Rethinking a Key Assumption About the Nature of Time by J. C. N. Smith

J. C. N. Smith

Dear re castel,

Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay.

"The bias will establish that the transformations of the clock called the universe simply occurs in unison with time's duration process."

It's my view that the transformations of the clock called the universe *are* time's duration process. If the configuration of the universe did not change (i.e., if there were no "transformations" to use your term) there would be no flow of time. The evolution of the physical universe is what we perceive as the flow of time.

jcns

[deleted]

jcns,

my idea is that duration is totally 'abstract' while the motion is corporeal (altho we also have abstractions of the motion). motion and duration occur in unison. corporeal motion is fundamental and abstract duration is also fundamental.

even if motion transformation is not apparent, the fundamental motion occurs, hence the fundamental duration occurs.

the idea of an unchanging "configuration of the universe" does not ring true to me, since I see the universe as a motion construct - i.e., because motion is the fundamental essence of mass, energy, light, gravity, electromagnetism, and every part of the universe that is contained in space.

the physical universe, in all its evolutions or transformations, is the overall motion that we perceive. because the universe is inherent motion, the bias is inherent. and duration is inherent.

motion is characterized as velocity which is distance per unit time. with v the velocity, d the distance and t the time, v=d/t indicates that t=d/v, such that t=t, which signifies that t, as an occurrence, is independent, while v depends somewhat on t by the definition v=d/t. (here, d represents static space, which is not an occurrence, not a current or flow.) v and t signify inherent flows.

so, I draw distinction between the two ideas. "evolution", the motion, is not the "flow of time", not duration - motion and duration are related but they are not the same occurrence.

but I think we agree about the idea of a hierarchy in the cosmos for a rational conception of time...

my apologies for the bothersome comments; I was simply intrigued by your essay.

thanks.

castel

[deleted]

correction:

by "every part of the universe that is contained in space" I mean the kinetic definitions, not the space-occupant that receives the kinetic definitions.

J. C. N. Smith

Dear re castel,

First, your comments definitely are not "bothersome"! I hope I didn't come across in my reply as thinking or implying that they are. And I'm pleased that you were intrigued by the essay. No apology is called for. That's what these blogs are all about: discussing our ideas. If we all agreed on everything 100% of the time, there'd be no need for FQXi.

> "the idea of an unchanging 'configuration of the universe' does not ring true to me, since I see the universe as a motion construct . . . ."

We agree on this. I did not ever intend to suggest that there is such a thing as an unchanging configuration of the universe. My point was that *if* the configuration of the universe did not change there would be no flow of time. And there *is* a perceived flow of time. Therefore, the universe is, as you say, a motion construct.

> "I draw distinction between the two ideas. "evolution", the motion, is not the 'flow of time', not duration - motion and duration are related but they are not the same occurrence."

Here we seem to have what I suspect is a semantic difference. It's my view that what we *perceive* as "the flow of time" is, in reality, nothing more and nothing less than the evolution of the physical universe, an evolution governed by rules which we strive to understand and which we refer to as the laws of physics.

The concept of "duration" is fraught with potential for misinterpretation and miscommunication. It's my view that "things" endure, but configurations of things (i.e., the configuration of the universe writ large) do not endure. Sentient beings create the illusion of "durations" of configurations and "times" because we are wired to store and process information about perceived configurations of the universe in our internal data banks. I find myself living in an evolving 3-dimensional universe.

If you find these views intriguing, you might enjoy reading my essay Time: Illusion and Reality.

Cheers,

jcns

Anton Vrba

Hi 聽JCN

In my opinion the concept of time is no more mysterious than say the concept of length. Nature links the two by the fundamental constant c that is the speed of light. 聽Any changed perception 聽of time immediately implies a similar changed perception of length.

Remember, if time did not exist then movement is not possible. Time is fundamental physical entity. We never have philosophical discussions on say length, as we can visualise one metre, one second you cannot visualise but can only experience it; this makes time mysterious.聽

Regards

Anton @ 聽( 聽/topic/1458 聽)

J. C. N. Smith

Dear Anton,

Thank you for your comments.

> "Remember, if time did not exist then movement is not possible. Time is fundamental physical entity."

I prefer to think of it somewhat differently: if movement did not exist, then time is not possible. What we *perceive* as "the flow of time" is, in reality, nothing more and nothing less than the evolution of the physical universe.

I agree with you that time should not be thought of as mysterious. We have made time *seem* mysterious by virtue of muddled thinking about its true nature. I have written about this in my essay Toward a Helpful Paradigm for the Nature of Time.

Cheers,

jcns

Gurcharn Sandhu

Dear JCN Smith,

I read your essay and found it very interesting and well written. I highly appreciate and agree with your viewpoint.

All authors in this contest have presented their viewpoints in different styles. In the grand maze of the unknown it is important to consider all possible alternatives and different viewpoints for building a consolidated common approach.

As you know, with arbitrary assumptions we can build wonderful fantasies. But to come close to building a model of reality, we must use barest minimum of assumptions and such assumptions that are used must be plausible and compatible with physical reality. For this reason I think FQXi has chosen a most appropriate topic for this contest.

Kindly read my essay titled,"Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space".

Best Wishes

G S Sandhu

Donatello Dolce

Hi J. C. N. Smith,

Galileo has taught us that time can only be defined by counting the number of cycles of a phenomenon which is supposed to be periodic. For instance we suppose that the characteristic periodicity of an atomic clock is always the same in order to guarantee that the unit of time does not vary in past, in the present or in the future. The importance of the assumption of intrinsic periodicity is also present in Einstein definition of relativistic clock which is "a phenomenon passing periodically through identical phases ...". As I argue in my essay Elementary Time Cycles the notion of time requires the introduction in physics of a principle of intrinsic periodicity for elementary isolated system. If we do so quantum mechanics with all its axioms can be mathematically derived and its paradoxes have elegant explanations. For instance consider the wave-particle duality where to the energy there is associated a recurrence in time through the Planck constant, this means the every elementary particle is a reference clock.

I hope you will enjoy my essay as I did with yours,

Best regards,

Donatello

Benjamin Dribus

Dear J. C. N. Smith,

I enjoyed your essay. Like you, I don't agree with the concept of the block universe. I prefer to think of time as a way of talking about cause and effect; where causes precede effects.

I think the block universe is a symptom of taking the abstract geometric notion of spacetime too seriously. Einstein generally thought in terms of obviously physical concepts, such as causes and effects, observers, relationships among events, etc. However, for centuries scientists had thought of "space" and "time" in geometric terms, and it was inevitable that within a few years relativity would be expressed in these terms as well, albeit with a different type of geometry.

If one believes that the universe really "is" an abstract manifold that is just "there," then it's easy to fall into the block-universe way of thinking. However, if one believes that mathematical concepts like these are just idealized ways of talking about what actually happens, no such problem arises.

I wish you the best of luck with the contest! Take care,

Ben Dribus

Pentcho Valev

Hi JCN Smith,

You wrote in your essay: "In taking a closer look at the operational definition, which simply defines time as being that which is measured by clocks, we see that it appears to be a perfectly fine and reasonable definition. It establishes a relationship between the word "time" and measurements produced by physical devices called clocks. Beyond establishing this relationship, however, the definition does not have anything more to say about the underlying nature of reality. Perhaps it is at least slightly surprising, therefore, that reasoning which is based on this definition leads to a theory - - special relativity - - which in turn leads to reasoning which purports to reveal some extremely deep insights into the underlying nature of reality. Specifically, such reasoning purports to reveal that perceived distinctions between past, present, and future are illusory."

Here you implicitly ask an important question: What happens in the transition from the operational definition to the "deep insights" of special relativity that makes those "deep insights" so unacceptable? Your wording makes the answer almost obvious (although you don't take that direction): some additional assumption, e.g. Einstein's 1905 light postulate, must be false.

You get maximum rating from me.

Pentcho Valev

Vladimir Tamari

Dear JCN Smith

Hope this finds you well.

Hello. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

Thank you and good luck.

Vladimir

Sergey Fedosin

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

[deleted]

Dear J.C.N. Smith,

I stand by my comments on the clarity of your writing and the importance of the subject material. Its good that your essay will remain here for future reference.I can see from your essay thread that you have had a lot of very positive response to it. Including from member George Ellis.

Your tennis match analogy is very fitting. Quote"....Top players must compete against comers." It is a good way to think about the opportunity that is provided by this competition and to keep the individual endeavours in perspective. You are a good sport and have done a fine job responding to the many replies you have received. I have really appreciated your enthusiasm for my essay and your having 'listened' to me rambling on. Thank you. Best regards Georgina

J. C. N. Smith

Hi Georgina,

Congratulations for having moved on to the final phase of competition . . . very well deserved! I'll be looking for you among the ultimate winners.

Thanks for your kind words over on my blog. Much appreciated. At the risk of repeating something I may have mentioned to you in an earlier post, I hope you'll add Sir Arthur Eddington's book 'The Nature of the Physical World' to your list of "must read" books, in case you've not already done so. Written in 1928, it is a wonderful look into many of the topics near and dear to our hearts, and offers a bit of a "time capsule" of thinking from that era. The book is available from Amazon, among other sources. George Ellis recommended it to me, for which I owe him a debt of gratitude.

Best of luck to you for the future, here and elsewhere!

jcns

« Previous Page