Q&A with Paul Davies: What is Time?

Georgina.

As you say, (at light velocity) "It is his perception of a changing present that stops." That is, his perception of the passage of time in the stationary frame through which he is passing. Though time keeps ticking right along in his experience as an energy entity, because he has become a gigantic strand of photons. If we remove ourselves from the equation and look at the existential reality in terms of Albert's Euphemism, if time stops at light velocity then mustn't time move at light velocity for a relative rest quantity? SR is mathematically complete as a measurement scheme, but here it is the time metric that I take issue with. For the hypothetical observer to continue to experience the passage of time while moving at light velocity, as consistent with the postulates, while perceiving time as static in the (K) stationary reference frame; light velocity is that experimentally measured absolute value because that must be a fast as time can extend. Therefore, Einstein's Euphemism was an ambiguity uttered in the excitement of the Eureka moment, and stuck.

Encoding data or not. The metric rate at which time extends relative to the velocity of a real physical particle would be 0 sec/sec @ ~rest, and 1 sec/sec @ c. What paradox? jrc

Hi John, some thoughts on what you wrote from my own point of view.

It's said to be impossible to accelerate a body to the speed of light because of the problem of increasing inertia. I don't know that the light beam rider becomes a stream of photons in the scenario of riding a light beam. Imagining he can be accelerated to that speed, he can also be imagined as still being a corporeal observer, accustomed to his high velocity. In that state he should still be able to intercept EM already emitted from objects far ahead, traveling at the speed of light, that crosses the path of his light beam. Though the EM sensory data he is travelling with is remaining the same only diminishing in intensity with distance.

I think you are right in a way- the updating of the sensory data from which the present of an observer at rest is fabricated will be happening at light speed. That is to say the rate of photon data arriving is the speed of light but there has to be processing time added to that to get to the rate at which the present that is experienced is intermittently updated. Which is very much slower. See David Eagleman's FQXi talk.

When you talk of time in relation to a real physical particle you are now no longer talking about the perception of time, time within the emergent reality of the observer, but passage of time in external substantial reality. These are different categories of time. Particles themselves do not experience a present, the emergent Image reality, they just always are at uni-temporal -Now what ever speed they are travelling. (uni-temporal-Now is the temporal analogue of the existing (youngest)configuration of the Object universe)

Georgina,

Have I said congratulations yet, Ms. Parry? Best wishes.

But yes... "talk of time in relation to a real physical particle you are now no longer talking about the perception of time, time within the emergent reality of the observer, but passage of time in the external substantial reality."

That is physics prior to the *information age* which I recognize has its own validity in examining the roles of information as we devise its criteria, and the vast investments in information theory due to the global addiction to ever increasing computational capacity at no increase in cost. And which despite the rosey promises of the Quants that by the time 5G hits the shelves they'll have given us 'quantum computers', I doubt. After the collapse of the functional financial wave in 2008 leaving the too big to fail boys uncertain about their principal, I don't think the Saudi's are banking on it. They want to sell as much oil as they can, while they still can. My small investment strategy concurs.

Though differing in our perspectives, I think we both agree that Einstein's famous gedanken is indeed flawed, but its curious because Einstein then immediately introduces as postulates the conclusions of Maxwell's results; the universal constancy of light velocity, and that the laws of physics are identical in any frame of reference. Which of course includes the passage of time in the light velocity frame, and which in the hard physics of his day treats the role of humanity in the observer role as a given. SR is simple geometry and a little algebra, NOT simple arithmetic.

Maxwell's silver hammer came down on Newton's head, Einstein just used it to put the last nail in his coffin. You have to do some digging to get an understanding of Maxwell beyond the tired homage that his equations 'give a complete understanding of Electromagnetism', which is only true enough. But Maxwell's electrodynamic theory upon which Einstein founded all his work, is not itself a complete theory. Like GR, Maxwell's equations produce a mathematical singularity which cannot exist as a physical reality or all the intensity would be concentrated at a zero dimensional point and there would be no volume of field to observe. That is why QM hangs onto the *zero-point particle* and evolves to non-locality, superposition, entanglement and etc. since it took the quantum leap of faith.

Many like to argue against Relativity by contesting the validity of the postulates because Einstein doesn't lay out the theoretical and mathematical proofs for them. But Maxwell had already done so (in spades) , and Einstein cites Maxwell's theory. To argue against the postulates of SR, one must disprove Maxwell and offer a consistent, full theoretical treatment that explains all of the technology higher than Volta's chemical cell. That's physics.

Which brings me back to my point to James. Einstein's ride gedanken has the time metric backward's. Not that it doesn't grab people's attention and illustrate that given Maxwell's never-disproven conclusions, it is time and space that are not absolute. But so does the metric of 0 sec/sec @ ~rest >> 1 sec/sec @ c, and that metric dispels the psychological paradox and might well be taken as the fifth dimension which Klein and Kaluza hypothesized but failed to provide a theoretical rationale for its existence. I don't have the math to explain it, but in the Klein-Kaluza 5D application to GR, Maxwell's equations emerge. KOOL!

Please forgive me for not engaging in the layered perceptual-informational arena, I'm an old guy on short time and quite frankly miss the world before ninetendo. Best wishes, jrc

Hi John,

with respect, re. time for the particle itself, You wrote "That is physics prior to the *information age* " No it is modern physics, which requires foundational passage of time due to change in configuration of the Object universe underlying the perception of passage of time via information input.

I don't see why you say the time metric is backward. If we have a sensor at rest receiving a bombardment photon data that is travelling at c that will give an output passage of time. The image of a nearby clock produced from the photon data detected by the sensor would show marking time as you put it at one second per second. Instead of considering the man travelling with a photon stream how about if we consider the photon stream alone to be encoding the time on a clock. The data is unchanging, it is not being updated and so the time encoded does not change." Clock time apparently stands still". That's two different photon streams; one with changing data content and one without changing content; one showing passage of time and one not.

Yet for a traveler at relative light speed (relative to an observer deemed to be rest )time passes normally. He gets hungry, he gets bored, etc. because physiologically there is still change occurring. Worth mentioning I think, his velocity is only relative to something deemed to be at rest.It could be something moving away from him at high speed and so his absolute velocity is much less than c. Photons travelling within the apparent rest frame of the high velocity traveler behave just like any other photons and would be measured to be travelling at the speed of light. Perhaps it needs to be accepted that the speed of light is always the speed measured by the local observer; and THAT speed can not exceed the speed of light. A far observer would not be able to measure the speed of those particular photons themselves, because he is not there but far away.

Hi James,

please forgive my intrusion. I wasn't expecting my comment to John to turn in to a another discussion, though I appreciate the replies. It would be very good if you and John discuss your work because you two seem to be 'on the same wavelength'. The by standers might learn a thing or two.

It would also be enlightening for me to actually hear you explain the outcome of the barn-pole paradox in your own words. I don't think you need someone to argue with about it in order to set it out as an alternative explanation. So far you have set out the problem as you see it for me, I'm OK with what you wrote( I set out my own thoughts on that but they are incidental). You say you have already has discussion with Tom, so do you really need another strict relativist to try to convince? Couldn't you just explain it and leave it for other people to ponder? If you do that other people, pro or anti, may wish to join the discussion and discuss it with you. (Meant only as an encouraging, helpful suggestion.)

Anonymous replied on May. 23, 2015 @ 00:22 GMT, that's me Georgina

John, All,

Just to clarify, I wrote, "That's two different photon streams; one with changing data content and one without changing content; one showing passage of time and one not." The important difference is what the observer is doing relative to the EM data as the observer's motion determines whether the data content is changing relative to him or not. Being at rest relative to his surroundings receiving data traveling at c relative to him (changing data and corresponding experienced passage of time) OR traveling with the EM data at c that is consequently unchanging in that reference frame.(No experience of passage of time from that data.) Time can be seen to be passing differently depending on reference frame because that kind of time is emergent from the data content of the EM received.

While light beam traveler and stationary observer are not becoming separated in foundational, uni-temporal time because of their motion and consequently different EM data receipt. They both always stay within the configuration of the Object universe that exists, not one in the future relative to the other because he has seen time passing faster.

John Cox, Georgina, James et al.

- Concerning Maxwell and the equations purportedly endorsed by him and besring his name you may wish to read and store for keeps 90 year old Thomas Erwin Phipps's essay this year before it is removed. I think it clarifies more than a bit.

- Concerning travelling at light speed, you may want to consider the 'photon existence paradox' discovered by Armin Nikkah Shirazi with whom I had some discussions on his forum also in this years essay contest. If time does not flow for a photon or if 'time' stops at light velocity as John puts it, then the time of emission of a photon is the time also of its absorption, how then can photon exist?

It follows therefore that since photon exists, time does not stop for photons contrary to the Lorentz formula

t' = t в€љ(1 - v2/c2)

where for a photon t is the time it reads on its own clock and t' is the time the photon reads on an observer's clock. But for both photon and observer, photon must have a duration of existence, if not we are led into contradiction. Light would not be observed to reach us from the Sun if it is from observer viewpoint, and Light would not be able to leave the Sun from photon perspective.

Akinbo

Hi John,

Thank you for referencing A New Gamma. That essay plus the lengthy discussions that followed under [link:fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1928]Alternative Models of Reality:James A Putnam wrote on Feb. 21, 2015 @ 16:44 GMT A Pythagorean Geometry Proof of the Falsity of Relativity[/link] presented most of my view about the Lorentz Transforms. Most but not all. I am glad the essay sparked your imagination although our views seem to digress sharply. :) Your thoughts were very interesting to read. The essay shows that I find time to be unaffected.

James Putnam

Akinbo,

Thanks for bringing Tom Phipp's essay to my attention, I had only browsed a few entries meaning no disrespect for anyone. I'll have to give some thought and study to it, but have also limited my focus to loose ends and unresolved issues in classical physics which evolve into the morass of modernity.

I have also always objected to the standard application of LT producing the scenario you concisely illustrate that if time 'stops' at light velocity the time of emission and absorption of a photon (wavelength, really) would be the same. Which is what I mean by the time metric being backwards. Time does not stop at light velocity, the closer you get to light velocity the closer you are to the limit of how fast time can progress. But, enough if this for me, for now. Cordially, jrc

Akinbo, All

Akinbo you make a good point regarding the existence of a photon when "time stops". I will address that issue.

The problem here is lack of differentiation of different kinds of time.

There needs to be at least 4 kinds acknowledged and differentiated in physics, though there are more kinds of time if we include different representations of time such as time that only exists mathematically, internal biologically time, as kept by circadian rhythms adjusted by light exposure times: important for biological organisms, and "Father time" that only exists symbolically and mentally.

The kinds of time important for physics are:

1. time in foundational Object reality, that is passage of time synonymous with the sequential change in configuration of the Object universe. OR.configuration time. Any highly regular sequential change with unchanging accuracy of repetition can be use to represent this such as clock time but only very close to the position of a stationary observer, to avoid significant data transmission and processing delay and affects of motion upon the timekeeping of the clock. This can be likened to "Proper time".

2. time information carried by potential sensory EM data primarily (but also other forms of sensory data ) in Object reality, OR. data time.

3. The time as experienced by an organism or displayed by a processing device. Which is Image reality time. It may be helpful to split that time into outputs that retain the data receipt order and those that do not necessarily.

That's a Basic IR. time and a subjective IR. time.

Now as regards the "stopped" photon. That it is stopped is the relative perception of the observer travelling with it. Yes from that perspective the photon ceases to have a frequency or wavelength because the observer is travelling with the wave keeping pace with it. But the photons in the beam are not themselves changed. There is no Basic IR. or subjective IR.Passage of time that can be formed from the photons in that reference frame.So in that respect there is no time. However the photon beam is still carrying OR. data time that could give Basic or subjective IR. time output to observer's crossed by it's path not travelling with it. Also there is still the foundational OR. configuration time: Object universal passage of time in which these scenarios are happening, that is independent of relative perceptions and data transmission.

That time is both stopped and not stopped is only paradoxical if no differentiation between kinds of time is made.

Georgina,

I should begin at the beginning with removing the indefinable mass from f=ma. It involves the speed of light directly. However, I have found that physicists have lost an understanding of their own definition of an indefinable property. They can no longer see what their predecessors wrote clearly about in physics texts. The wording in texts has changed so students no longer learn about it. So, even though the Lorentz transforms are not the beginning of the problem with theoretical physics, they do show their own error sufficiently, at least it seems clear to me.

Take the Lorentz transform for length contraction as an example since it is a principle part of the pole barn paradox. It definitely is a paradox as it currently is explained by physicists. They say that both perspectives are equal and correct for a single event. The point I will be making is that the two perspectives are not equal and cannot both be correct for the same single event. Here is the reason: Taken from a single perspective, the transform is said to be from the viewpoint of an observer who has no assigned velocity. A second observer is said to have a velocity relative to the first observer. The effects predicted by the Lorentz transforms occur to the second observer and not to the stationary observer. It is only when the observers' roles are reversed and the transform is applied again that it is predicted that the relativity type effects switch from the second observer to the first observer. Here is where I raise objection. I argue that the roles are not reversible. This point has to do with crediting the physical environment with causing the effects and not the stationary observer's gaze. The physical circumstances are determined by electric permittivity and magnetic permeability and not because the stationary observer is watching. ...

I'll pause here. Tomorrow I will review what I wrote thus far, respond to criticisms, and resume. Jumping ahead a little, I can provide the explanations for what are electric permittivity and magnetic permeability. Those explanations follow from removing the indefinable status of mass, the same for temperature, and removing the circular definition for electric charge.

James Putnam

I just need to add to my previous post that: OR.configuration time is not affected by gravitation or motion , unlike Einstein's proper time. OR.data time and subsequent Basic IR. time is affected due to the curving of the EM data paths within a gravitational field and the Doppler effect. If substantial atomic clocks themselves are running slow when in motion as shown by a permanent change in time shown compared to a relatively stationary clock it is necessary to separately categorize clock time, for moving clocks.

Thank you James.

I look forward to your next installment.( I too think the environment is vital to the outcome, as it contains the sensory data from which the observer outputs are formed.) Though by bringing up electric permitivity and magnetic permeability I feel you are going to raise physical constraints that I have not contemplated. I think we could come back to the definitions after you show us how those factors are contributing to the scenario. (To keep it simple.) Unless there is someone else here who would like to look at that first.

Georgina,

I mentioned electric permittivity and magnetic permeability in order to emphasize that the background conditions are what determine the speed of light. Those two properties are what what Maxwell used to establish the speed of light demonstrating that light is electromagnetism. So I followed convention and mentioned them to support the point I wanted to make. When I derived replacement equations for Maxwell's equations I learned what those two properties are. I know they have already been presented in one of my contest essays. They are not the cause of the speed of light. They are results that occur from the cause of the speed of light. The cause of the speed of light is the first property I identify in my work. It goes back to defining mass. However, I didn't start this communication all the way back there, so I referred to electric permittivity and magnetic permeability in the conventional sense as the two properties that determine the speed of light within any particular environment. In any case, the point is that it can conventionally be said that the speed of light for any observer is determined by the background environment in which they are located. The stationary observer referred to when applying the Lorentz transforms establishes the background environment for themselves and the second observer who is assigned the relative velocity through that background environment. Their velocity through the background environment is what results in their length contraction and the other relativity type of effects. The transform equations cannot be applied in reverse for that same event. An observer cannot both have a velocity with respect to the background environment and simultaneously be stationary in that background environment. This last point raises the question of the role of simultaneity. I see that subject being discussed as if it is settled. So, I will address the use of simultaneity in relativity solutions for problems like the barn pole paradox. It occurs to me to say at this point that I have not yet given my own understanding resulting from my work about why the effects identified as length contraction and time dilation occur. My understanding is not the relativity theory understanding. But, one can't say everything at once, so I temporarily rely upon some conventional understandings.

James Putnam

Yes, you are getting very close. Your object reality time is absolute and your image reality time is relative. Excellent.

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 24, 2015 @ 06:34 GMT, "I just need to add to my previous post that: OR.configuration time is not affected by gravitation or motion , unlike Einstein's proper time. OR.data time and subsequent Basic IR. time is affected due to the curving of the EM data paths within a gravitational field and the Doppler effect. If substantial atomic clocks themselves are running slow when in motion as shown by a permanent change in time shown compared to a relatively stationary clock it is necessary to separately categorize clock time, for moving clocks."

There are two very different ways for telling time. You can count a time period of the spin period of the electron or the earth or a pulsar. Or you can measure the very slwo decay of that period. The IR time is atomic time and varies with velocity and gravity, just as you say. The period of OR time is decay (or growth) and represents an absolute frame like the CMB.

Your IR time is completely compatible with MEE and gravity, but your OR time is a new beast. With an absolute OR time, a traveler can now know their velocity relative to the CMB by only measuring atomic time decay and knowing CMB time. This principle, of course, violates general relativity, but retains MEE and gravity slowing of time, the two principles that have been amply demonstrated.

Not unlike the aether of ancient lore, OR or decay time is the thread that ties gravity and charge forces together. Unlike ancient lore, aether does not fill space...rather space emerges from the aether principle of matter decay. Sensation of time delays and other kinds of changes in objects are from where space and motion emerge. The two dimensions of absolute and relative times are what unite gravity and charge into a single quantum dictum. Space emerges as time delays and motion as time decays; once again the two dimensions time.

Hi Steve, All,

I'm glad you like it steve. I think there is an important difference between what time is and how we measure time. You have mentioned some regular periods but in practice adjustments need to be made regarding astronomical periods because of relativity and variation of the period. Individual atomic clocks also vary in period. A number of atomic clocks at different locations on the Earth are used for World timekeeping. This can be regarded as representing OR.configuration time though it is not OR. configuration time. It's just one regular 'local' change representing another (Object universal) change.

You say IR.time is atomic time. We don't see atoms. Image reality is the output of sensory data processing. If substantial clocks are slowed by gravity and acceleration (possibly due to inertia) then there has to be a category of clock time. That is not slowing of OR. configuration time but is change to the source object, affecting timekeeping, from which IR time is produced and subsequent Basic IR. time is produced.

OR.configuration time is not a frame of reference as such because it applies to the Object universe not the visible Image universe. We can not see the Object universe due to the way in which vision works. We detect things via the output of processing of sensory data already received. We can't detect distant bodies directly. I don't see violation of General relativity. Relativity it seems to me to be all about what is observed and that isn't changed by having a foundational 'absolute' time underlying the emergent space-time that is seen. Though Einstein has claimed that it is proper time that is slowed, whereas it seems to me more likely just clock time that has been affected, affecting the sensory data output and hence Basic IR output. Experiment to test this alteration in time do not distinguish between 1. alteration of proper time affecting clock rate and hence alteration of Basic IR time :and 2.alteration of clock rate (possibly due to inertia) in turn altering Basic IR time.

Steve, All,

Steve wrote" Sensation of time delays and other kinds of changes in objects are from where space and motion emerge." I agree with this with the proviso that this is emergent Image reality space and motion and not the external, foundational Object reality.

Steve also wrote " The two dimensions of absolute and relative times ......" The object universe doesn't have a time dimension being only the youngest iteration of a sequence of configurations that can be imagined but do not have substantial existence. This structure is important for overcoming Grandfather like paradoxes. The time line along which the sequence of configurations can be imagined is imaginary though it can still be useful to illustrate during which iteration an event occurred. Potential sensory data spread within the Object reality environment provides the semblance of a time dimension as it encodes events that have occurred 'over time' within it. But it is just sensory data spread within Object reality space. The output IR. basic or subjective is a space time output because it contains manifestations formed from data taking different lengths of time (iterations of the Object universe ) to arrive together or very close together, the further away the object the further back in time the origin of the data forming the image, and in that sense it has a time dimension.

Steve wrote "Not unlike the aether of ancient lore, OR or decay time is the thread that ties gravity and charge forces together. Unlike ancient lore, aether does not fill space...rather space emerges from the aether principle of matter decay. I don't understand this. I presume this pertains to your own model of reality. Please explain further if you wish.

Georgina,

In the barn pole paradox there are two perspectives presented using the Lorentz transforms. One is that of an observer with the pole and the other is that of the observer with the barn. (I know you know these things, but, I must lay my bricks. Besides, there may be other readers.) From either perspective, the complete forms of the Lorentz transforms predict length contraction for either the pole or the barn and time dilation for both of those plus it differentiates between the beginning of of the pole, or the barn, and the end of the pole, or the barn. Time dilation is different for the two ends. My point is not to debate those results of applying the Lorentz transforms to the pole barn paradox. My intention is to move on to one more step require by relativity theory in order to resolve the paradox from its point of view. That extra step is to introduce simultaneity.

The Lorentz transforms are applied from each observers perspective. The results are contradictory, giving rise to the existence of the paradox. Up to this point, the velocities that have thus far been acknowledged to exist are credited with causing the results. However, the paradox cannot be permitted to persist or relativity's correctness for predictions must be denied. The solution is to introduce speed of light dependent observations to show that the observer's see things occurring differently. Without showing any physical source of cause, relativists claim to achieve physical results. Physical results are those that either change the forms of objects or cause their velocities to change (local changes to the atoms involved). It is a case of relativists arguing that appearances are equivalent to actualities. In other words, to see it different proves that it is different.

Now I reconsider the role of simultaneity from my own viewpoint. The introduction of simultaneity introduces additional changes of time into the paradox. My point is that, for the purpose of generating physical results to the objects involved, viewpoints don't matter but, physical causes do matter. Simultaneity doesn't show its physical cause for its claimed physical results. In order for time to change further than what had been previously predicted by the Lorentz transforms, another velocity must be introduced. There is no new additional velocity. Without the relativists showing it to exist the paradox remains. What is left is the claim that what one sees occurring is what really is occurring. I leave this now for your consideration. I will mention that although we have opposing viewpoints, I recognize that yours is more consistent than is that of the relativists.

James Putnam