Q&A with Paul Davies: What is Time?

I get the idea from Dixon's work on the normed division algebras that more basic than particles, waves, or strings are *systems* made of parts, which can be assembled (by multiplication) and disassembled (by division). But this still leaves us with the parts to think about. I will make the attempt!

I get the idea from Barwise's work on non-well founded sets that a formula for time which is maybe more intuitive, but less amenable to calculation, would be the stream Now = (monadOfTime, Now). Where by "monadOfTime" I mean Abraham Robinson's nonStandard monad. MonadOfTime has a central standard point and a halo of nonStandard points. To be compatible with the received model of time as point moving on line, in front of the standard point in the monad there must be a halo of nonStandard points I've taken to calling the nonStandardFuture. And behind the standard point in the monad there must be a halo of nonStandard points I've taken to calling the nonStandardPast. Which in effect posits a tiny room of time that accompanies each system (something different than a manifold).

After thinking about it I have to admit that assembly and disassembly of systems comprised of parts is not really the creation and destruction of the parts themselves. Some more thinking about it--

From Herbert Green's, student of Max Born, book Matrix Mechanics I get the idea that complex numbers in quantum physics

represent possibilities.

Again from Barwise (Information and Impossibilities), I get the idea that a possibility is really a possible *state.* I now realize that when I say that a system comprises parts, I most likely connote that the "parts" are "particles." But that would be wrong. The parts involved are really *states." Further a system of states is really itself a state (actually, a "possible state" or a "possibility").

Now back to creation and destruction of system parts. I wonder if what I'm seeing inside the above tiny room of time for each system is what's called "wave function collapse" in the Schrodinger picture (where the wave function changes continuously in time). However to visualize the collapse I have to see it by looking at the Heisenberg picture, where the wave function is constant in time. Here's the idea:

The Born rule is a map from a complex number to a real number:

c -> r r

time has only a math exitence, see www.fopi.infoAttachment #1: 1_On_the_origin_of_the_observer.pdf

Things happen. Real things, occur. Real things, endure. Real things, happen.

Time is not a real thing.

What actually happens, is that duration elapses. Our clocks measure duration elapsing. Our conscious experience is of duration elapsing.

The Earth`s rotational motion is the fundamental physical mechanism responsible for maintaining our confusion over the true nature of time.

We do have motion in our timeless universe.

Feynman Wrong about the Twin Paradox

Tim Maudlin: "...so many physicists strongly discourage questions about the nature of reality. The reigning attitude in physics has been "shut up and calculate": solve the equations, and do not ask questions about what they mean. But putting computation ahead of conceptual clarity can lead to confusion. Take, for example, relativity's iconic "twin paradox." Identical twins separate from each other and later reunite. When they meet again, one twin is biologically older than the other. (Astronaut twins Scott and Mark Kelly are about to realize this experiment: when Scott returns from a year in orbit in 2016 he will be about 28 microseconds younger than Mark, who is staying on Earth.) No competent physicist would make an error in computing the magnitude of this effect. But even the great Richard Feynman did not always get the explanation right. In "The Feynman Lectures on Physics," he attributes the difference in ages to the acceleration one twin experiences: the twin who accelerates ends up younger. But it is easy to describe cases where the opposite is true, and even cases where neither twin accelerates but they end up different ages. The calculation can be right and the accompanying explanation wrong."

Einstein also taught that the youthfulness of the travelling twin was due to the turn-around acceleration:

Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity, 1918, Albert Einstein: "During the partial processes 2 and 4 the clock U1, going at a velocity v, runs indeed at a slower pace than the resting clock U2. However, this is more than compensated by a faster pace of U1 during partial process 3. According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4."

John Norton teaches the same story:

John Norton: "Then, at the end of the outward leg, the traveler abruptly changes motion, accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial motion directed back to earth. What comes now is the key part of the analysis. The effect of the change of motion is to alter completely the traveler's judgment of simultaneity. The traveler's hypersurfaces of simultaneity now flip up dramatically. Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite."

Feynman, Einstein and Norton are wrong of course but the problem is more serious than that. We all live in a schizophrenic world where the youthfulness of the travelling twin is due to the turn-around acceleration, on the one hand, and is not due to the turn-around acceleration, on the other:

Don Lincoln: "Some readers, probably including some of my doctoral-holding colleagues at Fermilab, will claim that the difference between the two twins is that one of the two has experienced an acceleration. (After all, that's how he slowed down and reversed direction.) However, the relativistic equations don't include that acceleration phase; they include just the coasting time at high velocity."

Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

Pentcho Valev

Abc2000ro: "Why is Einstein solution to the twin paradox different from the one on the internet? The solution to the twin paradox found on the internet is that the twin on Earth is on 1 frame the entire journey, while the twin in space is in 2 frames for the duration of the journey. However, in his own paper:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog_about_Objections_against_the_Theory_of_Relativity

Einstein gives a totally different explanation. He says that what matters is the moment of acceleration. So even if the acceleration happens in 1 second from 0 to 290.000km/s that's the only second that truly matters. So if Einstein says like this, how can anyone bring other explanations? (...) You can talk about the frame switching without saying anything about acceleration. You just draw 2 lines in a Minkowski diagram and that's it. Then you just apply the equations of special relativity and presumably you obtain the correct result. But Einstein says otherwise. That you have to use the equations of general relativity for the moment of acceleration (even though it is only 1 second or 1 year) and only then you obtain the correct results. So who should I trust?"

Abc2000ro asks the fatal question. Einstein was well aware that, unless the acceleration ("gravitational potential") camouflage is used, the clock (twin) paradox is an obvious absurdity:

Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity, 1918, Albert Einstein: "During the partial processes 2 and 4 the clock U1, going at a velocity v, runs indeed at a slower pace than the resting clock U2. However, this is more than compensated by a faster pace of U1 during partial process 3. According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4."

Nowadays most Einsteinians do not understand the problem but clever (even though dishonest) Einsteinians do:

Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Example (Twin paradox): Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. Show that B is younger than A when they meet up again. (...) For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox..."

Pentcho Valev

The twin paradox has a simpler (one way) version in Einstein's 1905 paper:

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."

SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, Herbert Dingle, p.27: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates. (...) How is the slower-working clock distinguished?"

Dingle's question is rhetorical - the slower-working clock cannot be distinguished on the basis of Einstein's 1905 postulates alone. The postulates entail that, as judged from the respective system, either clock runs slower than the other. That is, for an observer in the moving clock's system, the stationary clock at B lags behind the moving clock; for a stationary observer, the moving clock lags behind the stationary clock at B.

So Einstein's famous conclusions that made him a superstar, "moving clocks run slow" and "travel into the future is possible", are based on two flaws. Initially Einstein advanced his false constant-speed-of-light postulate, which allowed him to validly deduce that:

moving clocks run slow, as judged from the stationary system.

Then he illegitimately dropped the second part of the above conclusion and informed the gullible world that:

moving clocks run slow, that is, travel into the future is possible.

Pentcho Valev

Every era of the scientific realm is endowed with masters or progenitors ;each with his own truth that cannot be ignored.The Upanisads constitute an often overlooked set of that truth that must needs be explored.

Best Wishes,

Lloyd Tamarapreye Okoko.

Brian Cox (03:56): "Time travel into the future is possible".

Comment:

Pentcho Valev 3 months ago:

Jim Al-Khalili is no time traveller in this experiment - the postulates of special relativity do NOT entail time travel into the future. The confusion goes back to 1905 when Einstein informed the gullible world that, although time dilation is symmetrical (either observer sees the other's clock running slow - this is what validly follows from the two postulates), it is still asymmetrical - the stationary clock runs faster than the moving one (this does not follow at all from the postulates):

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."

This is tantamount to saying that, although elephants are unable to fly, they can still do so by just flapping their ears. Yet the breathtaking impliciations of Einstein's blatant hoax (time travel into the future etc) enchanted the public:

John Barrow FRS: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in 1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921, he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the ordinary person: "Does it make a silly impression on me, here and yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to them...it impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious." Relativity was a fashionable notion. It promised to sweep away old absolutist notions and refurbish science with modern ideas. In art and literature too, revolutionary changes were doing away with old conventions and standards. All things were being made new. Einstein's relativity suited the mood. Nobody got very excited about Einstein's brownian motion or his photoelectric effect but relativity promised to turn the world inside out."

_________________________________________________

[end of quotation]

Pentcho Valev

Einsteiniana: The youthfulness of the travelling twin is due to the turn-around acceleration, but at the same time it is not due to the turn-around acceleration:

Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity, 1918, Albert Einstein: "During the partial processes 2 and 4 the clock U1, going at a velocity v, runs indeed at a slower pace than the resting clock U2. However, this is more than compensated by a faster pace of U1 during partial process 3. According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4."

John Norton: "Then, at the end of the outward leg, the traveler abruptly changes motion, accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial motion directed back to earth. What comes now is the key part of the analysis. The effect of the change of motion is to alter completely the traveler's judgment of simultaneity. The traveler's hypersurfaces of simultaneity now flip up dramatically. Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite."

Don Lincoln: "Some readers, probably including some of my doctoral-holding colleagues at Fermilab, will claim that the difference between the two twins is that one of the two has experienced an acceleration. (After all, that's how he slowed down and reversed direction.) However, the relativistic equations don't include that acceleration phase; they include just the coasting time at high velocity."

Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

Subtle practitioners of doublethink

"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more intelligent, the less sane."

Pentcho Valev

Einstein's 1905 postulates entail that, as shown in this picture, a single MOVING CLOCK SHOWS LESS TIME ELAPSED than multiple stationary clocks as it passes them consecutively. However, if the single clock is stationary and the multiple clocks moving, Einstein's postulates entail that this time the STATIONARY CLOCK SHOWS LESS TIME ELAPSED than the multiple moving clocks. Clearly Einstein's 1905 postulates do not entail that moving clocks run more slowly than stationary clocks, or that the travelling twin will return younger than his stationary brother.

Pentcho Valev

Having replaced the clock time in the output space-time Image reality, replacing it with a not temporally associated tag, it is easy to see that the reality that emerges from processing of that data is an amalgamation of data pertaining to different configurations of the Object universe, an emergent space-time map.

The sense of vision that allows production and utilization of such maps is an important survival attribute for living organisms. That the map is emergent space time is just a consequence of its production from received sensory data but that distant objects also appear smaller due to visual angle enables decisions about proximity of predators, competitors and resources to be 'calculated' which is greatly advantageous for a living organism. Not only does light take minutely longer to reach an organisms sensory system, so does it take time for a predator or competitor to traverse that space interval and it also takes time for the organism to move itself towards resources. By time I am referring to sequential change in the arrangements of the constituents of the Object universe.

Non simultaneity of events for different observers can be regarded as a difference in their emergent space-time maps that have been produced from sensory data within the uni-temporal external reality.It is not an indication that the events witnessed in each observers present still exist as interactions of substantial bodies in external reality, IE persisting for all time within an external space-time continuum.

It is very nice to see how close you are getting to the truth and all without math.

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 16, 2015 @ 04:38 GMT

"Important to realize is that the clock device itself is never seen but an image is produced, from the sensory data emitted or reflected from the device. Sensory data is received and processed by the observer and the output of that is what is seen, within a space-time Image reality output."

Remember also...all objects are clocks. Some objects are more useful for keeping time because they have very regular actions, but all objects tell time. You need not tie telling time to a particular sensation like sight. After all, our neural clock tells reasonably good time and that clock we sense as moments of thought along with the decay of memory.

There are two fundamentally incompatible ways of telling time; quantum and gravity. Once science can tell the same time between gravity and quantum times, presumably that will be a unification of those forces.

Pentcho,

"the more intelligent, the less sane."? Could this provide a link between G. Cantor and Einstein? No, I strongly object. While Cantor's "more than infinite" is as insane as is Einstein's "Relativity of time", their fallacies have clearly traceable historical roots and are still accepted as hard to grasp genial ideas, Georgina and Steve managed distracting from the logical contradiction your sources pointed to and mystify the notion of time. Are they therefore more intelligent?

Steve can perhaps not provide links to serious arguments for his guess "incompatible ways of telling time; quantum and gravity" in order to explain twin and grandfather paradoxes away.

I maintain my opinion: Revelation of mandatory fallacies is a hard but necessary work, even if the required line of reasoning is seemingly obvious.

Eckard

Dear Eckard and Pentcho,

the relativity of time is not insane, but has been misinterpreted by its early discoverers. The misinterpretation has been taught alongside the insight and that is the problem IMHO. It is necessary in the case of Einstein's work to replace certain aspects of the interpretation with something that works better. I accept Tom's argument that Einstein's work is a complete scientific model that successfully matches experimental results to the theory. Nevertheless the paradoxes show that there is something fundamentally wrong with it. Einstein knew it and SR and GR are not the final model he wanted.

As you may see from my most recent posts on other pages I am certainly not mystifying time but demystifying it. In fact time can be completely removed if desired and mere sequence of configurations of founadational space and mix of apparent configurations in emergent space-time be considered instead.

The experienced present of the observer is the output of the processing of received sensory data, which is always within the only existing configuration of the Object universe. That is not difficult or mysterious. Its like Present-ism but conserved with the underlying foundational reality, the source of the Presents observed. Its saying there is no substantial past, there is no substantial future but one substantial arrangement within which there is potential sensory data to form emergent space-time maps. Those maps are representations made from an amalgamation of data originating in different previously existent configurations.

This means, it turns out, the Present is not the division between past and future as you have often asserted but uni-temporal Now (the temporal pseudonym of the existing Object universe configuration) is the division. It is the causality front where interaction between particles and objects happens and potential sensory sensory data is produced.

As for intelligence and insanity I think they are irrelevant. This explanatory framework has taken years of trial and error ( I have probably been wrong as often if not more often than I have been right) and near relentless tenacity to develop. As witnessed by the countless pages, I have no ides how many, posted on this site, including the development of the explanatory framework diagrams.

The explanatory framework requires that all current emergent, experienced or portrayed, space-time Image realities exist within the uni-temporal Object reality. If represented by sets this is strange, perhaps a unique mathematical structure. Which maybe why it has eluded discovery for a long time. Hopefully you will consider it more favorably than Cantors strange sets. I don't feel it is insane to suggest such a structure as it is a necessary consequence of the explanatory framework that works. It must be kept in mind that foundational space Object reality and emergent space-time Image reality are distinctly different categories.

Anonymous replied on May. 17, 2015 @ 05:01 GMT, that was me, Georgina

Sorry I keep getting logged out.

Dear Eckard and Pentcho,

I meant to say -Its like Present-ism but concerned with the underlying foundational reality,....... Rather than 'conserved'.

Thinking on I do think it is necessary to have some doubt that what is observed is the external reality itself. Some experience of visual disturbance whether by drugs, medications, alcohol, or mental illness would aid clarity of thought regarding the status of the output of the human visual perception system. Though that doubt may be regarded as insanity by some it is in fact correct and sane clarity of thought. Whereas the general belief that what is seen is the external substantial reality itself, as if we have windows in our skull, is mass delusion. Richard Feynman was a very intelligent man and yet he trivialized the philosophical debate over whether you see only light or objects themselves. Richard Feynman on hungry philosophers. Which seems to have been a popular response with his audience, who no doubt share his unfortunate dismissive"sane"opinion.

Georgina,

It is unfortunate the comical statements of Richard Feynman on "When you are looking at something do you see only light or do you see the object?"

Can something be seen without light?

Can light be seen without something?

He (Richard) is always seeking to distort the truth. Seeing is just a sensory perception just as sound is. Moreover, in some electromagnetic spectrum light can be emitted by something and transmitted to the observer and yet nothing is seen (outside the visible spectrum). This does not imply the absence of an object.

Akinbo

I agree that sensation is a constant stream of neural impulses that are what informs us about the world.

Akinbo Ojo replied on May. 17, 2015 @ 11:04 GMT "Moreover, in some electromagnetic spectrum light can be emitted by something and transmitted to the observer and yet nothing is seen (outside the visible spectrum). This does not imply the absence of an object."

However, we do not sense space and yet we are more sure about space and motion in space than we are about the objects and time delays that we actually do sense. As you said, some objects we do not see, but like a transparent window, we know a window by other sensation. All that we do sense are objects and their backgrounds and those neural impulses represent time delays.

Time delays as neural spikes from exchange of object matter fill sensation and are the most primitive form of time and space and motion emerge from these streams of neural spikes. A major flaw of relativity is in setting time as a mere coordinate of spacetime because in so doing, all motion becomes deterministic geodesic paths.

Hi Akinbo, Steve, All,

the question put to professor Feynman was a profound one. Another question might be: As we are receiving light emitted or reflected from objects, does alteration in the way the light is received alter the object itself? The correct response to which will help clarify that the barn pole type paradoxes are about manifestations (Image reality) not actualized objects (Object reality).

Re your questions Akinbo's Q1. "Can something be seen without light?" It depends on what you mean by 'things' and 'seen'. Light is needed to form visual representations of objects that are in external reality. However sound can also be used as by dolphins and bats and some blind humans.Visions and hallucinations that give the appearance of things that do not exist as objects in external reality can also occur. Not formed from data from the external environment but internally generated.

Re. Akinbo's Q2."Can light be seen without something?" Light can be seen without receiving it from the external environment. If the visual cortex is stimulated that can be sensed as sensations of light called phosphenes.Visual sensations produced by intracortical microstimulation of the human occipital cortex Lights associated with migraine and epileptic aura are also internaly generated. This is all fascinating to me and suggests that what we regard as light is usually the output of stimulation of the retina and thence the brain, not a quality of the carrier of the sensory data itself. The representation that is generated allows us to navigate, it provides illumination. Without processing the presence of external visible wavelength electromagnetism and objects reflecting it can not be seen.

It would probably be good for clarity in physics to refer to un-received light as (visible) EM and the visual sensation, the observation, as light. I used to reliably refer to external visible EM as 'EM' or 'em' but light is used by physicists in general parlance and so I have become less pedantic. However there is a significant difference. Visible EM in the external environment (Object reality) is not the sensation of light (Image reality). So I should acknowledge their belonging to different categories of reality by using the different names.

Steve re.your "However, we do not sense space and yet we are more sure about space and motion in space than we are about the objects and time delays that we actually do sense." I refer you to the below post, if you are looking at most recent first order- Anonymous replied on May. 17, 2015 @ 05:01 GMT addressed to Eckard and Pentcho which may possibly be of interest to you.