An Accidental Universe

Jim and Georgina:

The last part of my last post I sed you both, was not understandable I think I corrected well and in this post I send you back

How come the so called "time" became "movement". I can't make it shorter..

Chapter one: this is not proved at all, but it is probable and would help a lot to understand how the so called "time" came by the hand of men to satisfied his needs, and this would clarified the way to also understand, how "time" just became a "remnant word" without any meaning, clearing the way to let as see that in fact we are measuring "movement". Einstein said that looking into the origin of prescientific concepts as "time" and "space" we are as in an anthropologist search.

Certainly the first thing that call the attention of every living creature on the planet surface was the sun. For men since the very beginning that he could be considered men, light and obscurity were observed by them, and the conclusion that sun give them light and warm during day, and its lack darkness and cold during night, and after the fact that this could be expected repeatedly by men animals and plants became certain.

Men realized that sunrise repetition limited periods of about the same length that he called "day" I am convinced he already new how to count, and already on that epoch, before any civilization came about, he start comparing the length of their trips with "sun movement", when it went hiding and came back making a day. I think this was the first comparative measuring of the "movement" the sun made with his "movement" made during his trip on land. It was the first measuring of "movement" with "movement", naming trips, a one or two suns trip, or one or two days trip, probably it was the process of measuring, that were called "counting time", now days we probably called them "counting sunrises" or counting days but the word "time" remained, describing a comparative measuring between, what he thought were sun "movement" with his "movement" during his trip, such description of comparative "movement" did not reach our days and where forgotten. People keep saying we count "time". After this step they start dividing "sun passages movement", in several parts to measure with more precision , probably millenniums later Egyptians were able to divide the day in 24 equal parts which were called hours and later Sumerians divided the hour in 60 minutes and the minute in 60 seconds, and now days, in millions parts with the atomic clock maximizing precision . Heraclito, hundred years later Plato, and Aristotle thought about what the word "time", already imposed, meant, the first one thought was a manifestation of "movement", Plato a celestial body movement" and Aristotle firmly said "time" must be "movement" but a few lines later he retracted (continues )

Héctor

Hector,

thank you for sharing your thoughts on time. I agree in that (a type of) movement is necessary for passage of time. The best candidate, in my mind, seems to be the minimization of potential energy, as even a body that appears to be stationary will be undergoing that kind of motion. For example a stationary car is still be moving with the motion of the Earth as it continually minimizes its potential energy . That's a little different from measurement of time which requires only any regular change.

I too have given time a lot of thought over many years. I spent some time classifying the different types and more recently have developed an explanatory framework which has -passage of time- as something physically distinct from -time within observed space-time-.Both kinds are important in physics and in my opinion and should not be muddled. It is not easily explained in a few lines though.In my 2011 essay I discuss the work of Mc Taggart on time. There is a high resolution explanatory framework diagram in the discussion thread of my 2012 essay, if you are interested.

Georgina:

Iam just read your post. We don't understand each other at all. You just can't use a word that you don't know its definition or empiric meaning, that none of your senses sense, during the last century a psudoscience were created arond the so called " time" with his own words.Please read my last post after I corrected, and this one, pleaseeeeeeeee, forget about time.

Chapter 2. Later came the copies of "sun passages movements" which science already knew that that were not "sun passages movements" that make "days", but an "earth constant rotational movement". These more practical copies than the "sun clock" were of different design, but all of them have a "common and indispensable property" to be considered a clock, all of them allow us and make us able to count the passage of a "constant", "uniform", "regular" "movement" (with always the same speed).

This "constant movement" is the only "variable" that could be considered a clock. Because those "constant movements" are the ones that would make us able to measure all the other movements that are not "constant". "The fractions of earth constant rotational movements" that would be represented on them, generally by numbers, as hours, minutes and seconds... that should be called "movement units" and no "time units".

There are plenty of variables, but can't be considered clocks because these are not "constant movements".

Clocks were created to measure all the "movements" that are not "constant" that allow changes and transformations of all kind that men are interested on.

"Movement": everything with physical existence "moves", so "movement" is everywhere , galaxies, molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles moves.

"Movements" make possible every change or transformation, for us the more important transformation ¡ life!.

Men measure everything distance, weight, sound, How they are not going to measure "movement". They were measuring "movement" before any civilization came about, unconsciously , because they thought they were measuring the so called "time".

"Movement" has not claim existence on its own, but only as a quality or property of physical existing things.

"movement measurement" were covered, by a word older than all civilizations ,the so called "time". It became hide from mankind sight before written history began.

So mankind remained measuring a thing, which nobody knew from where came from, they called "time" and nobody knew or know what it is, but it 's measure was and is so use full, that became indispensable for men, especially for science. please read what I call Chapter one and Chapter 2

Hector

Hi Hector,

I have read your posts. I understand that you want to replace the word "time" with movement or movement measurement. Thank you for further clarification of your idea.

There are lots of different kinds of time. Subjective time that is experienced, clock time, time co-existing in the mathematical fabric of space-time, universal change giving passage of time, imagined or recollected historical time. They are not all the same although they all go by the same word "time". That's what I meant by differentiation into different kinds.You are talking specifically of the passage of time. I just said what physical process I thought might most likely be driving that universal movement.

Hector

It is not just movement, ie alteration in relative spatial position, it is any form of alteration. Physical existence is altering, from one existent state to the next. And apart from what, why, how, alteration occurs at a rate. This is what timing is calibrating, the rate of alteration, irrespective of what is altering. That is why time/timing is expressed in terms of earth movement, because that was the first timing device. But these devices just 'tell' the time, and for the system to be operational, they have to be synchronised, ie the reference for timing is a conceptual constant rate of change.

Paul

Georgina:

I talk about what I call "the so called time" just because is the word that everybody through history used referring to measuring "movements", with a "constant movement" measuring no "constant movements" on the epoch that the word "time" were crafted science didn't exist, I say "word" just because it is not a true concept neither, to be one I suppose it should be able to be described and recognized. With "movement" I am able to understand and explain why inertia and gravity slow it, with "movement" I am able to craft the only workable definition of Duration: As the period of change or transformation allowed for movement and limited by men. Dictionary description of duration is made with the word "time" and description of the word "time" is made with the word duration. It is useful anyway

Just because when we measure "movement" we are not conscious of it, we think we are measuring "time", that's why the dictionary description of duration become useful. "Space -time" knowing that the so called "time" is "movement we can defined with the following words: "space-movement" does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field representing reality, as I suppose Einstein would descrived. There are many derivatives of the word "time" to really understand them, we should know that "the flux of time" is just "movement" and finally we should be conscious that "time" is nothing. Of course if one day people accept "time" as " movement" the remnant word "time" would be hear at least for a couple of centuries more. Is, just the change of position respect the rest of things. I am not competing Georgina I just tried to leave this here before I leave. Thank you for your posts.

Best whishes

Hector

Paul:

You said: "It is not just movement, ie alteration in relative spatial position, it is any form of alteration. Physical existence is altering, from one existent state to the next".

You can't move without altering thing, you can't alter anything without movement. When I say that every physically existence thing moves, I say is altering. There can't be movement without alteration, change or transformation, we can't have change without alteration, transformation or movement. etc. any of them can happen without the others happening. The problem that all the derivatives of the word "time" depend on the knowledge we have of this word. The word has no definition , no empiric meaning, can't be sensed by any of our senses, any men designed devise can tell nothing about it, even I think it is not a "concept" because to be a real concept you should be able to described it and recognized it. Without "movement" there is not any possibility of "rate" existence. Paul. Thank for your answer.

Best whishes

Hector

Hector,

There is a small group of people who post comments on FQXi blogs from time to time who seem to have overlap in their opinion of what passage of time must be.That's nice because we reinforce each others confidence in the approach. There have been numerous, sometimes lengthy, conversations on the subject here.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on time too. It is nice to be able to read what other people think and time is a very important subject IMHO. As you will have seen there was an FQXi essay competition dedicated to the subject, (which was held before I found this site.) Best wishes to you also.Georgina.

Hector

Indeed. I suspect movement is involved in every form of alteration. But, only in a few is it the actual cause as well. That is, it is a manifestation, or consequence, of something else. In most cases, the alteration in relative spatial position results from whatever is the driver of change.

"The problem that all the derivatives of the word "time" depend on the knowledge we have of this word. The word has no definition , no empiric meaning, can't be sensed by any of our senses,"

That is not a problem. Everything depends on knowledge (ie properly verified information as at that time). Neither is the issue about the label (ie word) chosen, the concern is what physical phenomenon does this relate to. And the answer is the 'turnover' rate (the rate at which alteration occurs) in physical reality, or conceptualised aspects thereof. You sense a tree altering colour, bird flying, the White House continuing to exist, don't you? There are two interrelated ontologically incorrect underlying concepts in the way we view our existence, for understandable reasons:

1 We do not realise that it must occur in a sequence, one physically existent state at a time. This is because of the sheer speed of the alteration. Which leads to all sorts of misconceptions, such as what constitutes distance, but more obviously, that there is duration within any given physically existent state, which there is not. Duration is an aspect of the difference between physically existent states.

2 We tend to attribute what we see as 'things' with a level of permanence they do not have. This is a consequence of not realising our physical existence is sequence. We designate 'things' on the basis of superficial physical characteristics. And so long as they continue to manifest themselves, indeed, even if they change somewhat, the 'thing' is deemed to have persisted in existence. But this is not what is happening in physical reality. At the level of conceptualisation we operate at, the White House continues to exist, but it is actually not the same configuration of whatever constitutes it from one point in time to the next.

Paul

The reason the "Universal Expansion" is accelerating is because the expansion (new space) emmanates from each individual stellar massive body. From our perspective, the first line of galaxies closest to our own offers the first spatial expansion we see. Add to that the next outer galaxy (adding new space), and the next (again adding more space), and the next (and more), etc. The additive effect of all this new space is the "acceleration" of the expansion we see. The farther out we look, the faster this acceleration will be, and of course the greater the Red Shift. Take 500 people in a room each blowing up a balloon. Take the person in the center of the room. He/she sees the expanding universe "accelerating" (all the balloons being filled at once).

The "raisins" are adding to the space. [raisin loaf analogy we often here on TV]. They are not static entities while the balloon expands. They are in fact the cause of the expansion and at the expense of mass. Mass goes down as its rate of travel increases.

0.02762u = 25.7MeV = 14,952,942.08 pico meters cubed of space

(Mass) = (Energy) = (Space)

And energy is conserved, as space is created from traveling mass.

At very slow rates of travel, this spatial manifestation is not noticeable, as the above equation follows a Lorentz transformation (time dilation). The higher rates = Dark Energy; while the lower rates = Dark Matter; while no rate = Black Hole

Red shift anomalies are expalined by this same effect.

The night sky is very different when one accepts the above as reality. It is the night sky I now believe in. It is not the night sky I grew up with.

I need someone to join me in seeing the same night sky I do.

www.CIGTheory.com

Yuri,

OK - yes but I am not too good at "G" but yes; if you are saying the constant varies and this leads to varying field densities (and that is what the Cavendish experiment was assessing), then yes, I agree, "G" is not constsnt. In CIG, I call the cosmological constant the cosmological non-constant which arises from varying rates of travel. The rates of travel arise from the desire for things to reach time equilibrium with one another. The greater the dis-equilibrium, the greater the rate at which equilibrium will return (greater speed).

Did "G" in Newton's equation then have anything to do with Einsteins adding of the cosmological constant (I don't think so) but I've never been taught this. But, the two are tied together somehow. Eintseins "cosmological constant" was to counter the pull of Newton's "G" , yes? This because Einstein believed in a static Universe. Hubble cahnged that.

Anyhow, more of interest (& don't forget to try and see my night sky; I feel very alone...) - see my previous posting.

More that may be of interest:

So in CIG, the entire Standard Model represents various manifestations of the actual permutations of possible spacetime(s) opportunities. The spacetime(s) itself becomes the particle(s) dependent upon the spacetime's degree of curvature. And the rate of travel determines the degree of curvature (field density)which ultimately determines the particle's spatial size. The field density also determines the temperature of the field (horizon problem). Are all identical (more or less as nothing is identical) particles (i.e. muons, photons, electrons, omega, k, sigma, pi, neutron) the same size and travel the same rate? Essentially YES - and that's what makes them the same particles.... Exactly because they travel the same rate, and therefore exhibit themselves as the same size. CIG attempts to explain why the particles are the particles they are. It explains why big things are big (and slow) and little things are little (and fast). One should have a clear understanding of the mechanisms by which traveling mass turns to Dark Matter, Dark energy, etc., if one understands CIG Theory.

CIG also offers a reason why the particles are the particles they are.

Does anyone know if there are any correlating tables with regard to particle speed versus size. This, to help confirm CIG?

Somewhere I posted why big things are big and small things are small. I forgot where on FQXi I posted this. As per CIG, big things are big (and slow) and little things are little (and fast), because slow things retain mass, while fast things lose mass and create space. Fast things get small as they lose mass.

Particles tend to congeal (create massively bigger entities) as things attempt to reach time equilibrium with their surrounding environment.

All massively large bodies (galaxies) and small bodies (atoms) follow the same MTS pattern (see www.CIGTheory.com). This foundational MTS symetrical reality [dense core (tight curvature), proceeding to, respectively: heavy Dark Matter, light Dark Matter, heavy Dark Energy, light Dark Energy, pure vacuum space)] is found everywhere.

This then because the tendency is to have each layering (reason for spectral lines) attempting to reach a time (movement/%"c"")equilibrium with its neighboring layer.

"The particles are the spacetime" and CIG explains as best it can how matter and spacetime are one and the same, and convert to one another. The concept that matter curves spacetime and spacetime tells matter how to move (as seen on TV), per CIG Theory, is understood as follows:

The spacetime fabric is simply another form of the particle. MTS. And, the creation of Space (accelerating Universe)is also offered in the same theory.

As is the equivalency of an atomic mass unit to a spatial quantity (the CUPI quantification) at whatever rate (speed) the process took place.

The proton field density of any given periodic tabled element determines the curvature of the "electron" field surroundig it. The bigger the "proton field", the greater the electron field (number of electrons). This because the denser 'proton" field warps more spacetime (electron field) for obvious gravitational reasons. The process is self stimulating.

E = mc2 is offered in CIG Theory as an actual physical concept. That being: matter to space and back to matter again (forward/reverse time vector "T" [c]). All the energy is represented by matter converted to space (the blast volume in nuclear explosions) and the space back to matter.

Please understand CIG Theory.

Somewhere I posted the following & CIG is trying to weave everything into one concept - please help further CIG's intentions from an academic standpoint.

Different Gravitational Fields = Different Spacetime curvatures = Varying Cosmological Constants (actually non-constants) = Different Spatial Temperatures (Horizon Problem) = Different Times (dilations) = Different Rates of Travel (%"c" of traveling mass) = Different degrees of Matter (Standard Model, Stellar Masses, Heavy Dark matter, Light Dark matter, Dark Energy, 100% Cocoa) = MTS = Different Volumes of Space (the expanding Universe) = Different Densities of Matter (Black Holes being one) = Different Masses (>rate = less mass)[E = mc2; hold Energy constant, rate goes up, and mass goes down) = CIG Theory

To have "c", we must start at zero velocity; for "c" to be massless, it must have started with mass; It lost that mass as it approached rate "c". The Matter (mass) offered itself up as nnew Spacial Volumes. MTS. CIG Theory.

Peter - I owe you further explanation (haven't forgot)

doug

Douglas

Your arguments contain very many words.Please try express your thoughts simple way.

Yuri,

simple way

everything is everything

out of money

doug

Yuri,

There are a lot of ideas and concepts in my postings, most of which randomly wander from topic to topic. Please select one or two ideas that you are most interested in, and I will attempt to offer a simplified/clarified explanation. Recognize that my math may not be able to support my ideas, since I am so poor in math. Hopefully, some of my ideas are explained sufficiently to allow others tp apply a deeper level of physics and the associated math that goes along with it.

I am convinced the ideas themselves represent reality/nature of things.

doug

I hope Andreas Albrecht can understand you....

I tend to agree with Barbour that there is no time dimension. The Universe has just one quantum state that evolves. Humans, animals or computers can memorize portions of the universal state in the order in which they occurred- and that creates the illusion of time. If so it is immaterial what clocks are used to compare these different states either as they occur or in hindsight. In other words the laws of the Universe should not depend on which clocks are used to measure an essentially emergent aspect of it.

Vladimir you said Quote:"Humans, animals or computers can memorize portions of the universal state in the order in which they occurred- and that creates the illusion of time." With respect, I think you should have said -' in the order in which the sensory data is processed into output'. As that -might not be- the order in which the events occurred and the potential sensory data data was formed.

The time dimension pertains to the distribution of the potential sensory data in the environment and the Image universe formed from it, not to the structure of the material Object universe.An important question to ask is which universe is being measured, the image or the object? The hindsight image that you mention can be very different from the material events themselves. As the potential sensory data in the environment can undergo transformations after it has been produced, there can be alterations during processing, and memory too is malleable and not perfect immutable recording.

I have been thinking that not only can an object (such as one of Julian's fixed angle triangles) undergo rotation, translation and scaling changes it might also undergo origami like changes. Though once the fixed angled shape has been "copied into" light data the range of possible transformations are increased. The potential sensory data is something very different from the object even though the image produced from it might appear superficially the same..

Vladimir,

I think the existence of a time dimension in some form is inescapable. When you say "The Universe has just one quantum state that evolves", what is it evolving in? To fully describe the state requires more than just 3 spatial numbers, even if there is no ordering to the different "evolved" states. In other words, 3 space does not by itself allow evolution/change.

With regard to Barbour, I don't believe he has done away with time at all. He certainly has done (attempted to do) away with motion by his "static configuration" description. But to me, there is still an assumed a priori time dimension, otherwise his configurations would be in a sense superimposed in an undifferentiable "block". In which case his "time capsules" and our memories would be impossible, even in his description.

Roy,

the imagined sequence of arrangements in space (not space-time) can be imagined along a time line, which is just imaginary not an existing thing -not an actual dimension of the Universe.The earlier versions of the Object- Universe are recycled and only the youngest iteration exists. Where as the output from processing potential sensory data, giving an image of the universe, does have a time dimension; as the data arriving at the observer at the same time, from further away, was produced from an earlier iteration of the Object-Universe arrangement.