Q&A with Paul Davies: What is Time?

Edit;

" while the measure of time remains constant to a stable dimension, since the assumption is that light will take longer to cross this expanded distance"

John, Matt,

the description I gave is very much at odds with the view of eternalism Quote "Eternalism is a philosophical approach to the ontological nature of time, which takes the view that all points in time are equally "real", as opposed to the presentist idea that only the present is real, Wikipedia. Though it isn't the present that is real but that arrangement preceding the observed present, with no temporal delay component at all. That is not to say observation of former arrangements and events are not real but it is a different kind (or facet)of reality. I think the eternalist block time idea is a mistake, taking the ability to observe past events and objects as evidence of the continued existence of such things. Where it is actually only the EM and other sensory data persisting in the environment. So the past can be seen but not visited, allowing both non simultaneity of events for different observers and no grandfather paradox.

That is why I will not be giving up my view that there are two distinct kinds of reality despite Tom's supposition that I might. Having decided that we are not dealing with the material reality existing -Now, when participating in astronomy we must be dealing with the second kind the output of data processing.What is present to the observer are images of things and events that have already passed. In that space-time image reality things can appear that do not happen to the material source objects in space. For example the image of a galaxy may be stretched out of shape as the sensory data has been affected by the gravity of objects, as the sensory data has passed near, but the material galaxy itself has not been stretched in that way.

Georgina,

I agree with your position that both these understandings of the reality, the perception and its cause, have to be considered. For example, It's not just perceptions of distant galaxies, versus their physical reality, but virtually everything else. We will always see the sun as moving across the sky, from east to west, yet we now know it is the earth turning west to east. As individual beings, we will always perceive change as a sequence of events and so rationally consider it as the present 'moving' from past to future, when it is the creation and dissolution of these events, which moves them from the future column to the past column. As I've been pointing out, it is a form of dichotomy, as energy goes from past form to future form, the form goes past to future.

There are many ways we have to consider reality on different levels and interconnections and not expect it to be just one lump of perception, because this reality isn't an object lump, but connections between different fields, objects, models, etc. There is no one reality, from the perceptual point of view, because perception is inherently subjective. Like taking a picture, we constantly have to focus, to isolate the signal from the noise, while different signals could be extracted from the same or related light/noise, etc, trying to combine them only reduces it back to noise. Knowledge is emergent, not universal.

Regards,

John M

Hi Georgina,

Re "you wrote quoting me"( this (with respect Georgina : ) may avoid confusions like - "Tomorrow doesn't move Akinbo it doesn't exist. When it comes into being it is -Now." That is not at all a confusion but a response to Akinbo's particular question worded in a particular way which you have read and taken out of contexrt.

My apologies if i took that out of context. My point is that, imo, there seems to be a massive amount of confusion and differing opinion, about a "thing" people suspect exists, called "time".

And, one of the main problems i have found (and you may spot in many of the sensible and well written suggestions in this forum for example), is that people seem to start from the outset buy assuming that there "is" a thing called time - and carry the conversation on from there.

The problem being, if there is no such thing as time, and if instead matter just exists and interacts, then we may wast a lot of energy trying to explain (invalid concepts like) "yesterday", or "tomorrow" (or nexttoday as you suggest).

If we stop, and consider that perhaps the world is just rotating, the sun is just shining, we are just existing and interacting with the matter around us - and patterns are forming, and dissolving, at various rates in our minds, then we may see that the concept of "tomorrow" is completely unfounded, and does not need to be explained or explained away, or accounted for in any way.

also, we may see that the patterns in our minds that may lead us to think the term "yesterday" is valid , do no such thing. those patterns (we might call memories) - are just also "here".

Thus we may be wrong to assume there is a future, or past, or anything like them, and wrong to assume there is a thing called "time" that "passes", or needs to be explained or included in any understanding of the world.

mm

Hi Peter,

thanks for your reply,

re The comment; "so time must dilate" was Einstein's view (along with the box "contracting" not the coherent solution which followed. It appears you didn't understand or rationalise the solution.

Yes, sorry, as i say that was just a quote i picked up on quickly scanning your pdf just as i downloaded it, so i hadn't rationalised your solution, thanks for the light clock link, i can read it with your essay.

mm

Hi John, Georgina, et al

(this page may help with what I am trying to suggest here https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/the-arrow-of-time/star-light-and-raindrops )

Dear John, RE> your post .... what is commonly referred to as "blocktime," that there physically exists this dimension of all events and that through discovering the right mathematical formula, we could time travel through 'wormholes' to other times.

Obviously in the view you, I and Matt are considering, this would be impossible, because those past events have necessarily physically dispersed and we are seeing the evidence, not only of their existence, but their dissolution, since this residue is now in our present reality.

(My view is slightly, but significantly different to how you suggest, e.g.) Where ever I give talks on the possibility of timelessness, ( the latest just completed at the Edinburgh festival , http://youtu.be/RIPLcEIQZ68 ) I consistently try to get people to

1 - be wary of certain mental traps, and

2 - try to get them to really consider a very precise, particular possibility,

because in this way I think ALL problems relating to the idea of a thing called time can be seen to be invalid.

Specifically, (re traps) I'm suggesting we avoid (unscientifically) including any terms in a conversation that we have not scientifically proven to be valid, and we don't expect unvalidated terms to need to be explained or incorporated into our description of the world. (e.g. terms like "past" or "future")

And, re the possibility, I'm suggesting we consider...

"what if the universe is just filled with matter existing and interacting... would this be enough to mislead us into thinking terms and ideas like 'the past' and 'the future', and thus 'time', are valid?"

So, where you say...

Obviously in the view you, I and Matt are considering, this would be impossible, because those past events have necessarily physically dispersed and we are seeing the evidence, not only of their existence, but their dissolution, since this residue is now in our present reality.

To be very clear, while we are all suggesting similar things, my details differ importantly here, specifically...

I am suggesting there are no "past events" - instead the universe is (may be, imo), JUST filled with a load of matter moving and interacting - misleading us into thinking the term 'past' is valid and needs to be incorporated or explained.

so Re "those past events have necessarily physically dispersed and we are seeing the evidence, not only of their existence, but their dissolution, since this residue is now in our present reality."

That's almost exactly what I'm suggesting, but we can still simplify it further, say we are looking at the fragments of a shattered vase.

In this case it seems very sensible to say "[the vase] has necessarily physically dispersed and we are seeing the evidence, not only of their existence, but their dissolution, since this residue is now in our present reality"

But consider further, we are just seeing what we are seeing, we certainly have the idea that "the fragments were different in the past" - and I fully understand that , and the sense it makes - but here I am suggesting we really, really, really, consider the following question very carefully indeed...

"is there a past, or is there NOT a past?"

And (imo) one has to be very clear on the answer - while most people are happy to ignore the question or leave it vague (i.e. well there kind of has to be a past).

(its important to consider, logically, and scientifically, that even the IDEA "there may, or must be a past", is something that exists here, and only proves matter exists here, and can be in a formation, in a persons mind),

Re the vase it can help to consider that no part of the collection of atoms that make up "the vase" ever does not exist, or is not somewhere, or is not doing something... whether there are fused into a shape a person likes or not , or scattered in the winds , and we should also be aware that our thoughts "that the vase 'was' whole" are in fact also here 'now', and prove only that matter can exist and interact.

So, to be very precise, "this residue" , (e.g. shards of china) , "IS" the thing we are talking about.. it is not evidence that something else existed in a thing or place called "the past", it is evidence that matter exists and can be integrated or disintegrated, or be being integrated, or be being disintegrated. period

Similarly Georgina, where you suggest...

"when participating in astronomy we must be dealing with the second kind the output of data processing. What is present to the observer are images of things and events that have already passed."

I suggest a different, more rigorous analysis. e.g. if we are looking through a telescope at Jupiter's moon io, we might "say" we are seeing it as it "was" in "the past" some 40 minutes ago.

But logically that is not true... what we are seeing is, what we are seeing... i.e. the light that is physically here, coming out of the telescope and hitting our own retinas, here on earth.

And, imo, we should be very careful not to confuse the image we are seeing, i.e. the light from an object, with the object.

In other words, IO is doing what ever it is doing, and the light in transit from IO to earth is doing whatever it is doing, and the light we "are" seeing is in whatever formation it is in - but (imo) nowhere is there a "past".

So, i suggest, we are not seeing IO "as it 'was', in 'the past' ", we are seeing a bunch of photons as they are. And nothing disperses into a thing or a place called "the past". E.g. burn a cigarette, just because it is breaking up into little pieces that disperse and cannot be seen, this doesn't prove "it" is now "in the past", or that there is "a past", etc.

Similarly, we might say we are seeing a star that "no longer exists", but in fact we are sampling a couple of 5mm circles of a massive expanding shell of light - and refocusing them to form the "image" of a star... seeing the light as it is, and - very far from the star not existing - science tells us the precise opposite, i.e. that all of the matter and energy that makes up "the star" all, always exists, and is all somewhere, doing something... and none of it is "in" a place or thing called "the past".

As I say this link may be of interest...

https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/the-arrow-of-time/star-light-and-raindrops

And to summarise, what I am suggesting is that we may live in a sea of matter moving and changing such that we mistakenly thing the terms "past" and "future" and "time" may be valid", but it may all just literally be here "now" changing timelessly...

- Not eternally, as in endless "time"

- Not an infinite "block" of "space-time"

- Not "Presentist" ( with a "past" that has "gone", or a "future" that has not "yet" arrived)

- Not an infinitely thin slice of a thing called time... but...

Just everything, all here now, exactly as directly and only observed, matter existing moving changing and interacting, misleading us into thinking (much like the unseen emperors new robe), there is an invisible thing called time "passing".

mm

Matt,

while I agree with you on the physics, I think you are missing the the psychology and the physiology.

Our rational thought processes are very much a consequence of that sequential effect of individual experience. That's why it is so difficult to examine the issue of time objectively. Consider the construct of language; these sequential notations, letters, words, sentences, paragraphs, etc, all ordered in a sequential fashion.

If you try to present an intent which is clearly counter to the functioning of those you wish to convince, you only create resistance and that is not beneficial to your original purpose.

It would be like trying to persuade people not to consider the sun as moving across the sky and that they could only think of it as the earth turning. The larger need here is to teach people to be flexible in their thinking and not just fit everything into inflexible boxes and models. It is only when you have managed to expand their ability to examine reality from multiple points of view, that they can move out of whatever frame they are comfortable with and see that even it has its biases.

Regards,

John M

Matt,

you have very clearly set out your point of view, which does correspond to the viewpoint of myself and others including J.C.N.Smith who have been discussing them on this site for a number of years. I refer you to J.C.N.Smith's essay rethinking a key assumption about time Just removing time, as it is, as you point out, superfluous, and talking only of changes of configuration or arrangement is not sufficient to explain what is going on. The reality you describe contains the potential to form a different experienced reality into which time is woven.

You quoted me "when participating in astronomy we must be dealing with the second kind the output of data processing. What is present to the observer are images of things and events that have already passed." and then you wrote, Quote: "I suggest a different, more rigorous analysis. e.g. if we are looking through a telescope at Jupiter's moon io, we might 'say' we are seeing it as it 'as' in 'the past' some 40 minutes ago. But logically that is not true... what we are seeing is, what we are seeing... i.e. the light that is physically here, coming out of the telescope and hitting our own retinas, here on earth."End quote

First, I didn't say we are seeing events that are in the past but events that have passed, meaning have happened. I disagree with you on what I am seeing; What I am seeing, looking into a telescope, is not the light hitting my retina, that is what is happening but is not what I am seeing. I am seeing the output of the processing of that sensory data (the photons) into images by the visual cortex together with other brain areas allowing cognition , recognition and additional information such as the associated names. That image is my present experience though as you say it may be an image of an arrangement that existed 40 minutes ago.

Past present and future all belong to space-time. The present is the images being seen. The past for one particular observer is the images that he has already seen but now replaced by his new present. Due to the non instantaneous transmission of light the event that is the past for one observer may be another's present or the as yet to arrive data that will form yet an other observer's present, so it is what I call his pre-written future. Not in any way suggesting destiny or fate but only that the potential data to form those images already exists in the environment prior to receipt. That data from the event that has "past" is yet to be observed by some observers and so is their not yet present experience, not in the future but existing within the Object universe as a part of its arrangement, as the pre-written future, potential presents.

As the speed of light is extremely fast we are not generally troubled by this in everyday life. The slower speed of sound makes the phenomenon more easily understood. Beneath a thunder storm flash and bang may seem top occur simultaneously but a distant observer hears them separated, seeing the flash before the bang though to the first observer they occurred together. There isn't one present for both observers. Though they are both constituents of the same arrangement of the universe.

John ,

thanks for your reply. I agree with you about lumping all kinds of perception together being an oversimplification. It has been important for me to stress that what is occurring is not purely psychological but a phenomenon that also occurs for inanimate devices and sensitive materials. The Prime Reality Interface, the human sensory system, is not just a passive receiver though but active co-creator of experience. Filling in gaps, interpreting what is there, and generating an output. The gaps can be incorrectly filled, the interpretation can be incorrect and the output differs in a number of ways from the external reality represented.

Georgina,

It goes to idea I've been considering, that form and information are entirely a quantization of energy. Whether it is a thought, or a photon, what we think of as an entity, seems more of a connection. That the process of absorption gives what is absorbed as much its form as that which is absorbed.

Consider light striking a material surface: What really has the greater structure, the light, or the material absorbing it? So logically the absorbing material is not a neutral partner in this interface. Much as Robert McEachern points out, how much stored information in the mind is required to process even the most basic data, yet often the assumption is that the received input is carrying all the information. So just as you say, much of what we think we receive is really our interpretation of it, how much on that basic physical levels of photons, is the essential quantization more a function of its receipt, than its transmission? Now obviously the receiver does determine much of what is detected, such as movement will affect frequency, what spectrums are absorbed, vs. radiated, but is there any level at which this is not true, that there is some objective form, such as photons, or are even they a product of relationships? It seems the primary evidence photons are a unit is their standard quantization, but lots of things, drops of water at surface level for instance, are fairly standard.

While there are a lot of things in physics I know I am not going to wrap my head around, because my interests and approach to physics are more organic and social, than mathematical, that the field not only accepts such concepts as blocktime, but succumbs to fairly basic herd behavior in doing so, makes me somewhat skeptical about a lot of other assumptions.

Regards,

John M

John M,

Could you please comment on the video "Is the Big Bang a Hoax"?

Steve,

You are objecting to my clarification that time is an objective and ubiquitous measure on condition we ignore SR.

Einstein's Poincaré synchronization denies a ubiquitous now.

In "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper" he explained how he defined "simultaneity" and "time" on p.894, and on 897 he denied the possibility to attribute an absolute meaning to the notion of simultaneity. Einstein's time is not an ubiquitous but an observer-related and hence subjective, not an objective measure.

Perhaps in order to benefit from widespread desire to somehow agree with Einstein, you introduced two dimensions of time: proper time and action time.

SR did already distinguish between proper time and coordinate time. Is your action time identical with coordinate time? Are you the first one who claims that these two notions of time can be imagined as a single complex quantity?

Do you envision any practical relevance?

I wonder if your suggested opinion can explain Einstein's worry about the now.

My explanation is quite simple: Any model of reality is incomplete. The future is therefore open and qualitatively different from the past although this essential difference is of course not to be seen in theories that do not distinguish between past and future.

Eckard

Eckard,

I'll have to check it later, though I've been arguing against BBT for years. In fact, Zeeya put up a post on my suggestion about the topic.

Hopefully more people start to look at the logical basis for it a little more closely.

Regards,

John M

Dear Eckard.

I hope you dont mind an interjection, but I think you may find a very significant error here, re your post,

*Einstein's Poincaré synchronization denies a ubiquitous now.

In "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper" he explained how he defined "simultaneity" and "time"*

Because I think I fact Electrodynamics does not provide a valid definition of time or similarity, and provides no proof of time - but only assumes times existence. Specifically...

In the translated version of Einstein's paper (On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies),

( https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/special-relativity/the-electrodynamics-of-moving-bodies )

In section 1 "KINEMATICAL PART, § 1. Definition of Simultaneity", it says...

*If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time. Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by "time."*

* If, for instance, I say, "That train arrives here at 7 o'clock," I mean something like this: "The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events."*

I think if you look at this very logically and scientifically, it starts by stating *If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time."*, but in fact the example given just, and only compares the *"motion of a material point"*... to *the motion of another material point*.

i.e. the claim is made that we compare motion to a thing called time, but in fact all that is shown is that the location and motion of a large motor, i.e. a train, can be compared to the location and motion of a *"small hand"* attached to a small motor.

(just "calling" a small motor a "watch", is not scientific proof that a thing called time exists and passes).

Also, in saying , "The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.", the paper uses the word "simultaneous", and thus, the paper implies (but does not prove in any way at all) that the concept of "different" times is valid.

In fact, the observable truth is that the matter that makes up the train and the "Small hand", always seem to exist, and are always somewhere doing something, whether they are near or far from each other, or are being compared or not. i.e. no proof is given that "different times" or non simultaneity is a valid concept.

If I am wrong about the above please do let me know, but if I am right, consider the consequences.

You might assume the above must be wrong because SR proves "time dilation" and therefore time must exist, But, a proper examination of Electrodynamics ( SR ) (imo) shows it does not prove the existence of time, but only assumes the existence of time.

Thus, what is shown mathematically, and in thought experiments such as the moving light "clock", is imo, not that a thing called time exists, and is dilated with motion, but only that a photon can be set to oscillate between 2 mirrors, and the oscillation is dilated if the box is moving.

i.e, imo, Relativity does not prove the existence of time, or that it can be dilated, or that the concept of non-simultaneity is valid. And thus Minkowski is wrong to conclude that SR shows "only a kind of union" of space and time exist.

Just thought I mention the possibility,(I have a video re what I'm suggesting on the FQXI contest if its of any interest), If I am wrong, and if there is a part of Electrodynamics etc, that actually does not actually just assume "time" exist, but actually shows a valid reason to say "time" exists and passes, i'd appreciate a pointer to which section.

Yours

Matthew Marsden

"Does Time exist? How 'Time travel Paradoxes' can't happen without "the past". "

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2245

ps: sorry for all the "actually"s

mm

Mathew,

Maybe, I didn't understand what "very significant error" you are referring to. I maintain that SR denies an ubiquitous objective now.

Einstein wrote on p. 894 [We] "have evidently obtained a definition of "simultaneous," or "synchronous," and of "time".

On p. 897 he concluded:

"that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system."

In German he twice wrote "betrachtet":

"dass zwei Ereignisse, welche von einem Koordinatensystem aus betrachtet, gleichzeitig sind, von einem relativ zu diesem System bewegten System aus betrachtet, nicht mehr als gleichzeitige Ereignisse aufzufassen sind."

The interpreter translated "betrachtet" in the first case with viewed and in the second case with envisaged. "Look upon" is also not quite the same as auffassen.

Actually, simultaneity cannot at all be directly observed. Einstein claimed: "we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, and this is due to his Poincaré synchronization. In other words, this very basis of SR is not justified at all.

Eckard

Just some comments on the actual lead article to this forum.

Professor Davies says,

"time of course exists. We measure it with clocks. Clocks don't measure the flow of time, they measure intervals of time. Of course there are intervals of time between different events, that's what clocks measure".

But this seems to be jumping to conclusions, if we consider "time of course exists. We measure it with clocks.", then that's great because we can have a close look at a "clock" and really work out what it "measures".

As far as I can tell, any "clock" is typically a "motor", driven by a store of energy in a clear and specific place ( e.g. a spring or electrical cell). And, with the power supply in place the hands on the motor will rotate, depleting the energy source as they do so.

Without the power source the motor consistently wont be running.. so the machine clearly measures something to do with the spring, or cell etc

So a "clock" is a motor that "measures", and releases energy through its mechanism in a clear 3d path. Such a motor also displays examples of smooth regular motion as its hands rotate.

Taking "dimension" to be a "A measurable extent of a particular kind", we can see the measurable, or comparable motion of the tip of a rotating hand, and usefully compare that motion to some other motion (e.g. the motion of a runner on a track).

But while a close examination of a "clock" seems to show, the existence and flow of the measurable and store-able energy in it's spring or battery etc, such a motor does not seem to also show, at all, is the existence of a "temporal record of all events existing in some way in a 'past' ".

Likewise such a motor does not seem to show the existence of a "future", and does not seem to show that extra to the flow of energy through its mechanism, in clearly defined physical paths, there is also a thing called "time" that exists and is "passing". Also such a motor does not seem to actually show "intervals" of "time", or to measure them

As far as I can tell, all a clock seems to actually show is that a set of hands can be made to rotate on a numbered dial without significant acceleration.

Thus, given this is a scientific forum, we have to consider it may be very widespread "confirmation bias" that leads us to assume that the dimension ( measurable fact or quantity) of a rotating hand (i.e nothing more than motion) in some way also measures "intervals" of an unseen "thing" passing in its own invisible dimension.

( i.e. whether time exists or not, observing the simple motion of a rotating hand , and just "calling" that example of motion "time" is not a scientific proof, just as it is illogical for some one to observe a dog, "call" it a dragon, and start thinking they have proof "dragons" exist, and wondering whether dragons are real or emergent) .

Where the professor says "Of course there are intervals of time between different events, that's what clocks measure."

This may be worth looking at closer. "Of course there are intervals of time between different events" implies it is in some way obvious, or a priori, that there are "intervals" between "events"... and thus time exists... and may be dilated.. and a 4th dimension... and part of space time... etc ( so a lot is at stake on this small point).

But consider the apparent "interval of time" between receiving a very hot coffee, and it being cool enough to drink safely. You may get the coffee, and notice a clocks big hand pointing straight up. The coffee cools, and the clock hands rotate. As the "big" hand rotates, you find that as it is 30 degrees from the top, the coffee is cool enough to drink.

But, here consider very, very carefully what is actually observed, and what is not observed. It is observed that coffee in a coffee pot can be being heated and getting hotter. And that cups of coffees can be very hot. And that cups of coffee in a cooler room can be cooling down loosing their heat to their surroundings.

It is also observed that motors can be running if they have a power source, and that motorised hands can rotate on numbered dials... and that people can be observing and comparing both things (coffee cooling, hands rotating) , or not.

But whether motorised hands are rotating or not, and if coffee is heating, or cooling or not, what does not actually seem to be observed is that there is also a thing called "time" passing between a "future" and a "past", or that an "interval" of this time thing passes as coffee is cooling... or as anything is happening.

What I think is observed (in this experiment and everywhere else), is that everywhere, everything is "constantly" doing something... be it gaining or loosing heat from its surroundings, having energy flow through its mechanism, integrating, disintegrating or being stationary, or moving etc, etc, etc. But in all cases, everywhere , it seems matter is existing, and energy is flowing through it, and there is no indication that extra to quantities of energy things also take "intervals" of a thing called "time".

(an important point here, what I am saying is falsifiable, so if anyone reading can scientifically prove to a reasonable degree,(as opposed to just "claim", or duplicate famous quotes), that there is a past, or a future, or that extra to energy a thing called "time" must be present for things to be moving and changing... or if anyone can prove matter/energy does not just exist and move in all directions,as constantly observed, then my suggestion is moot).

So, with respect, I think it may be extremely important for anyone wanting to scientifically understand this aspect of the universe, to first consider that despite common assumptions...

, we do not seem to actually directly or indirectly observe " intervals of a thing called time passing from an invisible future to an invisible past in a 4th dimension" ( or how ever each person tries to describe this concept)

But we do seem to observe

1- Matter existing, and

2- Matter moving changing and interacting in all directions.

(this leaves the mathematics of Special Relativity valid and intact... but more about the fact that moving oscillators run slow, than being a proof that there is a thing called "time", merged with space, that can be traveled through or dilated etc).

And to consider that while all that is said about a thing called "time" may seem to be true, none of it seems verifiable, or falsifiable... i.e. "time" seems to be something that looks valid if we make the evidence fit the idea... and yet we seem to have no scientific experiments, as per the scientific method, to prove the existence of time, or the past or the future. This is why I think the theory of time may be "the elephant in the room, wearing the emperor's new robe".

Please note, I respect Professor Davies, I'm only posting this here because he expresses some common assumptions re "time existing" (that I think can be seriously questioned), and because I entered a video in the FQXI competition, expanding on the above, and which happens to reanalyse an article by the professor on "the wormhole billiard ball paradox".

Just my thoughts

Matthew Marsden

(auth "A Brief History of Timelessness")

"Time travel, Worm hole, billiard ball' paradox, Timelessly. (re Paul Davies- New scientist article) "

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2244

Let me defend Paul Davies. I guess your will not get much support. If I recall correctly some years ago I also used the expression "zeitlose Physik" but in a rather mocking attitude, in a critical meaning. In English I preferred "tense-less".

Kant, Poincaré, and Minkowski, the fathers of spacetime adopted the very old abstract concept of time scale along which the now is moving allegedly without any relevance for physics. They considered time as an a priori pre-existing dimension like space. Please find my explanation of the confusion in Fig. 1 of my 2012 essay "Questioning Pre-Mathematical Intuitions".

Did you enjoy seeing a movie running backward? This may illustrate how physics differs from reality. Physics always just provides models of reality.

Eckard Blumschein

Eckard, Matt,

I think there is a lot of the dynamics of psychology involved. As I've been arguing, structure is necessarily static, while energy is inherently dynamic and since physics prides itself in being intellectually structured, it has a built in preference for very ordered forms and structured arguments. The result being a form of academic obsession with increasingly arcane points, such as teasing out how the math could prove non-locality and whether it means it is physically real, when physical intuition is obviously opposed, yet leave increasing numbers of conceptual issues, especially surrounding the issue of time, which was the topic of the very first contest, unanswered, because this static conclusion has been reached and presumably settled, to the members in standing of the community.

Regards,

John M

John M,

"Obsession with increasingly arcane points" surrounding the issue of time? Yes, when I checked the winning essays of the first contest, I was disappointed. Most of them dealt with efforts to reconcile time with what I indeed consider rather arcane: quantum gravity. Carlo Rovelli even dealt with Loop Quantum Gravity. Considering spacetime a gospel is common to the whole establishment. George Ellis tried what I consider impossible: unification of what is obvious with theory. While at least Sean Carroll preferred a "Heraclitean Universe", Klaus Kiefer spoke of "fundamental timelessness, and Julian Barbour meant that "duration and the behavior of clocks emerge from a timeless law that governs change".

While I don't see any reason to doubt that there are timeless laws, they all missed a perhaps decisive point: reality is different from even the most sophisticated models in that according to Popper, the border between past and future is open to a limitless multitude of memories from past processes.

That's why I don't expect any relevance of the winning essays in science and technology. They missed the chance to reveal possibly decisive basic mistakes.

Incidentally, did you meanwhile check the video "Is the Big Bang a Hoax"? Even if the presentation may be a bit simplifying, I regard it worth looking at, not just for kids. Can you recommend other videos, too? To me it looks as if a discussion is not welcome.

Eckard