Killing Time

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

Vladimir,

Thesis: Time is a dragon to slay in order to unite theories.

Antithesis: Why not slaying instead the doctrine "shut up and mathmasturbate"?

Synthesis: Let's rediscover sound reasoning and reveal possible mistakes. Why not accepting that only the order of past events is already unchangeable and the conventional bilaterally symmetrically extended notion of time is just a modified abstraction from this unilateral order? Future time is likewise unilateral. One has only to abandon the unprovable and perhaps futile because fatalistic ontological guess of monists like Parmenides that the behavior of the world can be as completely anticipated as can that of a finite model of it.

What about Hegel's dialectic, even Karl Marx spoke of "abstruse Hegelei".

I contempt just being lazily satisfied with two mutually excluding views at a time.

Having read Zenkin's paper a while ago, I just recall that he didn't ascribe the utterance "mankind will recover from the illness of Cantor's set theory" to Poincaré as did Mueckenheim but to someone else.

Eckard

Pentcho,

With Einstein's children you certainly meant the many of his fellows. I just heard by chance that Einstein had a disabled child which he neglected.

Eckard

Someone else was Brouwer. I regret that even he just tried to replace Cantor's set theory by a substitute instead of humbly admitting that infinity and continuity in their original meaning (cg. the definition by Peirce) and irrational numbers are simply qualitatively outside the realm of sets of rational numbers.

Of course, intuitionism relates to what is called the Urintuition of counting. Counting requires to abstract a unit that can alternatively be identified.

In contrast to counting for the purpose of taxing, ancient geometry was somewhat aristocratic for good reason. While mathematics on the basis of natural numbers provides exact results, every primary identification is a process with more or less uncertain result. Leibniz had it: After one has chosen a unit, the realm of belonging commensurable values is defined.

Eckard

Eckard,

To grasp the nature of time is necessary to "grasp" the dialectic triad of nature at the deepest ontological level. Understanding - it means "to grasp" structure ( G.Gutner Ontologija matematicheskogo diskursa" / "Ontology of mathematical discourse"). And then imagine eidos of ontological (primordial) structures of nature. That is, to "draw" the primordial structure of the Universum. Hegel his "triad" crucified on the tripod, but not painted. Marx did not understand "abstruse" Hegel and went into political economy. Engels did not complete his "Dialectics of Nature". It is necessary to go back to Heraclitus and Cusa with all the knowledge accumulated by mankind to XXI century, and then to "dig" deeper than Hegel, to make "great synthesis" - "to grasp" the structure of space and only then - "to grasp" the nature of time. "Dragon" has to live. But as the mathematics work in eternity, then for "gripes" primordial (basic) structure of the Universum (the structure of eternity) "dragon" can be taken out of the brackets for a while (put in «the cage»- our mind) . Mathematicians want to "close the physics" (Ludwig Faddeev "Uravnenie zlogo duha"/"The equation of the evil spirit"), but the mathematics - the fundamental sign system without ontological justification, as well as physics. The problem of the justification (foundation) of mathematics for over a hundred years...

Sincerely,

Vladimir

The very beautiful timekeepers of our galaxy are the pulsars and there are now thousands known. The millisecond pulsars are especially interesting and precise and here is a plot of about 350 from the pulsar handbook that show a trend in their decays that seems to agree with the 0.283 matter decay constant for a shrinking universe.

Interesting that the measured spin down decay of earth seems to agree with the same decay constant as well...also the reported decay of the earth-moon orbit seems to agree with pulsar decay constant. The one thing that seems to be certain about our best clocks is that they all decay over time in very regular fashion. There are actually many different ways that pulsars decay and increase by radiation and accretion, including gravity waves. But somehow millisecond pulsars all seem to have march to a common drummer.

The electron spin and hydrogen atom decays, which are assumed in matter time to decay at this rate as well, are simply beyond the current measurement precision.

pulsar decays

Vladimir,

While the triad thesis, antithesis, and synthesis is undoubtedly valuable, according to Wiki, Hegel himself used this introduced earlier by Fichte classification only once. Instead, Hegel's dialectic is that things or ideas have internal contradictions. Popper meant: Hegel's system formed a thinly veiled justification for the absolute rule of Frederick William III. Marx spoke of abstruse Hegelei in the sense of Hegelishness like childishness as to express disapproval.

Eckard

Steve,

Elderly people like me tend to prefer black text on white background.

I appreciate your attitude to defend the measure time, and I also admit that I don't yet understand at all how the precisely reproducible decay works.

Eckard

Eckard,

Understand the nature of time - is to see and understand the dialectics of nature, see the "coincidence of opposites" in the very nature and design the primordial generating structure of a hierarchical universe. Today it is necessary to climb on the shoulders of great thinkers Kant - Fichte - Hegel and see more, to see the deep ontology and the dialectics of nature. Unfortunately, physics as a fundamental system of signs - is a science without ontological justification (substantiation). For such substantiation just need the dialectical method.

Karl Popper reduces the dialectics to Hegelian and Marxist variants. Dialectics of Popper as a cognitive movement from thesis to antithesis, and from it to the synthesis. It's too narrow interpretation of dialectics. K.Popper, as it does not see any particular sphere, which is engaged in the dialectic - the sphere of opposites. M. Cornforth, well-known critic of Karl Popper, pointed out that the dialectic is interested in the connection of opposites. In the integrity of the development of German idealism gradually formed the dialectical method, which must be applied to grasping of a primordial structure of the Universum and "grasp" the nature of time. The dialectic is not a whim, not an invention, not artifice, it has roots in reality and its theoretical understanding.

Sincerely,

Vladimir

Steve,

Good image of the "pulsar" in Cosmos for the "grasping" of the primordial ontological structure of the Universum and the nature of time. They are clearly visible the absolute forms of existence of matter (absolute states) and the primordial structure of space. From the structure of space - another step towards the nature of time as a polyvalent phenomenon of the ontological (structural, cosmic) memory. We are accustomed the time to "measure" and "calculate". But now it is necessary to understand, otherwise it will be to "kill". And it's bad for fundamental science and for society.

Sincerely,

Vladimir

I am also fascinated by the problem of time. And to reiterate, time is what clocks measure.

"I appreciate your attitude to defend the measure time, and I also admit that I don't yet understand at all how the precisely reproducible decay works."

The decay and speed up of pulsars occurs due to radiation or accretion of matter, by and large, but pulsars in orbit around another star are affected by that as well. Millisecond pulsars have particularly stable decays and periods, that is all. In other words, the best clocks that we have are ones that not only tick, but decay in time as well as tick.

The fact that millisecond pulsar decay seems to follow the mdot decay constant and that decay constant reflects the spin down of earth and of the earth-moon orbit seems more than a coincidence. Our science accepts that our clocks vary with our frame of reference and that any decay is due to radiation, including gravity wave radiation. Any common decay is just an illusion, not a constant.

Steve,

And you throw all the clocks and think deep the ontology of Universum. From where force was born? From where energy was born? What the primordial structure of the Universe with all the observation of nature: in Cosmos and on Mother Earth? From "point"? What structure has a "point"?

Should be ontology of measures and ontology forms. Only when we understand and draw the primordial structure of the Universum, then we can understand the nature of time. All of the modern structures of the Universum, built on observations and mathematics - a phenomenological structures without ontological justification. Today the fundamental physics and cosmology must answer the most profound questions and without ontology they do not answer.

Regards,

Vladimir

Pentcho,

At least Norton manages making a fool of himself. His attempt to justify SR cannot at all persuade me. The seemingly diagonal path is obviously just a fiction.

Eckard

Vladimir,

Euclid's point is something (ideal) that has no parts. Does anybody know a better definition?

Even the smallest physical particles are imagined as divisible in the sense one attributes a divisible size to then. On the other hand, an abstract notions that describes an item is indivisible. For instance, you as a unique living person cannot be divided into identical smaller units. Futile ontological guesswork including Hegel's idealist rejection of atoms were nurtured by some inability to consequently separate between reality and abstraction.

Eckard

Vladimir,

Do we really need to understand time? Maybe it is already a big success to admit that time in reality, i.e. past time and abstract time including time expected to come are essentially different.

Tom quoted Einstein's metaphors of marble and wood as to distinguish the putative realities which SR and GR are thought to refer to. This reminds not by chance to Cantor's different infinities.

In case of really past time and abstract time, such metaphors are really justified.

Eckard