implication.

As for me I am not a 4 dimensional worm spread over time. In a block universe where every crime against humanity and nature are fixed and played out eternally.

Nor am I one of all possible mes doing only what has been prewritten for this particular world line in a multiverse of all possibility. And everything I strive not to be I am in another parallel universe. Where -all- behavior can be excused as entirely predetermined ( a psychopathic fantasy) and nothing objectively exists other than disembodied information and personal fantasy of free will, within a counterintuitive, contradictory paradoxical fantasy construct.

I do have the free will to decide to understand the reality I inhabit even if other people choose to believe what they are told to believe by mathematicians.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 7, 2011 @ 21:42 GMT
Peter,

Forgive me for taking my frustration out on you. You have kindly taken the time to give me advice.I appreciate that.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 7, 2011 @ 23:59 GMT
I would just like to say that if anyone out there has reservations based upon my former ideas, controversial speculation, suggestions/possibilities that have been superseded; Is the architectural aesthetic or value of a building judged by the look of the building site?

Explanatory constructs do not spring fully formed from nowhere and they are not handed out like instruction books God given with the Universe. Its not an easy problem to overcome. So it took some time and trial and error. I don't accept that having to work something out in stages over time is failure.

Work in progress can be messy and in the end a lot of it might just have to be binned. OK I tried to speculate on some rules that might apply and was seeking some intelligent response/feedback/discussion. So what? Finding out what doesn't work or isn't adequate or isn't acceptable is still progress.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Sep. 7, 2011 @ 17:22 GMT
I still think the problem with our understanding of time is that we are trying to model the present moving along the series of events as some form of vector, rather than considering the present as what is physically real and it is the changing configuration which collapses future probability into actual events and then replaces them. We are not traveling the fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. The reason clocks run at different rates is because different energy levels change the clock rates. The twin out in space simply has a higher metabolic rate, due to the gravity field slowing the metabolic rate of the one remaining on earth. They are not traveling along different vectors of time and one is not further into the future.

Essentially time, rate of change, is similar to temperature, level of activity. Both are quite real, but as emergent effects, not fundamental geometry.

Remember that when these ideas were first being developed, over a hundred years ago, prior even to World War One, knowledge and thinking were respectably linear. Cause preceded effect on the narrative timeline and Newton and his idea of the absolute flow of time were still a direct part of the intellectual landscape. Of course, up until Galileo and Copernicus, it seemed quite natural to think of the sun as moving, not the earth. Our entire sense of historical evolution is based on this idea of the present as moving from the past into the future, so it makes sense to include it into our physical models, but just like geocentric cosmology, the physics is the reciprocal of our perception. It is the events which coalesce out of potential action and are replaced.

Time is not a vector, it is a process. All the complex geometric modeling in the universe is not going to make past or future events physically real. There is only what is manifest.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 7, 2011 @ 20:55 GMT
No John the language is inadequate. The present is not what is occurring unobserved in space but what the observer experiences. The observed manifestation. The same word -can not- be used for what is happening and what is seen to happen because they are not, not, not the same thing. One relates to the objects/material/substance and the other relates to the sensory data formed by processing into an observed manifestation.

The 4th dimension has nothing to do with what is happening independently of the observer. It is only about what will be seen when from the observers reference frame. It is the observer and non infinite data transmission that causes the 4th dimension to exist.It gets complicated when this is overlaid upon passage of time.

Yes the unwritten open future is becoming the actualization/ what exists unobserved as it has to precede what is observed. Yes passage of time is a process. But relativity requires the difference in experienced time to be represented by a time-like vector mathematically.

No John there is what is actualised, that which has existence independent of the observer observing, that actually exists and there is that which is manifest as the present-now of the observer. What is past and what is future and what -is- are a matter of opinion according to reference frame and distance from the events.

There was a good speech on the video at the top of this thread about the necessity to clarify the language used and to all be using the same language with the same meanings. Absolutely. Not having the means to adequately describe what is going on is a part of the problem. Another part is the misunderstandings between people when people use the same words to have different meanings.It is true of time and it is true of consciousness. My focus has been and is time.I will set out the meaning of the temporal terms I am using on another post.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 7, 2011 @ 23:02 GMT
Past, present and (prewritten) future

Terms relating to the manifestation of present-now. Terms related to space-time both experienced and mathematical.Terms that reflect the experience of the observer from his particular perspective. Which depends upon reference frame and distance from the origin of the data intercepted.

Past;

a former present-now manifestaion seen by the observer in question, which has been superseeded.

A former present-now of other observers reported to the observer in question and so known to have happened. (See records)

Records;

To avoid ambiguity it may be best not to refer to any of this as the past.The records clearly are not the past itself but storage of some characteristics /facts/ features of a former observed manifestations. Prone to influence of subjective opinion, bias , deliberate or accidental falsification.

That which exists within records both external to the observer such as data stored on disc, tape , vinyl, mp3, paper etc or internal memory of the former observer of it.

Present/ present-now /here-now /"now";

All terms for the observed manifestation formed by an observer from received sensory data and formed through internal processing into a representation of external reality. Either referring to just the appearance in space (present), in space-time(present-now/ here-now), or in time("now").

This may be events occurring externally to the observer or reported to him/her in real time such as a live TV show. The temporal delay between the recording of the event and the observation of the show will not alter the perception of it as occurring "now".

Manifestation;

That which is seen /experienced by an observer and is considered by that observer to exist externally to him/herself. Either through input and processing of sensory data from outside of the observer or internally generated or both.

Unwritten future/open future;

That which has not yet happened in unobserved reality but will. Imaginary future having no existence.

Actualization;

That which has existence unobserved, independent of all observer's perspectives. The material/substance/objects/media within space.

Object reality;

The actualization of the universe. That which exists independently from the manifestations seen by observers and the models of reality based upon those manifestations alone.

The origin of sensory data which is emitted or reflected from it.

Image reality;

The manifestation output formed by an observer whether a biological organism or artificial detector. Formed from the receipt of input converted into different output.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Sep. 8, 2011 @ 02:41 GMT
Georgina,

I see time as a second order effect, similar to temperature. Even though we can take very precise temperature readings, it is still a statistical phenomena. Similarly for time. Even though we can slice it into infinitesimal moments, there will still be some inherent fuzziness. The deeper reality is just that energy radiating and coalescing. Trying to clarify precise meanings for various terms is like the Eskimos having numerous terms for snow. The gradations are necessary in particular contexts, but at some conceptual distance, the distinctions start to get blurry. As with everything, you have to keep it in perspective, or you start to spin your wheels.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Reed wrote on Sep. 9, 2011 @ 10:36 GMT
Georgina

John, who has posted whilst I have been typing, is making the same point, in the specific context of an example about temperature. Some posts back he said that it is not time of itself that varies but specific rates of change/reaction.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 20:19 GMT
I wanted to add something here in regard to sequential change. That kind of change as explained to Paul earlier in this thread. It was highlighted in Mr J C N Smiths essay.

Rather than considering the changes occurring in the Object universe as unfathomably complicated it can be broken down into a sequence of arrangements. How much spatial change individual parts have undergo in the change from one sequence to the next is not relevant to whether it is included in the new step of the sequence. The new arrangement in the sequence is the only place to be. Everything moves and the old arrangement is replaced. The one ahead of the next is only imaginary.(In this object reality there is no past and there is no future only what is.) So an object can not jump ahead in the sequence or stay where it is in the sequence. Everything changes together, step by step.If that doesn't appear to make sense please refer back to the balls in a box analogy that I wrote for Paul.

So the continuous dynamics made up of all individual changes, that are too varied to fathom are overlooked at this stage and the overall patterns step by step in sequence are considered instead. This can then be represented as mathematical iteration by iteration and provides the mathematical link between passage of time, temporally unidirectional causality and complexity as observed in the fractal forms of nature.

Such forms are built up because at each new iteration of the object universe, there is some change that will be observable in the image reality but also much continuation of structure that will be observable. So forms are built upon or gradually eroded iteration by iteration.This is not change observed by looking at objects at a single scale but unobserved at all scales and reflected in the observations of everything being built or eroded through natural processes.

Though that which continues to exist as structure might appear static, because everything has a universal trajectory at all scales it has moved from former to current iteration , and so can not be regarded as still being in the previous iteration. The spatial positions in the former iteration have been replaced by the spatial positions in the new iteration.

The fractal forms are themselves evidence of this gradual unidirectional sequential change, which would be far less likely in a universe produced suddenly in a big bang in a tiny amount of time. So once again the explanatory model outlined on this site fits the observed evidence. In this case not just as well as block-time but better.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 20:31 GMT
Here is that explanation of sequence, so you do not have to search for it.

Sequence is not the same as fixed or uniform throughout. If I have a lot of balls on the floor of a box that are touching and I push one of the balls the other balls will have to move also to accommodate the movement of the pushed ball. Some balls may move more than others but after the push the balls are in a new arrangement than before. There has been a change from one spatial arrangement to another in sequence. Arrangement 1. becomes arrangement 2. The sequence of the arrangements is nothing to do with how much the individual balls move or don't move. Push a ball again and the next arrangement in the sequence 3.will be formed. The sequence of arrangement is 1,2, 3, where to or how ever much the individual balls shift.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 21:00 GMT
That should say- Sequential change is not the same as fixed or uniform change throughout.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 22:42 GMT
John,

what do you think? You are an advocate of complexity and foundational energy changes. It seems to me that this is the way that energy changes, passage of time, unidirectional causality and the observed fractal nature of natural forms can all be united into the singular explanatory model.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Sep. 12, 2011 @ 01:37 GMT
A prediction:

From Physorg,

"Earlier this year, the Fermi team released its second catalog of sources detected by the satellite's Large Area Telescope (LAT), producing an inventory of 1,873 objects shining with the highest-energy form of light. "More than half of these sources are active galaxies, whose massive black holes are responsible for the gamma-ray emissions that the LAT detects," said Gino Tosti, an astrophysicist at the University of Perugia in Italy and currently a visiting scientist at SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory in Menlo Park, Calif.

One of the scientists who led the new compilation, Tosti today presented a paper on the catalog at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society's High Energy Astrophysics Division in Newport, R.I. "What is perhaps the most intriguing aspect of our new catalog is the large number of sources not associated with objects detected at any other wavelength," he noted.

Indeed, if the Fermi catalog were a recipe, the two major ingredients would be active galaxies and pure mystery. To them, add in a pinch of pulsars, a dollop of supernova remnants, and a dash of other celestial objects, such as globular star clusters and galaxies like our own Milky Way."

I will make the prediction that those mystery sources are galaxies further away than what current theory considers possible.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 12, 2011 @ 03:32 GMT
Nice recipe!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Sep. 12, 2011 @ 10:39 GMT
Georgina,

If you want to understand where the future is going, you have to be willing to get out on that wave before it collapses, not just be carefully measuring all the debris once it does. That's the difference between math and physics. Math describes what did happen. Physics is what is happening.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Sep. 12, 2011 @ 18:17 GMT
Georgina,

Some thoughts on the cultural aspects of time:

When I was first working out some of these problems with time, late eighties, early nineties, I happened to read various books on complexity theory, which was being popularized around that time. The basic concept is that complexity is the boundary between order and chaos, such that the interrelationships create this reality....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Sep. 13, 2011 @ 01:21 GMT
Are there any fiber bundle experts here? I'm wondering if fiber bundles can be used to describe the interaction between two particles.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FiberBundle.html

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Sep. 13, 2011 @ 02:24 GMT
Jason,

The fiber bundles from http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FiberBundle.html are the bread an butter of the mathematical description of the Standard Model. Each fibre is characterized by a symmetry group and describing changes from fibre to fibre requires a so-called covariant connection which gives rise to the physical potentials (like in electromagnetism) and local gauge fields. Electroweak and strong forces are local gauge forces. This math area is very hard and goes above any graduate level classes in quantum field theory (which is a hard area)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 13, 2011 @ 05:30 GMT
Hi Florin,

The reason I ask is because I've been trying to test my own hypothesis (idea) that the Standard Model, and all of its mathematics, is the result of interconnecting fibers of space-time. In other words, every particle with mass is really a hub of many fibers that go to other particles. These fibers that interconnect between particles are made out of space-time; they fix the speed of light and and other physics constants. In a way, particles with mass are not real; they are the endpoints of something that actually is real, the fibers of space-time.

There are four forces, gravity, E&M, strong and weak. These fibers of space-time are responsible for causing all four forces. When an infinite number of these interconnecting fibers of space-time are overlapped in 3 space, the produce the space-time continuum. These ICFST (interconnecting fibers of space-time) are responsible for relativity. These fibers offer a bandwidth that allows photons a range of frequencies (10^-3 Hz to 10^25Hz +); in this sense, they act like wave-functions from QM.

I was trying to see if fiber bundles were a mathematical description of my idea. Am I making any sense?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Sep. 13, 2011 @ 15:04 GMT
Hi Jason,

People already tried those ideas and the end result was the no-go theorem of Coleman-Mandula: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleman%E2%80%93Mandula_theorem


Nice try though.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 13, 2011 @ 11:02 GMT
I like your article and it really gives an outstanding idea that is very helpful for all the people.

home improvement franchise

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Sep. 14, 2011 @ 16:14 GMT
Georgina,

Consider the two slit experiment and how it measures light as both particle and wave.

Light is a wave when it is passing through the slits, but is a particle when it hits the photon detector. That means that when it is moving, it acts like a wave, but when it is stopped, it seems to be a particle.

This raises some interesting questions. For one thing, light is usually in motion, but physics seems to mostly think of it as a particle with wavelike characteristics, in order to explain why there is no apparent medium, or aether in which the wave propagates.

Consider that slow shutter speed picture of a moving object. The object is every bit as real as the object in the fast shutter speed, but simply over a longer distance traveled. Think about how this might apply to light and whether it really is actually a bunch of photons, or just a smear of light and it is only when we stop it, with a physically massive device and they encounter the atoms constituting that device, that the light appears as discrete quanta.

Since light expands, the greater the distance it travels the greater the volume it must fill, which might go a long way towards explaining why redshift is directly proportional to distance. As opposed to thinking of light as point particles, whose spectra can only be redshifted by recession.

Mass, on the other hand, may be ultimately composed of light, but one of its primary characteristics is that it is relatively stationary, especially when compared to light. I suspect this state of relative equilibrium is a necessary quality of mass. The attraction of opposing elements would create a degree of equilibrium and the more energy, mass bound up in an object, the more dense and thus defined it becomes.

Have to get back to work and trying thinking this through some more...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 14, 2011 @ 20:57 GMT
This particle/wave stuff also ties in with my thoughts that;

a photon is the minimum detectable disturbance of the medium of transmission caused by change within an atom and also the minimum amount of disturbance of the medium of transmission that will cause a detectable change of an atom.

I suppose if its thought of as a sub atomic push, its a change of position (energy) occurring over/between different iterations of the object universe. Then it does not make a -detectable- difference whether the push is delivered in one go or builds cumulatively. This ties in with what Constantinos was saying.It does not matter how long it takes for the change to occur it is only when the change is detectable ie the detection is made that the photon is said to have arrived.

I'm not talking about disturbance of a luminiferous ether, that glows like startled plankton when disturbed, but an unseen carrier of energy. It is the energy that causes chemical changes in the specialised cells of the retina which are then processed and converted into the output sensation of light. If we did not see in that particular way but instead processed the light into a sensation of darkness then we would be seeing in negative like the unprocessed photographic film which darkens on exposure. So the light would instead be the darkness. The light is output reality, the EM disturbance of the unobserved medium of transmission is the input.

I think it is useful to think of the photon as an energetic disturbance. It then provides the link between gravity and electromagnetism as they are both different kinds of disturbance of the medium of unobserved uni-temporal space.Gravity being due to the disturbance caused by a body moving through it instead.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 15, 2011 @ 01:23 GMT
Hi Georgina,

"a photon is the minimum detectable disturbance of the medium of transmission caused by change within an atom and also the minimum amount of disturbance of the medium of transmission that will cause a detectable change of an atom."

I agree. I think you're on the right track.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Sep. 15, 2011 @ 03:27 GMT
Georgina,

I like to refer to this interview with Carver Mead, so you may have seen it already, but it is well worth a read. Consider this section:

"It's interesting, isn't it? That has hung people up ever since the time of Clerk Maxwell, and it's the missing piece of intuition that we need to develop in young people. The electron isn't the disturbance of something else. It is its own thing. The electron is the thing that's wiggling, and the wave is the electron. It is its own medium. You don't need something for it to be in, because if you did it would be buffeted about and all messed up. So the only pure way to have a wave is for it to be its own medium. The electron isn't something that has a fixed physical shape. Waves propagate outwards, and they can be large or small. That's what waves do.

So how big is an electron?

It expands to fit the container it's in. That may be a positive charge that's attracting it--a hydrogen atom--or the walls of a conductor. A piece of wire is a container for electrons. They simply fill out the piece of wire. That's what all waves do. If you try to gather them into a smaller space, the energy level goes up. That's what these Copenhagen guys call the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. But there's nothing uncertain about it. It's just a property of waves. Confine them, and you have more wavelengths in a given space, and that means a higher frequency and higher energy. But a quantum wave also tends to go to the state of lowest energy, so it will expand as long as you let it. You can make an electron that's ten feet across, there's no problem with that. It's its own medium, right? And it gets to be less and less dense as you let it expand. People regularly do experiments with neutrons that are a foot across.

A ten-foot electron! Amazing

It could be a mile. The electrons in my superconducting magnet are that long.

A mile-long electron! That alters our picture of the world--most people's minds think about atoms as tiny solar systems.

Right, that's what I was brought up on-this little grain of something. Now it's true that if you take a proton and you put it together with an electron, you get something that we call a hydrogen atom. But what that is, in fact, is a self-consistent solution of the two waves interacting with each other. They want to be close together because one's positive and the other is negative, and when they get closer that makes the energy lower. But if they get too close they wiggle too much and that makes the energy higher. So there's a place where they are just right, and that's what determines the size of the hydrogen atom. And that optimum is a self-consistent solution of the Schrodinger equation."

So in a sense, the proton and the electron are "observing" each other and creating mass.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Restaurant Critic wrote on Sep. 14, 2011 @ 20:19 GMT
John & Georgina,

I have been to the future. Couldn't get a decent bowl of cream of mushroom soup - so I came back.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Sep. 15, 2011 @ 03:30 GMT
RC,

Just can't count on anything.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Sep. 15, 2011 @ 23:28 GMT
Particles, Massive Objects, and Their Relationship to the Space-Time Continuum.

All massive objects are in relative motion. There is no given reason why these objects should be in "relative" motion, we just observe this to be true. I propose that we insert a reason. There must be something that interconnects all massive objects. I propose that this mysterious interconnecting object be called called an Interconnecting Fiber of Space-Time (ICFST).

ICFST fibers, at first, might be expected to interconnect two massive particles (e.g. two electrons). It is more likely that they interconnect the space that contains the fiber. Fibers of space-time connect to the space that encapsulates the particle.

The space that encloses each and every particle, from fundamental particles, to meteorites, planets, stars, etc., has its own reference frame. Any given reference frame must have an internal clock, something that leads to the progression of time in that reference frame.

Two particles in relative motion will have there reference frames connected to each other with an ICFST fiber. The speed of light is the same for both reference frames which allows the ICFST to step into the role of time dilation implementer.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 02:06 GMT
Does anyone dispute the fact that all massive particles are interconnected in some way? Even Newtonian gravity tells us that. F = GMm/r^2. The masses, M and m, are connected by gravity.

Fiber bundles is a way to mathematically model the forces between two particles. I'm saying that there really are fibers that interconnect everything. The result of all of these interconnected fibers is, not a tangled mess, but a space-time continuum.

For two fibers coming off of an massive particle, the angle between them is very signficant. That is how flat space-time can remain flat.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 13:34 GMT
Jason

Your post above. You're jumping around the threads a bit aren't you!! I'm having to keep a manual record of the various sub-threads! I notice an exchange with Florin on your ideas above this, love 'no-go' theorems.

Anyway, if it helps:

1 Everything is in motion, some of it relative, some not. We are only able to assess motion in terms of difference, ie something is faster/slower than something else.

2 It might just be that we are in motion because we are in the midst of an explosion. So all reality, as experienceable by us, is expanding. But we are not able to sense that because it is omnipresent, ie no comparison can be effected. However, information reaching us about a long gone existence seems to indicate that this is indeed happening, because we detect (we think) a difference in the rate (ie to what it is now). Perhaps this momentum alone fundamentally keeps everything 'in place', ie 'stops galaxies just falling out the sky' (non technical phrase!) Then there are interactions which create marginal alterations, at effectively, a local level.

3 Everything must be 'interconnected', somehow, on the assumption that reality has no voids in it, ie a space where there is absolutely nothing. One can have spaces within and external to, entities. Though this is a slightly false description, because, assuming no voids, then all you have is an 'elementary particle soup, with various sized lumps in it' (another non technical phrase), but hopefully you can see what I mean.

4 Maybe it is useful to think of movement, as incremental spatial point occupation, within each dimension. Think of a grid being superimposed on reality, so refined that a point in space equals a point in time. In other words the unit of measurement is now equivalent to the fastest change situation in existence. One unit point of change in spatial position takes one unit point in time. Going back to the voids point above, then all the spaces in this grid must be occupied by something.

5 Personally I wouldn't bother with frames of reference and time, that is all in the world of observation. Stick with 'reality soup', the question being a) why does it not implode as a whole, b)how do the constituent parts impact upon each other.

Paul

PS: I don't 'get' this fiber concept but will make some effort to at least acquire some simple understanding if possible, since you asked me (in another thread)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 20:31 GMT
Hi Paul,

P: "You're jumping around the threads a bit aren't you!! "

I'm trying to reduce the time it takes to find the threads with your replies.

P: "Everything is in motion, some of it relative, some not. "

That's a really good point. How long is the longest fiberino? Can a single fiberino cross from one galaxy to the another? Or do they fit end to end? I don't...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 15:39 GMT
The interrelation of objects is distance, and as Feynman already mentioned: length = time, so objects are interrelated by time. But be aware if you take for example the A/V ratio of a sphere, then it is always stable as long as you don't bring in a "length" that is defined as a length agreed upon in our human or other agreed upon scale (meter, yard), introducing the meter means that the surface(area) is becoming more important as the volume, so by introducing a certain length (time) we are almost loosing a dimension when we go to extreme small (compared to the meter) radius, this could be the same as what could happen with the length mentioned by Feynman and the time dimension, perhaps that is why in quantum physics time is not involved...

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 11:19 GMT
Wilhelmus

Length/distance = timing (or duration), in the sense of your phrase, not time.

No dimension (or measurement parameter) gets 'lost'in reality. Reality does not suddenly acquire a different form of logical existence due to atomic size. It's a problem of observation, including the fact that, before any organism is involved in the process, light has to 'acquire' a 'signature'from reality which we can then see. Given that light is an existent entity in itself, as well as being the enabler whereby we can see reality, this presents a problem.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 14:16 GMT
Paul, I wanted to indicate that once you are leaving the pure mathematical description of for example the A/V ratio, and you replace r by a "length", meaning a meter, then there comes a "length" at which the area number is outnumbereing far the volume number, going further back you reach a point of for example the Planck volume, and the area volume is still far from that, so you could say that the volume is at that very moment no longer measurable and no longer causal, while the area is, so we loose her a dimension, while on the other side if you reagrd it pure as a formula you can go back in infinity, like in fractals, so once you accept a scale you can lose adimension, this is the difference (as I see it) between the mathematical world and the causal deterministic scalar world we live in.

Now coming back to the photon, it has no mass, travals at c (in vacuum) in his waveform, once observed it has interacted , so the waveform has collapsed, once collapsed, for instance while it is taken up by an atom to change the wave function of the electron, it no longer exists as a particle nor as a wave.

What we observe a

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 14:51 GMT
Continue..., What we observe as a light beam is in fact the collapsing of waves against particles (of air) and they in their way emit another wave that collapses in our eys. In the meantime the original wave can proceed at c (or ven more as c). If an object which is relatively proceeding at c emits a light wave (possible in the future to be collapsed as a photon) it starts at the very POINT that it is emitted, INDEPEDENT of the emitting object, so the velocities are not to be added, the emitting MOMENT is THE important moment of creation of the photon (wave), the moment it is emitted as a wave time is not involved, because the wave is an idication of possibillities, at this very moment there is no distance so no (measurable)time (Feynman) and no reference at all to a possible observer, it is clear that the creation moment of the "new" photon takes place in a time laps in a non causal dimension (untill now a time laps that is smaller as the Planck time length (10^-44 sec), I could also compare it to the slice of a Block Universe, where the point of creation is present, the slice before it is not yet there, as you know Block Universe images are also timeless, they are absolute simultaneities (the Einstein way) of space, however I like more my own idea of the Total Simultaneity as a non causal fifth dimension, that includes also the time dimension of our own 4D causal Universe.

The reason of this story is to explain that we in our universe are measuring time and space , we have no choice because it is causal, there is in our thinking cause and effect , taking place in different time moments and in other cases have different spataial coordinates, which implies "time" and "length" to be measured and to be compared to something that we believe is FIX (only belief), these two however imply the same thing , perhaps the phase-space of Lee Smolin.

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate