The Problem: We See Time Backward by John Brodix Merryman

Dear John,

I just finished reading your essay, and I think we agree on some important conceptual issues, although perhaps we have different views on what conclusions should be drawn as a consequence. Let me venture a few questions and remarks.

1. In one of your comments on my thread, you say, "The difference between cause and effect and time is that sequence isn't cause and effect, but energy transfer is." Now, I agree that sequence alone isn't cause and effect (sequence by itself is a purely mathematical concept), and I also agree that what we call "energy transfer" is an example of cause and effect. However, in saying that this is "the difference between cause and effect and time," you seem to be identifying "time" with "sequence," which is not what I think you actually intend. For example, in the previous sentence, you say, "I found, when considering it at length, that it gives a very different, inherently dynamic, view of reality, than the block time, static modeling that arose from assuming time is sequence and treating it as a measure of interval." So I am still a little unclear on exactly how you relate time, sequence, and cause and effect.

2. On the basis of your whole essay, it seems that you think time is "a way of talking about what actually happens," which I agree with.

3. I would argue that even though sequence is a purely mathematical concept, while cause and effect is a physical concept, it is still useful to associate a sequence (i.e. direction) to cause and effect. At an everyday level, we always observe that "cause precedes effect;" i.e., we imagine something called "time" with respect to which cause and effect are always ordered in the same way. Now I believe, and I think you agree, that this idea of a separate time dimension in which causes and effects arrange themselves is imaginary. I think that time is really a way of talking about cause and effect. The arrow of time, then, is drawn from cause to effect.

4. Your analogy between time and temperature is interesting. We know that time is intimately related to temperature through the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Of course, time has a direction and temperature does not, but it produces directions in a number of ways: thermal energy flows from hot to cold bodies, and temperature is related to entropy, which is related to time by the second law.

5. I have a bit of trouble with defining things in terms of "energy." The reason why is because energy itself is a rather indirect concept: the way we know a system has energy is because it "does work" on other systems. I would argue that "energy" is just another way of talking about what actually happens, and I would rather use physical concepts with clearer and more direct definitions or descriptions as basic building blocks. Cause and effect is the best such building block I can think of.

6. Regarding the origin of the universe from a singularity, I personally would not take this concept too seriously. It is a result of carrying existing theories to extremes where their validity is very doubtful. Similar statements apply to the internal physics of black holes.

7. You make a good point that our perception of time may have more to do with how our brains work than how the universe works.

I enjoyed your essay! Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Take care,

Ben

Dear John,

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

Ben,

I wouldn't describe time and sequence as purely mathematical, but as features of action. If I may use an analogy, it would be that time is frequency and temperature is amplitude. While one wave/cycle/step doesn't cause the next in the series, it does lead to it from the perspective of the dynamic manifesting the series. Cause is wholistic and the sum total cause of any event cannot be known prior to the event, because the lightcone(to use a spacetime concept) of input isn't complete until the event occurs. A bolt of lightening or bus might hit you before you make that next step and the energy manifesting you would be disrupted from its progression. It is just that we exist as a particular point of reference/one molecule of water in that tea kettle and so encounter a series of events within the larger dynamic.

As for entropy, it seems everyone always ignores that it only applies to a closed system. In an open or infinite system, energy lost by one system is gained by others. We are absorbing light that was radiated by other galaxies billions of lightyears away. It is only because the universe is presumed to be finite that it gains such prominence. Yet even in that model, this energy is simply being dispersed over an expanding area, not eliminated. I think the larger reality is a form of universal convection cycle of expanding energy and contracting mass. These galaxies drawing in mass and radiating energy, until that energy condenses back into mass and falls back into the closest galaxy.

You are quite right that "energy" defies clear definition, but think about that; Definition is structure and order and energy is constantly manifesting and dissolving structure and order. It's hard to put something in a box, when even the box is an aspect of what you want to put in it. Think of energy as what is physically real, whether radiant, potential, spin, attraction, repulsion, inertial. Even the absence of energy is a form of energy, in the vacuum. Energy manifests, information defines. Information arises from the interaction of different forms and degrees of energy. Such as that mass is a balance of positive and negative energies. We try to measure reality by banging energies into each other. Whether it is light from distant stars onto our telescopes, or ions in a particle collider. Or even cavemen banging one rock into another to see how it breaks/flakes.

Vladimir,

Thank you for the recommendations, some of which I've read, especially the entry by Eric Reiter. I have read your entry, but haven't commented, mostly for time reasons. It is very well written and informative, but being rather broad, I didn't find a particular point to focus on. Whatever time I have to read is often when I'm also tired, so there is not a lot of broad attention in my engagement with this contest.

John,

Thanks for the followup! I agree that "time" isn't purely mathematical; as for "sequence," mathematicians are used to thinking of it in this way, but the most important thing is probably just to be clear about one's definition and stick with it.

There is always a lot of confusion about entropy. Besides the "closed system" aspect you point out, there are many different definitions in thermodynamics, information theory, and quantum information theory. It's so confused that some people define entropy as "disorder" and others as "order." Probably it's again a situation in which the most important thing is to say exactly what one means by entropy to avoid purely semantic disputes.

Regarding energy, I suppose something at the bottom of the logical system has to be undefined, and if so, it should be an entity of universal importance, which energy certainly is. Take care,

Ben

Ben,

That distilling out a particular definition and sticking to it is where one steps over the line from reason to dogma, no matter how effective the description. I like to think I would alter my view of time, if someone were to show its fallacies, but once they see it is not easy to dismiss, the discussion is dropped. It's been observed that rationality, as a survival mechanism, evolved to win arguments, not discover truths.

As for entropy being order or disorder, depending on the model, goes to the heart of the subjectivity of knowledge.

Energy and space are both down at the bottom of that stack of turtles.

Good luck in the contest. Looks like you will make the cut.

John,

I did not mean refusing to entertain other people's choices of definition, of course. Quite the opposite; what I meant was that many disagreements or misunderstandings are really about the definitions of words, not about meaning. There is nothing special about the symbols or sounds that make up the english word "entropy," for instance, so rather than having disagreements like "entropy is A, no, entropy is B," it makes much more sense for both people to simply say what they mean by it and then sort out the meaning. By "stick with it," I only mean that one must be precise and consistent in one's definitions. However, I'm perfectly willing to adopt another person's terminology "for the sake of the argument," if it will help to understand what is really at the heart of the discussion.

As for "making the cut," I suspect contests like these are very much like horse races or auctions on ebay... the leader going into the home stretch often finishes well back, and the price often doubles in the last few minutes. This is my first time in such a contest, so I don't know what to expect. I do expect that lot of people who are members of FQXi or hold very prestigious academic positions will probably get a lot of high ratings at the very end by virtue of commanding an automatic audience that is disposed to be favorable, but I assumed that all along. I feel the best one can do in such a situation is to try to present one's ideas in a favorable light and hopefully learn a thing or two in the process. Take care,

Ben

Ben,

I guess that response was more toward those who do make a religion out of the model. It is a bit like the dichotomy of specialization vs, generalization. The more precise your model, the more it is focused on particular details, while those who take a more generalized approach accept some degree of fuzziness in the details. Craftsmen tend to be specialists and visionaries have to have a fairly broad view and so need to be generalists. I suppose if physics is ever to get out of its current rut, it better consider the views of a few generalists and not keep fighting over minute details.

You are right there is an insider bias to the judging, but there is an underlaying movement to expand the circle. This contest and its subject are a good example. There are quite a few entries which take serious issue with some foundational assumptions and it will be hard to completely ignore them. I've mentioned to some of the more vocal ones that after the contest, some form of association could continue to push the boundaries further.

At some point in the future, alot of the ideas floating around, from multiworlds to blocktime are going to end up in the same file with angels on the head of a pin and epicycles.

Hi John,

Glad to see you in the contest.

A very good essay, I am giving it a high mark.

Don L.

Hi John,

I put this post on Ben's page, below a post of yours, but wanted to put it here as well in case you didn't find it. JK

-----------

Hello John,

I didn't think or say that you're out to lunch, and I'm sorry you felt that way. If I wasn't in England, I'd like to take you out to lunch to make up for it. I'm sure we'd talk about time, and there might be less misunderstanding that way. I just tried to focus on an idea of yours, and felt I'd shown it to be wrong, and it seemed you kept changing the subject. But if it seemed different to you, then I'm sorry.

Best wishes, Jonathan

Jonathan,

Presumably, if I'm wrong, then I'm out to lunch, given that I don't see it.

John,

I'll bring this to your page, and try to explain, for the nth and last time, what - to be fair - you genuinely don't seem to understand. No-one else will tell you that your ideas simply don't fit the evidence or the physics, they'll all go on letting you think the ideas could be right. Only I am boring enough to try explain it to you.

Time dilation is a single effect, described by a set of equations, and if only the observed time rate is needed, then it's just one equation. That equation works for many situations, it's very general. To explain the effect, you have to come up with a conceptual picture that works for all those situations. You can't have it fading evenly and steadily into a different explanation in some situations, and then fading back again into your original explanation on the other side. The equation shifts by degrees you see, from one situation into another. So any explanation needs to cover all situations. That's why I made the point about the two observers passing each other in the street, going in opposite directions. Each sees the other in slightly slow motion, and your explanation fails there.

Each is in fact observed with a slower metabolism than the other, because every process is observed slowed down - this may be an illusion, or each may somehow actually be slowed down from the other point of view. But citing changes to metabolism as the CAUSE of time dilation simply doesn't work.

If that was the cause, we wouldn't have pondered this for a century, it would have been very much simpler to deal with. The reason is that the mathematics would be different! And it would allow a whole range of possible explanations of that kind, but no-one even considers them, because they don't fit. Being a good mystery, it rules out a lot of intuitive explanations.

Your last post was full of errors, no-one will point them out, not even me.

Please leave this now, thanks, and good luck.

Best wishes, Jonathan

Jonathan,

First off, my point is not about relativistic measures of duration. It is about whether time emerges from action, ie, the changing configuration of what exists/the present, such that it is events going future to past, or whether it is simply a measure of duration from one event to the next, past to future, resulting in such concepts as blocktime.

If you can figure that out, then maybe we can consider what causes duration to vary in different situations and from different points of observation. Is it because of the geometry of spacetime, or because duration is subject to context, whether actual, such as with gps satellites, or perceptual, as with those observers you are fixated on.

That you don't seem able to understand it is a different issue might go towards explaining why those schooled in the established paradigm haven't considered this. I think [link:fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1480]Edward Anderson[:link] provides a very vivid example of this disconnect, as he first explains time as manifestly Machian, then delves into how it is best measured. The issue is not measurement, the issue is cause!!!!!!

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

Your work is mentioned here

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1383#post_68802

Not in a particularly positive light of course. Lawrence doesn't appreciate my input, but I've been needling him on occasion for several years, in the FQXi blogs.

While I'm hesitant to use the word singularity, I obviously agree with your essay.

I hope that you will be applying for the Physics of Information grant, because you're one of a very small number of people who see academia for what it could be -- that is, if they could get over themselves and truly cooperate for once.

I put forth the Shannon / holographic principle paper with no serious expectations, and the first reactions from the blogosphere are non-fatal critiques about data types. Point proven: we are practically dealing with cavemen, and it doesn't take a whole lot to make them stomp about and beat their clubs on the ground. It's like we're direct witnesses to ancient history! It's a little sad, although I do ultimately feel privileged for being able to see such a rare, once in a species series of events. I wonder if this is at all similar to how Neanderthal went down?

Of course, my babbling about Shannon doesn't actually need to be right for the main point to stick. I just wanted them to see their banality for themselves. Let's not hold our breath though. ;)

I second the motion of getting John some grant money. It would be well spent. Give him about $300,000 - he could hire a team of researchers and mathematicians and publish a report nine months from now that would turn the physics world upside down.

John - Since you and I have both relied on the temperature analogy when discussing the emergent phenomenon of time, I figured you might get a kick out of this: I was listening to an archived NPR radio debate between Lee Smolin and Brian Greene yesterday that was recorded in 2006 and Greene, when discussing time said that it could be an emergent property with an underlying cause similar to how our perception of temperature can be traced to the actual velocity (Kinetic energy) of the atoms/molecules.

I almost fell out of my chair! We have something in common with a string theorist! There may be hope for him yet.