Q&A with Paul Davies: What is Time?

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

Hi James,

I will try to make time to read your essay. I'm sorry for not already doing so. I read more than I commented upon but not yours. When you say "I find time to be unaffected" I wonder if we are so much in disagreement, as at the foundational level of reality, in the explanatory framework I have been using, passage of time happens regardless of what the constituents of the Object universe are doing. But I must read what you have written first before jumping to conclusions.

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.

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

Hi James thank you once again.

Could you please explain to me why the introduction of [relativity of] simultaneity requires in your opinion further changes to time in the problem? I think the coloured pole illustration nicely illustrates the passage of time that will have been captured within the EM sensory data during the scenario and the relationship of the observers to it. Aren't they seeing different events as simultaneous because of their particular reference frames( And the sensory that they encounter within)?

I agree that there is no physical cause to alter the dimension of the [substantial] objects themselves,( if we discount friction warming the pole and causing expansion). They are seeing the objects differently and making assumptions about the source objects based upon what is seen. In my opinion that is what is happening - relative perception, different emergent Image realities being produced within the same foundational Object reality. In which case there is no paradox. Is there another solution James? Or is it enough that the paradox as initially conceived, differences in susbstantial objects themselves, can not physically occur? -that is why it has been a paradox, is it not?.

Yes, your various outlooks have a rather complex web of explanations. I jumped on the one explanation of a dual time because it made a lot of sense to me.

You do not seem to like the word dimensions for time, but prefer the phrase "OR time has a sequence of configurations that can be imagined but don't have substantial existence."

It is the philosopher in you that prefers elaborate explanations instead of simple word definitions. You mention that the OR timeline is imaginary...meaning that it doesn't exist outside of our mind. Which of course is the definition of objective reality. Of course it is imaginary. However, you did seem to say that OR configuration time is not affected by velocity or gravity...which means to me that it is absolute...but now you say it does not really exist.

Now you are taking that back...too bad...I liked the notion of an absolute time. It flies in the face of relativity but squeaks by as long as your IR time lets by-gones-be-bygones.

The grandfather paradox is very simple to dismiss with a decaying time. There is no sense to a past time as a dimension, only as a memory. Time's dimensions are a clock period and a period decay. The period decay keeps the clocks going in one direction because the are not quite reversible.

Georgina,

Lets take your first point for this message: "Could you please explain to me why the introduction of [relativity of] simultaneity requires in your opinion further changes to time in the problem?"

A version of the pole barn paradox includes having an entrance door and an exit door for the barn. They are said to open and close simultaneously for the observer with the barn. They are unnecessary for the purpose of answering the question: Will the pole, due to sufficient relative velocity, fit inside the barn? It will fit or it won't fit because of its length and not because doors open and close. However, the doors are necessary for simultaneity. The idea is that the approaching pole observer will receive light from the two doors at different times which is, of course, true. If the observer is at the midpoint of inside the barn, it is argued that that observer will see the exit door operate at a different, earlier, time than the entrance door. It is this claim that for the pole observer, the doors are observed to not operate simultaneously, that introduces an additional variation of times that did not exist in the problem when only the Lorentz transforms were predicting results. The simultaneity argument is added on ad-hoc with no explained cause for real physical results, to atoms if that makes matters clear. The relativists are mixing actual local physical changes to objects with perceived changes to objects. That is why I commented that your view is more consistent than is theirs. My own view requires that changes be physically real if the problem is to remain a physics problem. My interest is in a physics solution. My conclusion is that the correct physics solution is to admit that the paradox exists and relativists cannot physically, again to atoms if that makes this clearer, resolve the paradox.

James Putnam

Steve, All,

simple words are fine when they accurately describe what is being discussed. If the word doesn't fit an alternative description is required.

If we consider block time; that 4D geometric object has a dimension which is the time dimension as well as its space dimensions. The Object universe however is not spread over time but is only the youngest configuration of objects and relations within it. So it does not have time as a dimension, and is unlike the block universe in that respect. However there is passage of time as the configuration is always changing - the Object universe's contents are in continual motion. But only the most recent arrangement has substantial existence. This is like Presentism but subtly different as it is about what actually exists rather than what is seen to exist -Now, the Object reality rather than the Image reality. A series of former configurations of the Object universe could be imagined along a time line but the sequence and the line do not actually exist unlike the block universe model. The time line is imaginary but the change in configuration of the universe is not. The time line can be useful for considering the historical sequence but there is no substantial past or future. This is important as it prevents Grandfather like paradoxes. Yet the distribution of potential sensory data within the Object universe allows relativity, non simultaneity of events for different observers and resolution of other paradoxes. The OR.(Object reality)data time (events encoded within the potential sensory data gives the different Basic and subjective IR.(Image reality )times.

Steve wrote "However, you did seem to say that OR configuration time is not affected by velocity or gravity...which means to me that it is absolute...but now you say it does not really exist." Yes it is absolute not relative and uni-temporal meaning it is the same time everywhere. That one time is synonymous with the existing substantial configuration. It is the change in configuration that gives passage of time. That passage of time does not have an existence independent of the changing configuration of the universe and is not a dimension of the 3D configuration. So without paradox: OR. configuration time may be regarded as foundational absolute time and might also be considered not to exist as it is just a temporal description of the overall spatial changes in a substantial configuration.

Steve wrote:"The grandfather paradox is very simple to dismiss with a decaying time. There is no sense to a past time as a dimension, only as a memory. Time's dimensions are a clock period and a period decay. The period decay keeps the clocks going in one direction because the are not quite reversible." It would be good if you could explain period decay further, as this related to your own model of reality. Also you say "there is no sense to past time as a dimension, only as a memory" and yet past times are observed. This is very apparent when considering astronomic bodies. So how do you reconcile that with your two time dimensions?

Hi James,

agreed the doors are an unnecessary addition but they are added to help illustrate the non simultaneity of the two views.

I'm am glad you think my resolution of the paradox is an improvement. It is consistent with the explanatory framework I have developed. I consider my resolution to be a physics solution. The potential sensory data consists of EM radiation that is within the environment, that is as real as the substantial objects made of atoms also within the environment.

You wrote" My own view requires that changes be physically real if the problem is to remain a physics problem. My interest is in a physics solution. My conclusion is that the correct physics solution is to admit that the paradox exists and relativists cannot physically, again to atoms if that makes this clearer, resolve the paradox." Do you have a physics "related to atoms" solution to the paradox or are you just refuting relativity James?

Georgina,

I took my time to think about this:

"I think the coloured pole illustration nicely illustrates the passage of time that will have been captured within the EM sensory data during the scenario and the relationship of the observers to it. Aren't they seeing different events as simultaneous because of their particular reference frames( And the sensory that they encounter within)?"

The space-time idea is something I wonder how it survives. It can't be physically real. There is no empirical evidence for it. However, it does survive and there are illustrations offered that apparently make it seem real. With regard to the quote above and thinking about your description of the colored pole illustration, I think that you analysis of it is correct.

James Putnam

Georgina,

Quoting me: "My conclusion is that the correct physics solution is to admit that the paradox exists and relativists cannot physically, again to atoms if that makes this clearer, resolve the paradox."

You: "Do you have a physics "related to atoms" solution to the paradox or are you just refuting relativity James?"

The paradox exists. It cannot be resolved. Even if both the pole and the barn were located in space the paradox would continue to exist. If the barn is said to be stationary with regard to the combined effects of all the rest of the matter in the universe, then the pole has a relative velocity with respect to that background. Space has values of electric permittivity and magnetic permeability, meaning that the background of space determines the speed of light and that that speed is not affected by the gaze of either observer.

The controlling background description leads to a result that contradicts predictions of special relativity. If there are two observers with a relative velocity between them, special relativity predicts that they will each observe the other as experiencing length contraction and time dilation while they themselves remain unchanged. Speaking about time dilation in particular: It is predicted that they will each see the others clock running slower. Now have them both moving horizontally near the surface of the Earth, and give them both the same magnitude but opposite in direction velocities relative to the Earth with the Earth's environment serving as the background. They would have relative velocities with respect to each other of twice that magnitude. Now getting to the point: Applying the Lorentz transform for time dilation from each of their perspectives, the prediction is that they would see the other's clock running slower. Alternatively, taking into consideration that it is their velocities with respect to the background that causes relativity type of effects, the result is that they would both experience equivalent time dilation effects. They would see the other's clock running at the same rate as does their own.

Add a third observer, with a third clock, standing stationary on the Earth. Both of the two observers in motion would see the stationary clock running equally faster than their clocks. (I reluctantly use the physics name for the effect known as time dilation but only to describe what happens to clocks or rates of activity in general)

With regard to your question about whether I have a solution to the barn pole paradox, the answer is no. The paradox is a relativity paradox that in my opinion remains unsolved by relativity theory. Without the relativity viewpoint, there is no paradox. If the barn is stationary on the surface of the Earth, the moving pole could fit inside the barn. I don't solve the paradox, but I can explain why the pole undergoes real length contraction. I might have difficulty trying to explain my reasoning in messages because the explanation goes back to the beginning of my work when I remove the indefinable status of mass and give a definition for it. I will think about it though.

With regard to evidence for the existence of length contraction, I have offered evidence here before. It is commonly observed evidence that physicists do not know about. They are well aware of the evidence but have an alternative explanation for it dating back to when Bolztmann introduced the kinetic theory of gases. I don't know if I want to repeat it again here. It was ignored without response. It is given at my website and maybe that is the best place for it to remain. Perhaps if there was genuine interest from professionals, it would be worth the effort to explain it. I would have to first convincingly refute their alternative explanation.

James Putnam