Dear Hector

WE HAVE 2 DIFFERENT KINDS OF SYMMETRY: DISCRETE AND CONTINUOUS.

BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM

DISCRETE SYMMETRY IS STATIC SYMMETRY(REFLECTIONS,PARITY,ETC). NOT DEMANDING MOTION,CHANGE IN TIME

CONTINUOUS SYMMETRY IS DYNAMIC, DEMANDING MOTION(ROTATIONS,TRANSLATIONS,SHIFTS,ETC) CHANGE IN TIME.

THE MOTION SUPPOSED TO BE DIFFERENT VELOCITY (FROM SMALL TO RELATIVISTIC)

WHEN WE GOING TO RELATIVISTIC VELOCITY OBJEKT GET DIFFERENT LORENTCIAN DEFORMATION AND CONTINUOUS SYMMETRY LOST ITS SENSE.WE GET SOME KIND SELF-REJECTION OF CONTINOUS SYMMETRY.

DOES DISCRETE SYMMETRY ONLY REAL SYMMETRY?

Yuri

Dear Hector,

I read your whole essay which is based on an innovative idea called motion. It appears true that Time without reference to Motion makes no sense as you have rightly grasped and also that Motion can be easily grasped by mind. You have lucidly analyzed the concept of Time from prehistorical period to the current period in a systematic way and have shown how it is invariably associated with the concept of Motion. You have also said clearly how the concept of Time is still perplexing physicists and philosophers alike. That is why you have said 'we measure motion and no time'. According to you, our concept of Time is derived by analyzing the concept of Motion and hence there are Past, Present and Future. This is a novel idea that is to be considered seriously. In solving the problem of quantum-gravity (QG), the concept of Time has also become a problem. In the previous fqxi essay contest (2012), in fact, the essay I presented was on QG. You need to work up hard on this problem and present a theoretic model based on these ideas systematically and then only, I feel, physics community will accept your ideas. Since you are a physician you better seek the help of some mathematician in this regard to help you in your task.

Thanks for presenting a thought provoking essay and wish you all the best in the essay contest. After seeing your response to this in my thread I am going to give your lucidly written essay a very high score of over 8.

Sreenath

Hector,

It was absolutely wonderful to read you essay. My last two essays have developed this and it's implications but I was beginning to think I was on my own and going crazy! I've often quoted Einstein's;

"There is no such a thing as an empty space without field. Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field."

Currently I describe that 'motion' as what turns a simple rotating dipole into a double helix, and show it's power.

The importance of this thesis can't be overstated. I propose that the great "simple idea" we've all been blind about is that, contrary to all current theory (including even interpretation of Einstein!) 'TIME' itself does not change or 'dilate,' only the emitted 'signals', physical motions of some 'thing' in motion, are effected, compressed or contracted, and they are not 'time'!

Thank you and very well done for your essay on this massively important subject. A top mark from me for sure. But how do we get more to throw off the blindness? I do hope you'll read (and score) my essay, which is entirely field and motion based, where the concept is developed to demonstrate it's power.

Congratulations, hold on for a big boost, and very best of luck in the run in.

Peter

Dear Hector,

Your essay contain bright ideas. You talk a lot about motion in your essay. If you see something and it disappears, has it moved? Or if something appear suddenly has it moved? That is, is moving from somewhere to nowhere a motion? If you say, No and the thing is no longer in its place, how can it not be motion? If you say, yes, then it means you don't have to know where something has gone or its new place before you say it has moved. You might find some quotes from Newton on motion in my essay interesting.

May all the best things come your way,

Akinbo

Dear Akimbo Ojo:

I am going to make things simple and understandable. With my clock I measure "motion", and I can demonstrate with centuries old proved facts, that what I am measuring is "motion". With your clock, what are you measuring? and, how can you prove, that what you are measuring, is what you said to be measuring?

Best whishes

Héctor

Dear Hector,

I didn't mean in that business sense of rating for I know that men of your sort are not interested in rating to your essay; but, however, it is my obligation to rate your essay because it is written with originality behind its back ground and I am doing injustice to my self if I don't rate your essay; it is in this sense I asked whether you are interested in rating my essay. Please be in touch in future too. I too have rated your essay more favorably.

Thanks for your response to my plea and wish you best of luck.

Sreenath

Dear Hector,

Interesting essay.

If we don't know what the absolute time is, we have clocks to synchronize our human activities. Atomic clocks are the most accurate time and frequency standards known.

I spent a lot of time understanding what the mesaurement of time means

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/math-ph/0510044

But on our topic of today I wrote

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

Time in quantum realm is weird.

Best wishes,

Michel

Hello Hector

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.

Good luck and good cheers!

Than Tin

Hector,

You have it all right, but you miss the reason why it is proving so difficult to accept and model. We, as individual points of reference, experience time as a sequence of events and so it becomes a vector from past to future, but the underlaying reality is that change is causing future potential to become past circumstance. For example, it isn't the earth traveling some dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, but that tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. Just as we see the sun moving across the sky, but the actual reality is this it is us moving the other way.

This was the subject of my Questioning the Foundations entry.

Physics only enforces the illusion by reductionistically treating it as a measure of duration, ie. past to future. As effect of action, ie. measure of change, time is similar to temperature. Time is to temperature what frequency is to amplitude.

As you point out, duration doesn't transcend the present, but is the activity occurring between measuring events, so it is not a vector encompassing past and future.

Different clocks run at different rates for the very clear reason you mention; They are separate actions. The cat is not both dead and alive because it is the actual course of events that determine its fate, as future potential collapses into past circumstance. Just as there could be ten winners before a race, but only one after it.

If time were a vector from past to future, wouldn't the faster clock move into the future more rapidly, but, as you mention, due to the thermodynamic activity, it ages/burns quicker and thus recedes into the past more rapidly.

I would think most people would find this interesting, but since narrative and linear logic are based on the temporal sequence, it calls into question the very essence of what makes us human and for most people, that is just sand in their gears. So we have all sorts of physics nonsense, as physicists focus on the static logic of math and not the dynamic processes of real physics.

My current essay covers aspects of this.

Regards,

John Merryman

5 days later

Dear John:

The explanation why the so called "time" is "motion" is quite clear the real problem I think, it is that as I said we inherit the incognita of what we are measuring from primitive men. The word "time" and not knowing what it means come together from the beginning of every civilization on earth- In every literature come the word "time", since we born we hear the word "time", we use the word and their derivatives very frequently during the day, every day of our life. Is possible but very difficult for everybody to express themselves without using the word "time". Since we born we put the word "time" in the neuronal circuits of our brain. Even Rovelli denying "time" existence to explain his relationist theory, refer to a subyacent "time" the "true time" and the "time" that lies beneath everything. Even denying "time" he can't get rid from the word, and he is a physicist. Before accepting that the so called "time" is "motion" you should abandon the word "time" and this is very difficult for everybody, people can't express themselves without using the "word" This attachment to the word prevail over the rational prove I gave in my essay that with the clock we measure "motion" and not the mysterious "time".

About your "different clock run at different rates" does not matter at what rate a clock run, always will be a good clock if the rate is maintained , the movements of the clock or the speed at which the hour hand run over the dial that's not matter if this speed is "constant" "uniform" "regular", the variable should have this condition to be a clock. With a "constant" "motion" we measure comparatively every "no constant" "motion" which integrates every change and transformation of everything physical existing thing.

Héctor

Dear Hector,

Thank you for your post on my blog. I already left you a post on this blog but it seems to have disappeared ?!

If I understand correctly what you are saying, then I think that we have a similar way to look at time. In my theory, past/present/future information co-exists in layers. In relation to each layer, the inner layers represent the past and the outer layers represent the future. There are as many "presents" as there are layers and they all form a coherent space-time continuum. To an external observer, we and our surrounding world are just information moving at the speed of light through the time dimension (the layers). So we could say that time is motion. You will understand better what I mean if you read my 3D Universe Theory. Let me know if that is in line with what you are explaining in your essay.

You can also read my essay but it is essentially the beginning of my theory.

Best regards,

Patrick

PS: my wife is also a psychiatrist !

Dear John:

The explanation why the so called "time" is "motion" is quite clear the real problem I think, it is that as I said we inherit the incognita of what we are measuring from primitive men. The word "time" and not knowing what it means come together from the beginning of every civilization on earth- In every literature come the word "time", since we born we hear the word "time", we use the word and their derivatives very frequently during the day, every day of our life. Is possible but very difficult for everybody to express themselves without using the word "time". Since we born we put the word "time" in the neuronal circuits of our brain. Even Rovelli denying "time" existence to explain his relationist theory, refer to a subyacent "time" the "true time" and the "time" that lies beneath everything. Even denying "time" he can't get rid from the word, and he is a physicist. Before accepting that the so called "time" is "motion" you should abandon the word "time" and this is very difficult for everybody, people can't express themselves without using the "word" This attachment to the word prevail over the rational prove I gave in my essay that with the clock we measure "motion" and not the mysterious "time".

About your "different clock run at different rates" does not matter at what rate a clock run, always will be a good clock if the rate is maintained , the movements of the clock or the speed at which the hour hand run over the dial that's not matter if this speed is "constant" "uniform" "regular", the variable should have this condition to be a clock. With a "constant" "motion" we measure comparatively every "no constant" "motion" which integrates every change and transformation of everything physical existing thing.

Héctor

Dear Hector,

This is a brilliant essay and it is the first one I see that talks about time as motion. I think that we are in agreement.

If you are interested, please take a look at my theory, I think that you will find that we have a lot of common viewpoints. Try to read it to the end (especially the coherent spacetime continuum paragraph) and let me know if my representation of past/present/future matches your ideas.

You can also take a look at my essay but it is essentially the begining of my theory.

Cheers,

Patrick

PS: I am married to a psychiatrist !

Dear Héctor,

I salute your efforts to clarify the problem of time. Your essay shows you put much time and deep philosophical thinking in this investigation. I agree that this is about "motion", or "change", and there are many complementary angles to look at time, depending on the problems we want to understand and solve.

Best regards,

Cristi