• [deleted]

Joy is from the perimeter also,they become crazy with my theory. ahahah JCN they are just copycats with a strategy. They need funds probably.ahahah parallelizations and an ocean of superimposed spheres, and what after ?

I suggest that the perimeter institute and FQXi sort several members, because they are simply not real searchers. After that I will respect these systems, and you shall respect me. Sort these pseudo scientists and we shall revolutionate this planet withs ciences and conscience. Sort dear universal responsibles !!! all will be easier without these persons without faithj and law.Sort these stealers, these frustrated ! I am integre me !!! I cannot work with persons who are not in the universal integrity. I forgive always ...

Regards

Hi JCNS,

I really enjoyed your post. It is one of the most lucid treatment of the problem of defining time that I have read. The exposition was clear and the reasoning easy to follow.

The only shortcoming that I can see is that, though you explain that time corresponds to the sequential rearrangement of the components of reality, in essence, that the accepted notion of time is an illusion, you insist that we can still retain the operational notion of time and theories such as special relativity.

Special relativity needs time to be a physical aspect of reality. If it is not, then time cannot be unified with space. And space-time, doesn't not exist. You can't unify a concept, which corresponds to no physical aspect of reality with space, which is an aspect of physical reality. Special relativity can't exist without time being physical. Physical time is required for the effect of time dilatation to exist. Without time dilatation, there is no special relativity. Without time, there is no time dilatation.

I think the essay contrives its conclusion into agreeing with accepted theories. But you can't have it both ways. If time is not physical, then you must reevaluate, even reject many of the dominant theories.

That said I agree with you as far as how time is defined in terms of rearrangements or, in my terms, according to the principle of strict causality.

In regards to time, you might find my answer to the FQXi article titled "Killing Time"

"note: This is from a article I posted on my blog in 2010, which, coincidentally, is also titled "Killing Time."

The greatest problem with current physics theories is that they consider time as if it were a property of physical reality.

Time is a relational concept which is made to allow us to compare events with periodic and cyclic systems; in other words, clocks. But time has no more effect on reality than the clocks that are used to measure it? The fact, when you think of it, clocks don't really measure time.

Take an event consisting of the fall of an object from a point to "a" to a point "b". When we say we measured the time it took for that event to happen, what we actually did is count the number of cycles (seconds, or fraction of seconds for instance) from when the object was dropped from "a" and stopped the count when it reaches point "b". So we don't actually measure time. What we do is simply count the number of cycles the clock's mechanisms go through over the course of the event.

There is no reason why time should be anything more than a relational concept, a useful relational concept I admit, but only a concept. Yet time, physicists will argue, is necessary to the study of nature.

Every process, every event, transformation or phenomenon appears to happen in time. Without time, it is believed, the Universe would be static. Worse, there would be no Universe at all. What we fail to understand is that affirming the necessity of time is like saying that the atoms in the Universe could not exists without the number systems we use to count them. The argument is akin to the solipsistic argument that reality cannot exist without an observer (which is something many quantum-physicists actually try convince us of).

So let's make things clear for a start. Planet Earth, the solar system, our galaxy, our Universe existed before there were people to observe them and before the concept of time, which is a construct of the observers, was invented.

So what does it mean that time is really a relational concept? What it essentially means is that there are no physical interaction between a phenomenon and the number of cycles of the periodic system we may compare it to.

You'll notice that I didn't say there is no interaction between the phenomenon and the periodic mechanism. What I said is that there is no interaction between the phenomenon and the abstraction that is a number. That said, there is a very simple test to determine if a notion is a property of physical reality or if it's merely a concept. The test is one of necessity.

For the sake of argumentation, let's assume that time is a fundamental property of physical reality. If time is a fundamental physical property of reality, then the existence of time must be an axiom essential to any theory of physical reality. What this implies is that it should be impossible to describe any physical phenomenon without the use of time. Impossible! Are you sure?

A principle of strict causality which describes physical phenomena as sequences of events related through causality doesn't require the concept of time. Even concepts such as motion and speed can be described without ever using concept of time.

In fact, the only indication that time may be physical is the effect of time dilation. Time dilation is the inevitable consequence of two axioms: the constancy of the speed of light and the continuity of space. But it can be shown that if space is discrete,then there is no need to resort to the concept of time dilation to explain the constancy of the speed of light.

Then, if time is not an essential axiom, it follows that time is not a fundamental property of physical reality. As a consequence, time is nothing more than a relational concept.

In my opinion, we need to make a distinction between reality and representations of reality by models or concepts. I think we're confusing the two when it comes to time."

On that, congratulations on what, in my opinion, is a well written and lucid exposition of the problems relevant to the definition of time.

Hi Daniel,

Thank you for reading my essay and for your favorable comments. Glad you liked it.

You wrote, "In my opinion, we need to make a distinction between reality and representations of reality by models or concepts. I think we're confusing the two when it comes to time."

I couldn't agree more. It's basically the old problem of the map not agreeing with the terrain. If we look and look and look and still can't arrive at a correlation between the map and the actual terrain, then which do we finally believe? It seems that modern science has chosen to believe the map. Physics has disavowed the reality of a distinction between past, present, and future, and it has disavowed the reality of an objective flow of time. If this isn't choosing the map over the terrain, then I don't know what is. Yes, of course we must be wary of falling into yet another trap analogous to believing that the sun revolves around the Earth, but what further proof of the true nature of reality (the terrain) do we need before physics finally agrees to -- at a minimum -- reevaluate the map?

Earlier in your post you wrote, "I think the essay contrives its conclusion into agreeing with accepted theories. But you can't have it both ways. If time is not physical, then you must reevaluate, even reject many of the dominant theories."

I take your comment to heart. I've struggled with this, too. This is a bit of a sticky issue. The fact of the matter, however, in my view, is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the operational definition of time. It is an extremely useful tool. I doubt that physics would be possible without it. But we must guard against extending the notion beyond its rightful range of applicability. Lacking Einstein's theories, we would be hard pressed to do some extremely useful things such as build our satellite-based Global Positioning System, for example. Relativity works! It gives us useful equations. We can plug numbers into the equations and get numbers out which allow us to do useful things and which agree with reality. Somehow, utility should be a part of any litmus test for what to retain and what not to retain of existing theories. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water!

If you can find time in your busy life, I'd like to recommend that you take a look at three other essays I've written on the topic: Time: Illusion and Reality , On the Impossibility of Time Travel, and Toward a Helpful Paradigm for the Nature of Time. These flesh out some of the ideas which were only touched on in this current essay.

Thanks again for your comments. I will make it a point to read your essay soon and provide whatever comments I can. So much to read, so little time!

jcns

    Concerning relativity and GPS, it is a myth that the latter wouldn't be possible without the former. See here.

    Similar myths link quantum-mechanics and solid state electrics. Both GPS and electronics are feats of engineering and classical physics.

    That a theory works is a good thing, but refusal to question a theory that works prevents from considering that it may also be only an approximation of reality.

    It is possible to do physics without what you define as the operational definition of time. See my essay or book.

    • [deleted]

    JCN,

    No problem. We are all playing the long game here. I try to keep that in mind, but occasionally pop some fuses.

    Daniel,

    *If* what you are saying is correct, (I'm certainly in no position to weigh in authoritatively on the validity of your assertions, pro or con here) then these are indeed extremely serious matters to be taken into consideration in deliberations about the fundamental underpinnings of relativity and quantum phenomena.

    I have looked only very briefly at your 'Introduction to Quantum-Geomety Dynamics.' It clearly deserves a more careful examination and critique, not only by me, but by others more deeply immersed in the field than myself. My quick look at your chapter on time shows much to like. I certainly concur with your observation that "Changing an aspect of reality affects its representation, but changing a representation does not inversely affect the aspect of reality it represents."

    I can, and will, say, without equivocation, that science, especially physics, has long been laboring under a serious misperception about the fundamental nature of time, and the toll of this misperception has been far heavier than is generally recognized. People are only now finally waking up to a suspicion of this fact and actively seeking alternate, better ways of thinking about the nature of time.

    In fact, as I have explained in my essay Time: Illusion and Reality (which I recommend adding to your reading queue), the fundamental role and purpose of clocks is to provide a convenient shorthand notation for conveying information about configurations of the universe. Somewhere along the line, too many have lost sight of this fact. In that essay, I have argued, on the basis of this understanding of the proper role of clocks, that even the equivalence of mass and energy can be derived without resort to relativity.

    It is incredibly heartening to see some some of our most highly regarded and prominent scientists taking an active leadership role in the quest for a better explanation for the nature of time. For example, I have heard from a reliable source that Lee Smolin will be publishing new books on the topic of time later this year.

    As David Deutsch has said, "The way to converge with each other is to converge upon the truth." (From 'The Beginning of Infinity,' p. 257.) With so many smart people eagerly and objectively seeking the truth, how could we fail to converge upon it eventually?

    jcns

    • [deleted]

    When a deductive theory is considered, "seeking the truth" can only mean "questioning the truthfulness of the postulates or the validity of the arguments". If you believe the postulates are true and the arguments valid, "seeking the truth" is pointless - you should simply accept that all the conclusions of the theory are true and leave it at that.

    Nowadays the implications of special relativity are criticised by many smart people but a strict taboo is imposed on questioning the two postulates. George Orwell calls this "crimestop":

    http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17

    George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

    Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

    • [deleted]

    Pentcho,

    It's like that everywhere.

    The only time it changes is after the system crashes and for a few brief moments we look around for new directions. Eventually though the new ways stabilize, then they start to stagnate and even the voices of caution argue as to what should be done, while the system promotes its devotees and demotes its skeptics.

    Hi Pentcho,

    Only by virtue of the fact that I'm acutely attuned to the subtlest of clues regarding human emotions and written expressions thereof was I able to detect what some might describe as a hint of cynicism in your comments?

    Unfortunately, you have raise what I regret to say is a valid concern. It is hard to dispute that some non-zero fraction of scientists have in essence staked their careers and reputations on the status quo and the maintenance thereof. These are the folks who appear to be of the opinion that if any idea which differs from orthodoxy were any good they already would have thought of it long ago.

    The good news, however, is that there is a growing number of scientists who do not fall into that category. If this trend continues (and how can it fail to continue with physics in its current state of crisis?), these will form a critical mass dedicated to an objective reevaluation of fundamentals, as witnessed by the current FQXi competition.

    My own spirits in terms of a positive outlook on the possibility that physics will reevaluate its position regarding the nature of time were raised by orders of magnitude when I read the following words of Lee Smolin: 'More and more, I have the feeling that quantum theory and general relativity are both deeply wrong about the nature of time. It is not enough to combine them. There is a deeper problem, perhaps going back to the beginning of physics.' (From 'The Trouble With Physics,' p. 256) When first-tier scientists go on record, in writing, as holding views such as this, then there is good reason to hope that we will get to the bottom of things. My own essay in this competition and those I've published elsewhere were written with the specific aim of throwing gasoline on this cognitive spark.

    Hang in there, Pentcho, I'm optimistic that things will only get better!

    jcns

      Hi John,

      Apologies for being slow getting back to you. More than anything, I wanted to comment on something you wrote to Georgina, as follows:

      "So this is not just physics that would be impacted if this idea [i.e., JBM's viewpoint on the passage of time] were to be given serious consideration, but would reverberate throughout many of our religious, social and political assumptions. I know some of the participants on these boards reject the idea on principle that something so basic couldn't be a real factor, but I find in more philosophic setting, some people don't like it for far deeper reasons. It really does force you to look off the edge of the abyss and outside the box of what is supposed to be "real." Reality is no longer ones own narrative, or the narrative of one's preferred group, but more a sea and tapestry where connections and walls rearrange themselves. One's demons and angels have to be re-ordered. Basically the sub-conscious is no longer quite so isolated. It forces you to live much more in the present."

      This is yet another excellent example of your knack for the poetic, John. Well said. I'm convinced that part of the trouble we've had in getting our view of time accepted is that it is too simple. People are looking for something complicated. The reality underlying the passage of time (the flow of time) is not complicated at all. That said, describing the flow of time (i.e., the evolving configurations of the universe) mathematically may be *incredibly* complicated and difficult.

      Absolutely crucial, however, in my view, is that we not lose sight of what is the map and what is the terrain. I'm afraid this is what has happened with those who have declared that the distinctions between past, present, and future are illusory, and that there is no objective flow of time. When we look and look and look and still are not able to establish a correlation between the map and the terrain, which should we ultimately believe? I'll go with the terrain every time. Otherwise, that precipice not shown on the map could be a problem.

      I'll not even try to address all your other points here, John. This mode of communication is simply too cumbersome. We all need a good face-to-face with a chalk board or a white board and some suitable libations if we ever hope to get to the bottom of all this.

      Cheers!

      jcns

      • [deleted]

      JCN,

      Here is an essay I wrote, trying to explain how current civilization arose out of primary physical processes.

      John,

      Thank you for sharing the link to your essay. I'm concurrently reading the essay in another window and making comments here as I read.

      "That timeline of past to future is our subjective perception of the changing configuration of what exists, turning future into past. Probabilities collapse into actualities."

      As we've already discussed on your blog (and I believe we agreed on it there) I'd amend that to read "our subjective perception of the changing configuration of what exists, turning present into different present. Probabilities collapse into actualities." (Admittedly this formulation may not be intuitively obvious to people not already in synch with our thinking.) Here, I think we both agree with Paul Reed that "the future" is not ontologically real. And I'd argue that "the past" also is not ontologically real. So it's pointless to talk about turning one ontological unreality (the future) into another (the past).

      "What is bad for the chicken is good for the fox . . . ." Really? In the near-term perhaps, but I suspect not in the long-term. If all the "chickens" (i.e., prey) are killed (or die off of other causes) will that be good for the foxes (i.e., predators)? Just asking.

      "Civilization is ultimately bottom up. We can exalt its achievements, but we risk all when we neglect its foundations." Sounds right to me.

      An enjoyable read, John, but I'll admit quite frankly that my eyes glazed over at the point where you dived into politics/government and economics. Physics and the nature of time are child's play compared to politics and economics, neither of which I pretend to understand. Moreover, I'm automatically deeply suspicious of anybody who does pretend to understand them. That said, they're crucial to our happiness and well being, so my chapeau is off to those who labor to make sense of them for us.

      Regardless, thanks again for sharing.

      jcns

      • [deleted]

      JCN, (Hope this doesn't double post. The weather is messing with my satellite connection.)

      It isn't that past and future events physically exist, but the conceptual reality of the sequence is the foundation of our mind. Consider two objects hitting each other, which is an event. The physical objects continue to other events, but the particular event recedes into the "past." Our brain is physically real. It goes from prior to succeeding events. Our mind, on the other hand, is the recording and processing of these events, as they form and recede. so think of it as emergent ability to conceptualize change.

      As I argued, I would call it a different configuration of THE present. When you focus on the events, rather than the state of existence, it is sequential states, rather than dynamic process. Both exist, but which is emergent from the other? Paul and I have gone through this many times and he keeps tripping over the need for a mechanism of change, without recognizing it as fundamental. As I keep describing it, does the earth exist/move along some fourth dimension of sequential states, from yesterday to tomorrow, or does tomorrow become yesterday because the earth rotates? In the first you have an enormous mystery of "How?" With the second, you have a very simple cause and effect.

      As for the chicken and fox, you are projecting out linearly, but in reality there are endless, infinite feedback loops. What if there were no foxes and the chickens simply reproduced to infinity?

      I had to laugh when you said your eyes glazed over at the mention of politics and economics, considering your profession. Now you know how those professional physicists feel when amateurs opine about physics. I suspect you have spent your career analyzing many of the more dangerous aspects of political and economic ramifications, the sharp end of the spear, so to speak and naturally view any simplistic solutions as dangerous crackpottery. It's safe to say any situation always appears far more simple when you view it from the extremes or from a great distance, than it does up close and personal. Keep in mind though, that no matter how complex the structure, when it becomes unstable, gravity is simple.

      • [deleted]

      Hi JCNS,

      Don't rely so much on Lee Smolin and other heroes of today's science. They have always known that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false and were quite ready to abandon it 10 years ago but then, for unknown reasons, decided to save special relativity:

      http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm

      Lee Smolin: "Special relativity was the result of 10 years of intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong within two years of publishing it."

      http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physics-String-Theory-Science/dp/0618551050

      Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, p. 226: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy and universality of the speed of light. Could the first postulate be true and the other false? If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only the second postulate."

      http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257

      Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

      http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E03E7D8143FF932A05751C1A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

      "Perhaps relativity is too restrictive for what we need in quantum gravity," Dr. Magueijo said. "We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light."

      Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

      • [deleted]

      Ten years ago the Great Revolution in Science was just around the corner:

      http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/waseinsteinwrong/

      Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"

      http://www.rense.com/general13/ein.htm

      Einstein's Theory Of Relativity Must Be Rewritten, Jonathan Leake, Science Editor, The Sunday Times - London: "A group of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book, Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same - 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum."

      http://roychristopher.com/joao-magueijo-frontier-cosmology

      "Likewise, Joao Magueijo has radical ideas, but his ideas intend to turn that Einsteinian dogma on its head. Magueijo is trying to pick apart one of Einstein's most impenetrable tenets, the constancy of the speed of light. This idea of a constant speed (about 3テ--106 meters/second) is familiar to anyone who is remotely acquainted with modern physics. It is known as the universal speed limit. Nothing can, has, or ever will travel faster than light. Magueijo doesn't buy it. His VSL (Varying Speed of Light) presupposes a speed of light that can be energy or time-space dependent. Before you declare that he's out of his mind, understand that this man received his doctorate from Cambridge, has been a faculty member at Princeton and Cambridge, and is currently a professor at Imperial College, London."

      Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

      Dear J. C. N. Smith,

      Congratulations on your essay, which clearly presents our common world-view involving true temporal passage. As you know, I believe you have the right idea about what's basically wrong with the relativistic description of the nature of time, that leads to the logical conclusion of a block universe. I hope you won't mind my adding two comments as per our previous exchange.

      First of all, I want to think of a modern day Galilean thought-experiment in which two atomic clocks at either end of the cabin of a ship have been calibrated so that they display the exact same time. Therefore, by standing in the centre of the cabin one should see the same time displayed on each of these clocks---the signal from each being transmitted by photons that travel equal space-time intervals at a constant speed. Therefore, as the discussion usually goes, because the same reading should be displayed on each clock at any particular time, two such events may be said to have truly occurred simultaneously. Then, this description of simultaneity can be continuously extended to the rest of the universe, and one has the common-sense description of a three-dimensional universe full of re-arranging things, in which different configurations correspond to different "particular times" in a universe that presently evolves.

      Now, imagine that another such ship is constructed, and that the two head towards one another from opposite directions. According to relativity theory, which provides a continuous mathematical description of events, such as the times displayed on clocks, the notions of the presently evolving universe that are held by the two crews will differ; e.g., if one ship is heading towards the Andromeda galaxy while the other moves away from it, at the moment when the two ships cross paths, at that one space-time event, the notion held by the crew on the latter ship, of what's happening on Andromeda, will already be yesterday's news according to the former ship's crew.

      I'm sure you know all this; but what I'm not sure of is that you know that the two crews also will not agree on what happens at any particular time locally as well. Because when Brian Greene and others describe a discrepancy between the freeze-frame images of the universe held by two relatively moving observers, they use large distances only as a tool to illustrate the relative discrepancy in intervals of time that are meaningful to us. However, even someone who walks through the cabin of their ship, after taking into account the changing distance between themself and the two clocks, if they postulate the constancy of the speed of light in all directions of all frames, will necessarily conclude that the two clocks are out of sync, and that different sets of events constitute the freeze-frame image of how the entire universe is arranged at any particular time. There's a relevant passage in Tom Ray's very interesting essay:

      'One recalls that prior to Descartes, all geometry was done with compass and straightedge---all "here" and no "there." Only with the development of analytical geometry were we able to identify relations between numerically distant points and a local coordinate system.'

      Therefore, I see your attack on the argument from the relativity of simultaneity as potentially being directed more towards the relevance of using coordinate systems, than towards the ultimate relevance of the operational definition of time. So, I think the best way of attacking the problem of reconciling relativity theory with a presentist view in which all that ever exists is the Universe at any particular time, is to deny the operational definition of simultaneity. Thus, although someone standing in the centre of either ship's cabin will perceive that the two clocks always display the same time, and may interpret that as being so because the ticks of both clocks are simultaneous, in reality that can't be so if the ship is actually moving through the Universe; i.e., two events perceived to be synchronous by an intertial observer who moves through the Universe shouldn't truly have occurred simultaneously. For this reason, it's very useful that the Universe does provide us with a clear representation of its rest-frame, and that the relative velocities of celestial bodies do not appear as if drawn from a uniform distribution on [0,c)---for if the latter were true, we would have to admit reasonable scientific evidence for a Block Universe.

      The other point, which I mentioned before, is that I think the passage of time has to take place prior to the rearrangement of things in the Universe; e.g., as Augustine realised, a day would pass in half the time if the Sun made its round twice as quickly as usual. Therefore, I prefer a more Heraclitean description whereby one should say "while changing it rests", thus expressing the priority of change even in a thing that rests.

      All my best!

      Daryl

      Dear Daryl,

      "I hope you won't mind my adding two comments as per our previous exchange."

      On the contrary, I welcome and appreciate your always thoughtful and insightful comments. There is much worthy of pondering in what you've written. I'll try to begin addressing a few of your specific points here. Before going there, however, I'd like to step back and look again at some basics. It's my view that much of what is troublesome in physics today can be traced back to a general misperception about the proper role and purpose of clocks. My view on this, as explained in my essay Time: Illusion and Reality, is that the fundamental, underlying purpose, role, and value of clocks is to provide a concise shorthand notation for communicating information about configurations of the universe. As I wrote there,

      "Despite being relative newcomers on the historical scene, calendars and clocks rapidly have assumed an extremely important role in our lives, and this is true precisely because they serve the powerful and useful function of providing a concise shorthand for communicating information about configurations of the universe."

      This point is beautifully illustrated in Dava Sobel's marvelous book 'Longitude' in which she tells the story of how the development of precision timepieces by John Harrison and others was motivated by the need of mariners to determine accurately their longitude on the high seas, a feat which required a fine correlation between the reading of a clock and a configuration of the universe, i.e., the ship's location relative to the Earth.

      It's my perception that many of our current problems in physics began and then multiplied when we lost sight of this fundamental role of clocks, which perform the same fundamental role as calendars, but only on a much finer scale. The reading of a clock (or a calendar) has absolutely no value, in and of itself, other than as it can be correlated with a particular, specific configuration of the universe. This fact presented no practical problems in the case of mariners using chronometers to help navigate the high seas. Some reasonable amount of error ("slop") in the correlation between the ship's position as determined on the basis of the reading of a chronometer and the actual position of the ship was acceptable and even expected.

      In modern physics, however, correlations between readings of atomic clocks and specific configurations of the universe are far more problematical. Just for openers, every observer of the universe will necessarily have a slightly different perception of its configuration. Moreover, due to practical limitations imposed by sensory data, our perceptions about configurations of the universe can be, at best, little more than "best approximations" of actual configurations, with those best approximations becoming less reliable as distance from the observer increases.

      It is crucial to recognize that the true configuration of the universe is intrinsically unknowable. So-called freeze-frame mental images of its configuration are useful in hypothetical discussions, but are not even remotely possible in practice. Having made these observations, however, there is still much more that needs to be said about how they relate to the issues of relativity and simultaneity.

      "The other point, which I mentioned before, is that I think the passage of time has to take place prior to the rearrangement of things in the Universe; e.g., as Augustine realised, a day would pass in half the time if the Sun made its round twice as quickly as usual."

      Here we clearly are not in synch, Daryl, because it's my view that the passage of time and the rearrangement of things are precisely one and the same. They are identical. These are just two ways of saying the same thing. One cannot precede the other. This is a fundamental point. If we are not in synch on this, then we probably are not in synch on much more, I suspect. But perhaps enough on that for now.

      Cheers!

      jcns

      • [deleted]

      Thank you, Mr. Smith. Prior to reading this essay, I'd limited my thoughts on parallax to the displacement it creates when viewing objects from different locations in space. Now I see that both an observer's place AND time skew event perspective.

      Before I'd read Dava Sobel's 'Longitude,' before I'd heard of Einstein or took a big-boy swig of relativity, before I'd even been able to correctly parse a sentence - I was vexed and awed by the endlessness of time. One can argue about what bookends the universe. There's no consensus about form or features that existed prior to the big bang. Most have little clue how it will all end; the Big Crunch theory has few remaining supporters. Despite the fact that thinking about it has kept me awake at night, there's a reassurance in time's constancy. The same can't be said for space, atoms or even gravity.

      Perhaps it's so elemental that it shouldn't be epiphanous to me, but thank you, too, Mr. Smith, for crystallizing in my mind that "now" is the precise location of everything in this moment - the sum of all where's. By convention, we create an artificial date simply for the convenience of reference and abbreviation. Does now also include where/when every shadow is hitting every surface, every thought and motivation firing along every neuron, the mirage of every rainbow or reflection that really isn't there? Thinking of those things that challenge quantification must drive physicists mad.

      My brain's 'check engine' light just came on.

        Hi Bob,

        Thank you for reading my essay and for your kind comments. Glad to see you leaving a footprint in the sand, so to speak, here at FQXi, perhaps just the first of many, with any luck (for the rest of us here). I know you have much to say that would be of interest to many here.

        And please don't feel like the Lone Ranger; my brain has been running with the 'check engine' light on for so long that even the 'check engine' light itself is on the verge of giving up the ghost. But we muddle on as best we can. It's too much fun to imagine giving up or quitting. Like those addicted to a soap opera, we want to know how it will all turn out in the end. In that regard, I'm thrilled to see what looks like some worthwhile progress being made in getting our arms around some of the knottier problems of physics/cosmology. Or at least in refining some of the questions, which in itself represents worthwhile progress.

        Cheers!

        jcns

        JCN

        I applaud your realistic view of the nature of time, as well as your caution "please donʼt confuse what are mathematical descriptions of reality with the underlying objective reality itself". Well said! Eddington said he same beautifully in his book The Nature of the Physical Universe.

        George Ellis