Q&A with Paul Davies: What is Time?

Hi John Brodix,

RE Sorry I haven't seen the videos. I live out in the country and have a lousy satellite connection

sorry to hear that, but fyi if you are interested the www.timelessness.co.uk site is pretty low bandwidth - ie mainly text and simple diagrams and pictures. ( also the ebook 'a brief history of timelessness' is on kindle and not a big file.

thanks for your comments , ill get back to you in more detail.

yours matt marsden

Matt,

"If matter could just exist ,move, and change... would this be enough to explain all that we observe and attribute to 'time'?"

We seem to be in agreement on the physical premise, though I would emphasize time as an effect, very much like temperature. That process of change does create a sequential effect and our rational thought processes are based on it, so there is a strong intellectual and emotional bias toward viewing time as fundamental.

As you say, it undermines the "whole fabric of spacetime" premise, while explaining how clock rates can vary. It also explains why time is asymmetric, due to basic inertia. Much of reality is that energy propelling change and it doesn't stop and go the other way.

But the human mind is deeply wrapped up in narrative and this point of view seems to mostly cause irritation.

Regards,

John M

Steve,

While Einstein's theories effectively made gravity the direction of time, Hawking stated the expansion of space amounted to a direction of time as well. I would argue they are complimentary.

Think in terms of a factory, where the product goes from start to finish, while the production line points the other direction, consuming raw material and expelling finished product.

Now relate that to biological organisms, where the individual goes from birth to death, while the species is constantly moving onto the next generation, while the old dies off.

So defined entities, like the product and individuals, start in the future and eventually fade into the past, as the dynamic process constantly moves into the future.

This then ties into the argument I've been making over on the Why Quantum forum posting, as to the dichotomy of energy and information, in that energy is constantly creating and dissolving form. So that while energy moves from prior forms to subsequent ones, thus past to future, the forms come into being, then dissolve, thus going future to past.

Which then goes to the observations about gravity and light/energy, as being two sides of a larger cycle. So the energy, as Hawking said, is constantly expanding out, leading onto the new. Meanwhile gravity is first coalescing form, then eventually crushing and dissolving it, radiating away the energy.

Of course, Einstein had it all ending in the black hole, but I think that amounts to a vortex and what energy hasn't been previously radiated away, such as by starlight, is ejected out the poles.

Regards,

John M

John, Matt,

It doesn't undermine space-time. It happens as well as. Change in arrangement of the Object universe (what is rather than what is observed) gives passage of time and the asymmetry of time. That is uni-temporal time, the same everywhere in the universe as only one iteration of the universe, the youngest, exists. Spread within the Object universe is EM potential sensory data. Receipt and processing of that data gives the experienced present and the order in which it is received gives the world line of the observer. The observer sees space-time because data that has taken different lengths of time to reach the observer arrive together and are amalgamated into a manifestation. Observers deal with what is seen, the space-time output reality, relying on signal transmission so relativity applies.In the space-time,Image (or visible) universe the position of an object in space relative to an observer is inseparable from its apparent position in time, so time is "Woven In " rather than a process of change.

Georgina,

I very much agree with your understanding of this pattern, but the premise of "the fabric of spacetime" is an entirely different creature.

It assumes 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.

Epicycles were a similarly stable pattern which could be effectively modeled using geometric patterns and relations, but the following assumption that there must be giant cosmic gearwheels to which these points of light were attached, was a flawed assumption. Yet it is conceptually similar to what is being assumed with this concept of spacetime as a physically real property and not just an emergent pattern of how we measure various distance and duration effects.

It is a situation where the measurements are being treated as more real and foundational to the actual properties being measured. The mathematical map is being treated as more real than the physical territory. Then all sorts of physical effects are being attributed to this assumed property, including an expanding universe. Though, as I keep pointing out to Tom, it overlooks its own foundational premise, in arguing space expands, while the measure of time remains constant, since the assumption is that light will take longer to cross this expanded distance and thus is not constant, with a big C, to it.

Regards,

John M

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

Hi Amrit,

I agree with your definition.

I said in my post on this thread, dated February 25th, 2,014, "We use the constant period of duration of our planet`s rotational motion, as the measurement baseline for our time keeping system. Duration elapsing is what our clocks measure. Duration elapsing is what we consciously experience."

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