Is the frequency of "our" universe perhaps 5.39121 x 10^-44sec ?

Or does this mean that the universe is digital ?

The choice of a "clock" is still the choice of human consciousness to compare his memories (a theory is also hypothesis based on what is learned), so I fully agree with Julian Barbour.

Wilhelmus

7 days later
  • [deleted]

Professor Andreas Albrecht:

Of course Einstein was right "time is what clock measure" and in this article we will add, What the clock measure

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

  • [deleted]

Thank you for a great article.

Here are some thoughts on the horizon problem that approach the subjeect from an entirely new angle:

From horizon to horizon, there need not be any "mixing" in order for identical temperatures to be found if those temperatures have been created in an isolated manner unaffiliated with the matter on the opposite horizon. This is exactly what CIG offers.

Particulate matter traveling at the same rate, and regardless of where it travels will unfold into "identical temperatures (spatial field densities with identical energy equivalencies per unit volumes)" . At the speed of light, stellar masses unfold into Space (with its inherent temperature signature) in exactly the same fashion. The volume of Space may be different, since it is mass dependent (the more mass, the more spatial potential), but the temperature will be the same.

Stellar masses unfold into spatial quantities independently from what may be another stellar mass on the opposite horizon, or anywhere else for that instance. They are there own Little Bangs. (this happens on the quantum level too as observed new Bohr orbitals).

Similarly, Dark Matter halos will be at the same temperature no matter where they are found, as long as they represent the same manifested Spatial signature [(i.e. they are the same Spacetime field density)(or, in CIG this represents a varying cosmological constant)(they must travel at the same rate -that is, light must be affected, gravitationally speaking, equivalently, for the rates to be identical)].

Also, again similarly, Black Holes will be found at the same temperature for the same reason, regardless of where they appear in the Universe.

This same philosophy is carried over into the reason that Space is found at the same temperature on both horizons. It is the manner in which traveling mass unfolds into the different spatial field densities, each with identical temperature signatures as long as that mass is traveling at the same rate.

As excerted from CIG Theory:

If the very nature of light (matter) , per MT =S, always manifests itself according to its intrinsic values [To variations of Space (dark matter, dark energy, etc.), based on rate (c or percentages thereof) - and according to CIG Theory, of course], then, even though the distinct opposite ends of the Universe cannot logically correspond (talk) to one another due to their distances exceeding the limts of time, there shall still be an exact match of their temperature. In fact, CIG Theory demands this. CIG Theory offers a reason why the universe is in fact extremely homogeneous. It is based on the very nature of the manisfestation of mass to space. At pure space (the darkest of dark energy), temperatures are identical, and there is no need for communication between two horizons. Each separate side of the Universe is following the same CIG transformation (mathematically no different from the other when mass travels at an identical rate), so of course they will be at the same temperature.

The Horizon Problem states, in part "This presents a serious problem; if the universe had started with even slightly different temperatures in different areas, then there would simply be no way it could have evened itself out to a common temperature by this point in time."

The temperatures are a direct result of the mass to space transformation process. There is no need to "even" anything out. It is inherent to the CIG process. CIG Theory requires it be, because at the rate "C", any entity will manifest itself into the identical Space, no matter what side of the Universe that entity is on.

Therefore, they will be at the exact same temperature. This is the nature of CIG Theory. The same Dark Matter on one horizon will be at the exact same temperature as the same Dark Matter on the opposite Horizon, as its calculations (transformations) are one and the same.

CIG Theory appears to allow for a coherent explanation of the Horizon Problem. In fact, to CIG Theory, it is no problem at all, since CIG would expect that the universe be formed with precisely the same properties everywhere (space for space, dark matter for dark matter, i.e. - the same transformation is only comparable to its like transformation - you cannot compare the temperature of dark matter with dark energy - here the dark matter will be hotter)(by the very nature of the manisfestation itself- the transformation of matter to space). It could also have formed decidedly slower, without an inflationary aspect having to "freeze" in these properties. The properties are inherent to the CIG transformation.

An analogy:

If you bake some bread on one side of the Universe, and you bake some bread on the other side of the Universe, and they taste the same, did the loaves have to talk to each other? CIG Theory says no, because in CIG, we are baking the bread. Current theory says how can the bread taste the same, they must be talking to one another (but they can't, because they exceed the limits of time). Current Theory forgot to bake the bread! The raisans are turning into the Space!

These are just a few thoughts on the Horizon Problem. Please make every effort to understand CIG Theory in this regard.

Please start a discussion thread here and on this offering of a different perspective solution to the horizon problem. Please understand CIG first.

THX

doug

  • [deleted]

It seems to me first and foremost to solve problem of Planck units.

I mean to separate smart Planck unit from senseless Planck units.

Does all Planck units are sacred or only one?

We don't have guarantee G, c, are real constants or not, during the evolution of the Univertse.

We don't have guarantee they depend of each other or not,or 2 sides the same coin.

Imagine that G and c simultaneously vary,because permittivity of vacuum vary following the evolution.Doesn't matter the Universe shrinking or expanding.

But we believe naive:

1.Schwarshild black hole R radius G/c^2

2.Planck unit L of length G/c^3

3.Planck unit T of time G/c^5

4.Planck unit M of mass c/G

What is correspond to real world?

If all,it would be absurd.

To my opinion only #4 linear link between G and c is real,eternal

and vary synchronously.

And #1,2,3 are fake that only teasing physicists

Conclusion:

1.Only Planck unit of mass(10-5g) have sense.

2.Only h is fundamental constant.

3.h=c=G=1 is wrong assumption.

    7 days later
    • [deleted]

    You can read about another interpretation of the special relativity, explaining also the magnetic effect and magnetic induction of the electric current, giving the time dimension in the frame of the accelerating electrons: http://vixra.org/abs/1112.0058 .

    7 days later
    • [deleted]

    Pssst .. Peter

    I'm over here, hiding from Pentcho's posts on the Faster than Light blog.

    They dropped our discussions from the Joy discussions.

    Anyhow, if pV=nRT

    and let's assume a constant pressure, constant # moles, and R since it's a gas constant.

    Then, non-mathematically speaking, since CIG works in concepts, we simply drop those constant variables p,n, and R.

    Now, we have V = T (volume = temperature), and again we have the concept of Energy [for temperature to go up we add energy (or per E=mc2 the energy eqivalent of mass)] to Volume.

    Alternately, if E=mc2, c2 = E/m , c = sg. root E/m , and when "c" varies (percentages of c travel as per CIG Theory), the other side of the equation reacts accordingly.

    So, Energy (temperature) correlates directly to the creation of new volumes of Space. MTS

    Within pV=nRT, there is support for CIG Theory.

    Again, the particles are not simply moving away from each other, faster and faster, thereby creating bigger volumes. (this is argued by the simple concept: "farther away from what - we started with a given volume of space") . Rather, "New Space" is created, and there is an eqivalency among space and mass and energy and c (also time).

    And conceptually,for the reasons cited above, this equivalency is supported by CIG and the gas laws.

    Doug

    doug

    It seems the message got through, and that was important. FQXi is a very important haven from the narrow 'mainstream' trench of the thought police. It's a human weakness of some that non conformity is so hard to live with. They clearly just need reminding now and then.

    Perhaps, if we stay here in hiding and whisper, the fuss will die down without retribution.

    I agree with your CIG rationale. In fact I think Energy = Volume is one of the most fundamental relationships. Now you just need a precise derivation of quantification for the sums so it'll be taken seriously.

    I have a couple of other fundamentals, agreeing with your conceptual or 'heuristic' approach as AE called it, which emerge from a logical derivation. Tell me if you agree;

    The first is simple; c = c'. (c as a Proper Time 'proper-gation' speed in each medium including the energy of the local space).

    The second is a~a. Which is distinctly NOT a=a, the root of all nonsense in predicate calculus, logic and arithmetic. Consider doug = doug. As there is only ONE doug it is a metaphysical concept. Of course moving from 'proper' nouns to common nouns, (B Russel) there are many other dougs, but NONE ARE THE SAME!

    Do you know any two trees, toffee apples, snowflakes or grains of sand that are identical at the microscopic level? So a=a is NOT reality in any sense above particle scale, and there are too many of those to compute except as virial 'systems'. We then have a probability amplitude distribution, or revved up fuzzy logic.

    So I, and the DFM, propose a new Law, the LAW OF THE REDUCING MIDDLE with an inverse Gaussian distribution, replacing the Law of the excluded middle. So no more toffee apples for me! But I suspect if I try to tell the law that I'll get banged away and silenced.

    What do you think? (speak quietly)

    Best wishes

    Peter

      • [deleted]

      Shhhh, I hear someone coming...

      Just a note to say that you can listen to Albrecht describing his work on the January podcast. I haven't opened a new thread for that item because obviously this thread already exists.

      • [deleted]

      Pssst...try to keep on topic... If you want to hide out on this thread, please try and refer back to Albrecht's work in each post.

      • [deleted]

      Ooops, we've been found! discussing Proper Time on a thread about 'improper' time! Yes. I agree with Andreas that our conception of time is nonsensical. No, I don't agree any of the other solutions offered so far are logical or resolve anything. That is very clear Yes?.

      The only one with consistent logic and which also resolves the issues raised, is that described in my essay.

      'Proper time' is as originally defined, but with the minimum of clarification; ALL speeds are 'propagation speeds', including in space, where each domain has limits. We may then say, as speed is a simple derivative d/t, that, as with co-ordinate time, there is also then 'improper' or 'co-ordinate' speed.

      We may then see 'APPARENT' c v, if we're in motion with respect to the propagation medium, but there is no such thing as REAL c v. Only when the light actually ARRIVE at a detector lens does it start propagating at c in our lens. Lambda changes so the wavefunction issue, Copenhagen and the Measurement Problem are resolved.

      Now NOBODY has even 'dented' let alone falsified that heuristic description, which agrees with the postulates of SR, AND with quantum physics. There is a hushed silence and all those fully (Ph) "indoctrinated" just turn away without comment like the three monkeys (exquisite though they may be). 'Different' is not 'wrong', just unfamiliar. If what we have is wrong then what is correct must be different, yes?

      Can anybody offer any intelligent falsification of that model? ... ...Hello...?

      Fundamental physics Eh? ...Is there hope?

      Peter

      PS. Any chance of a 10 minute podcast Zeeya?

      If anybody IS interested, a longer more complete version of the essay is here; Much ado about something.

      • [deleted]

      I was unable to find a single valid argument in this article. No conclusion follows from the premises. Either I am getting stupid or physics has reached the final stage of putrefaction.

      Pentcho Valev

        • [deleted]

        " Either I am getting stupid or physics has reached the final stage of putrefaction."

        Before I choose, Pentcho, I want to ask you what you think the premises of the article are.

        Tom

          • [deleted]

          Tom,

          "Time is fundamental to our interpretation of the world yet we very rarely question our choice of timekeeper."

          Hint: The article is a big head scratch over why a presumed fundamental, the vector of time, is so uncooperatively ambiguous.

          Why do you think that is so?

          Could it be that time is not so fundamental, or is it another multiworlds situation, where every clock forms its own reality?

          • [deleted]

          The main conclusion seems to be this:

          "If you choose to measure time using one type of clock in the early universe, the history of the cosmos would pan out very differently, than if you chose another."

          This is nonsense per se. The history of the cosmos cannot depend on anyone's choice of clocks.

          The premises that entail this conclusion are to be looked for in the preceding text but I found no statements there logically related to the conclusion.

          Pentcho Valev

          • [deleted]

          John, it's relativity -- which is a classical theory -- not the multiworlds intepretation of quantum mechanics, in which "every clock forms its own reality."

          Tom

          Tom,

          Wasn't your difficulty from assuming it as an 'either/or' question? Mutual exclusivity is essential for logical 'frames' but I suggest it's not 'absolute'.

          John.

          I agree, time is not 'fundamental' at all, more a confusing red herring. Just a word we've invented. Perhaps we should all speak Chinese (it may yet come!) and get a fresh view of it. We invent a machine that emits something at regular intervals, then worship it like some mysterious god! Is that not wholly pagan?

          Peter

          • [deleted]

          Tom,

          No, every clock measures its own time. They all exist in the same reality. GPS satellite clocks are not in another reality from those on the ground.

          "In the absence of an external clock, Albrecht decided to use the "internal time" concept of general relativity and define time relative to his quantum components. The simplicity of his computer model meant the clock was nothing more than a list of numbers indicating the progress of time. The physics and evolution of the quantum system were driven entirely by how those states of the clock were correlated with the other evolving parts."

          "If you choose to measure time using one type of clock in the early universe, the history of the cosmos would pan out very differently, than if you chose another. In other words, when considered at the quantum level, different clocks led to arbitrarily different physical laws."

          The evident problem for QM is that it does presume a universal clock, rather than each to its own. What if we simply treat time as frequency and have it emerge from action? Then we can have a universal present, but different clock rates.

          • [deleted]

          Every timing mechanism is a rate of change. The reference for timing is a conceptual constant rate of change. That is, within the realms of practicality, every timing mechanism is synchronised. Otherwise the whole system of timing, ie time as 'told' by any given timing mechanism, is useless. Time is concerned with the frequency at which any given physically existent state alters to the next in the sequence, ie it is a difference between physical realities, and not a feature of any given physical reality.

          Einstein's concept of relativity is nonsense. Section 1 part 1 1905, demonstrates this, he neither understood how timing worked, nor that there was a differentiation between physical existence and the photon based representation of it which we receive. So the timing difference which actually occurs between time of physical existence and time of receipt of photon based representation thereof, which is fundamentally driven by spatial relationship, was incorretly asserted by him as being a feature of physical existence.

          Paul

          • [deleted]

          Paul,

          "Otherwise the whole system of timing, ie time as 'told' by any given timing mechanism, is useless. Time is concerned with the frequency at which any given physically existent state alters to the next in the sequence,"

          The measure of time is regular sequence, but the arrow of time is due to the irregular environment, otherwise time would be nothing more than a metronome.