Killing Time

J.C.N.Smith,

I`m afraid I wasn`t successful in finding our earlier conversation.

In the terms of the article, to which this thread hangs, the `real dragon` is the Earth`s rotational motion. It`s reflection in Rovelli`s mirror is the `duration elapsing dragon`, masquerading as the `time dragon`. Duration elapsing is what our clocks measure.

The `real dragon`, is the Earth`s rotational motion, as it is the fundamental physical mechanism responsible for maintaining our confusion over the nature of time.

Jim,

I agree that the Earth's rotational motion certainly is *a* major dragon in terms of being a source of faulty thinking about the nature of time, but it certainly is not the *only* dragon. Even if, hypothetically, we could not readily observe the obvious effects of the Earth's rotation (say, hypothetically, that the Earth was permanently enshrouded in thick, opaque clouds that blocked our view of the heavens); even then, I suspect, there would still be no shortage of other natural phenomena which might lead us down the same or a similar garden path.

Bottom line: yes, lay a large part of the blame for our faulty notions about the nature of time on the Earth's rotation, but had we lacked that particular scapegoat we probably would have found other ways to mislead ourselves. We can be amazingly creative and ingenious when it comes to self-deception.

jcns

J.C.N.Smith,

The `real dragon`, .... the Earth`s rotational motion, sends us travelling at a surface speed in excess of sixteen hundred kilometres per hour, at the equator.

The `real dragon` gives us night and day, dawn and dusk.

The `real dragon` moves at a constant rotational speed, perfectly matching our time keeping measurements.

J.C.N.Smith,

I think Carlo Rovelli has is right, when he says in the article, "The complexity is due to our own difficulty in thinking without time."

In my essay, I wrote,"When we remove time from our view of reality, the world remains the same. What we are changing is our way of thinking."

Hi J.C.N.Smith,

Earlier, I referred you to the thread on my essay in the nature of time contest. The following are the two sentences from the essay`s thread, that I had wished you to see. It`s entry dated November 28th, 2,010.

"If a planet`s rotational period was the same as it`s revolutional period, similiar to the relationship between the Earth and the Moon, it might be that the conscious inhabitants of that planet, would believe they were experiencing duration elapsing, as opposed to time passing.

If it was always 2 p.m. in one`s town, it would be easier to appreciate that it`s actually a case of duration elapsing."

Time is a fundamental physical quantity which has only a mathematical existence.

http://physicsessays.org/action/doSearc ... Text=sorli

Time is an illusion that has only existence in our memory.

No, it is a trunk, not a wall, or a pillar.

I would address specifically to the so called "The time problem" and of course to this article "Killing time".

I am going to be as concrete as possible; if you read the article you will realize why it can't be shorter. Mainly theoretical physicists are the most interested in "the nature of time" and they like to believe the subject is inherent to physicists and you will see it's no so.

I will follow with an advice of somebody than most physicists in the world respect, Albert Einstein. "The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking. It is for this reason that the critical thinking of the physicist cannot possibly to be restricted to the examination of the concepts of his own specific field. He cannot proceed without considering critically a much more difficult problem, the problem of analyzing the nature of everyday thinking.

Our psychological experience contains, in colorful succession, sense experiences, memory pictures of them, images, and feelings. In contrast to psychology, physics treats directly only of sense experiences and of the "understanding" of their connection. But even the concept of the "real external world" of everyday thinking rests exclusively of sense impressions" "Ideas and Opinions" Einstein, pg.283 y 284, ISBN Nº 440-04150-150.

I think this should be read slow, understanding each and every word of his thought about mind functioning, some times is as important as mathematics formulas.

To make possible to comprehend this article, first you should believe possible that "The problem of time" can be solve. Second let the mind freer to the understanding of new things, for this, we should say that

"time" has no definition, no empiric meaning, also can't be sense by any of our senses or by any man designed artifact, nobody can make a description or recognize "time". To make clearer this article we should keep in mind the last three lines through all the reading.

If was any other word with those characteristics we immediately would say "time does not exist".

why we don't say that, because since pre-Socratic Heraclito ,and after Socrates Plato and Aristoteles 2600 or 2300 years ago we are measuring what we call "time" and as physicist Sean Carroll said being quote by Lee Smolin "There is no question that time exists--we use it everyday," If we give this, as a reason of "time" existence. How he can be sure that exist, if he don't know what it is? The Carroll reason is, that he think he use it every day. Certainly for use, he meant measuring the so called "time". How he knows that what he is measuring is "time" and no something else? like movement ?

Everybody knows movement, it has definition, empiric meaning. Everything with physical existence moves, from a galaxy to a subatomic particle. Movement origin is very much older and certain that "time". If the big-bang, happen, there was movement, life is possible because movement, our brain metabolism, which moves, is our mind that consider all movement we know of, that surround us. How we are not going to measure movement? We did it since the beginning of written history, but thinking that we were measuring "time".

People think that with the clock movement we measure "time" and with it, comparatively we measure every other movement, change and transformation. A clock, to be one should have a "constant", "uniform" movement, if it is not so it's not a clock.

The physical prove that we measure movement with movement consist that with a clock "constant" movement we measure fractions of "constant" earth rotation movement represented by clock dial numbers, as the hour, these are the reasons that this are "movements units" and no "time units"

New duration definition: It is the period of change and transformation that movement allows and men limit.

Then the so called "time" is movement .When we think we are measuring "time" we are not conscious, that in fact we are measuring movement, as we always did, we do and we are going to keep doing it. Knowing this does not change any physic law. We have to remember that classic physics, relativity and quantum mechanics were created, developed and physicist keep working with them with out the need to know of "The nature of time", but knowing that "time" it is not a mysterious thing, but movement, a quality or property of everything with physical existence, we know that we can related it to anything of physical existence.

Not only is needed to quantized general relativity to the goal of the "the theory of everything" but we also can understand conclusions of general relativity like "that velocity and gravity slows time" in GPS (imagine an analogical clock) the satellite one slows respect it's similar on land why? because the satellite clock inertia, because it's speed slows clock parts movement, slowing it's functioning respect the one on land, what slows it is not "time", but it's functioning

Gravity slows the clock in the valley respect it's similar on top of the mountain, because the first one is affected for more gravity than the other, gravity slows clock parts functioning it is not the "time" than slows.

Since Heraclito to Einstein passing through Newton men always ask themselves, What it is time? to reach reality, they should ask themselves What we are measuring? And quite easily they would find out that was movement. All the other things that can be made knowing this it would make this to long.

Time probably is a remnant word which represented a very important concept for men that mankind forgot it's meaning as Einstein pre-scientific concepts. Héctor Daniel Gianni

E-mail: hectorgianni38@hotmail.com

Quantum Gravity and Doublethink

QUANTUM GRAVITY IN PERSPECTIVE, LMU Munich, 31st May - 1st June 2013: "The search for a theory which would unite the insights of general relativity with those of quantum theory, a theory of quantum gravity, has now lasted the better part of a century. Although a number of promising candidate theories have emerged (string theory and loop quantum gravity being the most prominent), a large array of conceptual, formal and methodological issues are still unresolved. The increasingly fractured nature of the field - with long standing and well publicised disagreements over the premisses, goals and criteria for evaluation relevant to a 'theory of quantum gravity' - might be seen as one significant factor impeding progress. (...) INVITED SPEAKERS: Nazim Bouatta (Cambridge), Richard Dawid (Vienna), Johanna Erdmenger (Max Planck Munich), Sabine Hossenfelder (NORDITA), Claus Kiefer (Cologne), Brian Pitts (Cambridge), Dean Rickles (Sydney), Nicholas Teh (Cambridge), Chris Wuthrich (UCSD)"

Einsteinians are going to extract career and money from this "search for a theory which would unite the insights of general relativity with those of quantum theory" for yet another century although they all know that "the root of all the evil" is the absurd special relativistic time, a direct consequence of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:

Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation of common-sense ideas about time. Different observers, moving at constant velocity relative to one another, require different notions of time, since their clocks run differently. Yet each such observer can use his "time" to describe what he sees, and every description will give valid results, using the same laws of physics. In short: According to special relativity, there are many quite different but equally valid ways of assigning times to events. Einstein himself understood the importance of breaking free from the idea that there is an objective, universal "now." Yet, paradoxically, today's standard formulation of quantum mechanics makes heavy use of that discredited "now." Playing with paradoxes is part of a theoretical physicist's vocation, as well as high-class recreation. Let's play with this one. (...) As we've seen, if a and b are space-like separated, then either can come before the other, according to different moving observers. So it is natural to ask: If a third event, c, is space-like separated with respect to both a and b, can all possible time-orderings, or "chronologies," of a, b, c be achieved? The answer, perhaps surprisingly, is No. We can see why in Figures 5 and 6. Right-moving observers, who use up-sloping lines of constant time, similar to the lines of constant t2 in Figure 2, will see b come before both a and c (Figure 5). But c may come either after or before a, depending on how steep the slope is. Similarly, according to left-moving observers (Figure 6), a will always come before b and c, but the order of b and c varies. The bottom line: c never comes first, but other than that all time-orderings are possible. These exercises in special relativity are entertaining in themselves, but there are also serious issues in play. They arise when we combine special relativity with quantum mechanics."

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, 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."

"Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to differ. (...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says."

Pentcho Valev

Daniel, Georgina,

The problem is always the same. Not knowing the difference between physics and metaphysics, and the limits of each.

There is EXPERIENCE, what we make up of the world through our senses and mind. EXPERIENCE requires our presence to happen to exist. So, forget about physics without observer; we are always part and cause of the observation and its interpretation.

And there is SUBSTANCE, that which does not require our presence or observation to exist.

The real universe is made of substance. Our reality is made of our experience of the real universe. We create our own reality which, without our senses and mind, is just a dark place filled with matter and radiations. (Even " matter and radiations" are evolved concepts of ours).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The thing is that we can only know about time indirectly by deducing it from experience like motion, change, etc. The reason that time is so elusive is that it is not physical but rather metaphysical ; it cannot be an experience. It is here and there without requiring our presence. We may only deduce or infer the passage of time from the experience of change.

----- The passage of time is metaphysical and it has to be treated as a substance.(opposite of experience)

When we confront the existence of a substance with the requirements of operational logic, we find that there can only be one substance making the whole universe. Science has effected great stride in the required reductionism; mass and energy, time and space, electricity and magnetism... But we are facing a wall because time is involved and appears necessary in all of them. If they exist, they are just various forms of the passage of time.

The important things to remember are 1) The passage of time is metaphysical (a substance) 2) It is a process that is dynamical in nature 3) it is a spontaneous process driving all other spontaneous processes. In this, it is the simplest and most basic process making the universe.

For more details, see my previous two FQXI essays.

Marcel,

Pentcho,

When light slows down to propagate at c through the spaceship (i.e. 'in it's frame'), it is acting in accordance with both the SR postulates;

1. Doing c everywhere.

2. Behaving the same in all frames.

This is not however as the mainstream interpretation of SR. You have misidentified the flaw in current interpretation. The simplistic claim that it is the postulate that is wrong will get you nowhere as it flies in the face of all evidence.

The answer CONSISTENT with all the evidence indeed more even than SR) is that it is the assumption that any background has to be an ABSOLUTER background that is incorrect.

As the background frame for c on Venus is clearly doing a very different speed to the background field of EARTH'S atmosphere, how can any grownup claim the two are doing the same speed?

Please try to engage in an intelligent conversation to explain that nonsensical assumption.

Peter

Einsteinians are going to waste more money on quantum gravity:

Quantum Gravity in Paris, 26-29 March 2012: "The general subject of the workshop is quantum gravity in all its aspects and approaches. The fundamental definition of the theory is the focal topic..."

There can be no "fundamental definition of the theory" unless Einstein's 1905 false light postulate and its absurd consequences are officially abandoned:

Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, 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."

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, 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. Quantum gravity seemed to lack a dam - its effects wanted to spill out all over the place; and the underlying reason was none other than special relativity."

Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation of common-sense ideas about time. Different observers, moving at constant velocity relative to one another, require different notions of time, since their clocks run differently. Yet each such observer can use his "time" to describe what he sees, and every description will give valid results, using the same laws of physics. In short: According to special relativity, there are many quite different but equally valid ways of assigning times to events. Einstein himself understood the importance of breaking free from the idea that there is an objective, universal "now." Yet, paradoxically, today's standard formulation of quantum mechanics makes heavy use of that discredited "now." Playing with paradoxes is part of a theoretical physicist's vocation, as well as high-class recreation. Let's play with this one. (...) As we've seen, if a and b are space-like separated, then either can come before the other, according to different moving observers. So it is natural to ask: If a third event, c, is space-like separated with respect to both a and b, can all possible time-orderings, or "chronologies," of a, b, c be achieved? The answer, perhaps surprisingly, is No. We can see why in Figures 5 and 6. Right-moving observers, who use up-sloping lines of constant time, similar to the lines of constant t2 in Figure 2, will see b come before both a and c (Figure 5). But c may come either after or before a, depending on how steep the slope is. Similarly, according to left-moving observers (Figure 6), a will always come before b and c, but the order of b and c varies. The bottom line: c never comes first, but other than that all time-orderings are possible. These exercises in special relativity are entertaining in themselves, but there are also serious issues in play. They arise when we combine special relativity with quantum mechanics."

Pentcho Valev

Consequent (Spacetime) Wrong, Antecedent (Light Postulate) True ?

In conversation with Nima Arkani-Hamed, 14:31 : "That idea, the idea that there is an underlying spacetime, we know from many points of view, from many theoretical arguments, we strongly believe that spacetime doesn't really exist. (...) The slogan is that spacetime is doomed and something has to replace it."

The consequent (spacetime) is doomed, doesn't exist, and has to be replaced, but the antecedent (Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate) should remain (otherwise Einsteinians' children would go hungry in the streets):

Pedro G. Ferreira: "When Einstein started thinking about gravity in 1907, he had already figured out his special theory of relativity, which brought together Newtonian mechanics - how things move, push and pull - and Maxwell's theory of electricity and magnetism. To achieve this, the rules of physics had to change. Space and time became intertwined and the speed of light become sacrosanct and invariant, a cosmic speed limit on any physical process."

Pentcho Valev

Spacetime Wrong, Light Postulate True ?

WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

Philip Ball: "And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

Yet Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate is true, isn't it, Steve Giddings?

Pentcho Valev

The problem is that QM and GR - the parametric theories without ontological justification. Their union has no deeper meaning. Let each working on his "field." It is not necessary to "kill" time. It is necessary to understand its nature. To understand it (gripe) first mate - is Carthusian "the qualitative quantum". With it, it is necessary to look deeper ontological basis of fundamental knowledge for the "grand unification". This ontological basis provides new insights into the structure of space, time and nature of the information, their "place" in the scientific picture of the world. "The ontological (structural) memory" knocking on the door to the physicists. Memory of the Universum can not kill.

Sincerely,

Vladimir Rogozhin

Thank you Pentcho for pointing to Edge.org .

I refer to a suggestion by Tegmark: "Infinity should be retired".

In contrast to him, I was never seduced, mesmerized and blend by Cantor, and I used infinity as a quite useful property with one caveat: It is naive to look for physical counterparts to ideal mathematical models such as infinity. While I see Einstein rather critical, I agree with him on that there are presumably no physical singularities.

Gauss was hardly correct in his letter when he protested against the use of infinity in mathematics. On the other hand, Wolfgang Mueckenheim in Augsburg is perhaps not wrong when he argues against the mainstream that infinity cannot be found in reality. As Tegmark explains, this includes continuity in its original meaning as the property of something every part of which has parts.

However, given space and time were also discrete, didn't this require the length of a square being commensurable to the length of its hypotenuse?

Are "infinity-free equations" really "the true laws of physics"? To some extent I agree: Block time and unitarity should be questioned. The distinction between past and future must no longer be seen as an illusion.

For this reason I support your criticism, Pentcho.

Eckard

Hello. Pencho,

Thanks for the links. A lot of interesting articles. I agree with Steve Giddings, especially with the last sentence:

The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound, and confronts the reality that a clear successor is not yet in sight. Different approaches to the underlying quantum framework exist; some show promise but none yet clearly resolve our decades-old conundrums in black holes and cosmology. The emergence of such a successor is likely to be a key element in the next major revolution in physics.

For a revolution in the views on the "space" and "time" need a deep philosophy, I would call it a dialectical ontology, which gives new ideas.

Sincerely,

Vladimir

Hello Eckard,

I think that physicists should love dialectics and ontology, then the problem of the nature of time will be much easier to solve. Among the most profound meaning of the Universum have to go through Heraclitus - Plato - Aristotle - Plotinus-Cusa - Descartes - Leibniz - Kant - Hegel. Good hint dates N.Burbaki idea of the "maternal structures" ("Architecture of Mathematics"). As well said Alexander Zenkin: «The truth should be drawn and should be presented to "an unlimited circle"of spectators.» ( Alexander Zenkin SCIENTIFIC COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN MATHEMATICS). This is true both for Mathematics and Physics. «Eidos», «logos», «topos», «maternal structure» are a great opportunity to overcome the ontological crisis of representation and interpretation in fundamental knowledge.

Sincerely,

Vladimir