The Arrow of Time by Andrej Rehak

Andrej Rehak

Essay Abstract

By tautological and rigid mathematical logic, we focus on the explanation of the dynamic nature of time and implicitly the dynamic nature of space. We hope that this understanding will change the paradigm of linear notion of the past, present and future, and contribute to the understanding of the concept of "I am". We also hope that the expected shift of awareness will induce the cognition that, regardless of the technology and its implementation, regardless of the mellifluence of nicely packaged ideas and persuasiveness of their presentation, only the healthy, non-preconditioned, free and conscious "I am" judges, decides and has a future "I am".

Author Bio

Andrej Rehak finished High School for Mathematics and Informatics and graduated sculpture on Academy of Fine Arts in Zagreb. He does computer animation and searches for patterns in motions and shapes.

Download Essay PDF File

George Gantz

Andrej - A fascinating journey - I loved the ship imagery. However, I'm afraid I got a bit lost in the middle. The notion of perspective and the uniqueness of "I AM" (epistemically the only we know for certain) and it's relation to I Am past and I Am future is powerful, but then I was not sure what you are saying about how this should guide one's attitudes and behavior - how one should actually live one's life.

I also love the connection (I'm not sure if this was intentional or not) this image has to one of the more profound metaphysical references in the Old Testament, when God refers to himself as "I Am who I Am".

Thanks - George

Andrej Rehak

Dear George

Thank you.

How one should live his one's life? Every perceived shape, "alive" or not "alive" is the shape of knowledge. Knowledge is not the information learned by hart. Knowledge is the truth understood by hart. Aristotle wrote that the truth is what best agrees with nature. The nature of Nature is infinite repeating of self-similar matrixes independent of scale tending to equilibrium. All above one, tend to infinity. One above all tend to zero. One above one is one... the dynamic equilibrium between the ideas of none and all. Implicitly, from self-sufficient, self-organized, aware, free and fearless one, emerges the self-similar pattern of self-sufficiency, self-organisation, awareness, freedom and fearlessness. Equilibrium is the way to equilibrium, happiness is the way to happiness... living is the way to live and procreate life... collecting, preserving and expanding the knowledge understood by hart.

I am who I am, where I am and when I am :)

Regards,

andrej

Stuart Marongwe

Dear Andrej

You are really touching a fundamental question that has perplexed philosphers and scientist alike. Even poets write about time.It is facinating to see time from the perspective of an artist. I do believe that to understand the laws of nature one needs to appreciate the elegance and beauty of nature in the same way as an artist.Thus a physicist has to recognise patterns in nature as well as its aesthetics. My question is if you where asked to draw time what would you depict? An arrow perhaps?

regards

Stuart

Andrej Rehak

Dear Stuart

Thank you.

The elegance and the beauty aren't governed by legislations build upon local conjunctions; mathematical, physical, religious, political, tribal... The elegance and the beauty are governed by universal laws. All theorems are universally beautiful. Aesthetics in theories (mathematical, physical, religious, political, tribal...), is the consequence of misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the laws of nature. From the resulting contradiction arises the aesthetical matrix of the disturbance of beauty.

The geometry of snowflake is the growth trail of the geometry of hexagon. It is the information container of genesis of its duration. Jet, in the whole universe, there where, there are and there will never be two identical snowflakes... The geometry of time is the spiral geometry of abyss and source. It draws trails of the geometry of space, speed and mass. From its dynamics emerges the dynamic pattern of the laws of motion and the laws of shapes. Whatever one perceives, one perceives trails of genesis of space in genesis of time. Hence, be it an atom, snowflake, nautilus shell, human body or a galaxy... whatever nature or whatever one draws, the resulting form is the container of time, absorbing its future and reflecting its past :)

Regards,

andrej

[deleted]

Dear Andrej Rehak ,

In the understanding of the arrow of time the T-invariance impossible. You have real criticism. Therefore highly appreciated your article. I In my article argues that modern science has no proper understanding of the time.

Regards,

Murat Asgatovich Gaisin

Andrej Rehak

Dear Murat

Thank you, looking forward to read your article.

Regards,

andrej

Joe Fisher

Dear Mr. Rehak,

Your hyper-imaginative essay was extremely entertaining to read and I hope that it does well in the competition. I do have a minor quibble that I hope you do not mind me mentioning.

Reality is unique, once. Abstract concepts of time are not unique.

Regards,

Joe Fisher

Andrej Rehak

Dear Joe

Thank you. The description of any event depends of the unique space-time position of the observer. Hence, reality is unique, in unique once and somewhere, perceived by unique one. The plural of theoretical and philosophical abstract concepts of time are not unique indeed. However, the mathematical description of the concept of time, inexpressible without its relation to space and speed, is unique, rigid and inseparable trinity.

Regards,

andrej

Vladimir Rogozhin

Dear Andrej,

I read your essay, filled with the spirit of Cartesian doubt, the spirit of "clarity and distinctness" with great interest. Key concepts in your essay "arrow" - "vector". The vector according to Latin - "carrying". It "exists" and "carrying".

Physics is now in a "crisis of representation and interpretation" (T.Romanovskaya) "crisis understanding", deep methodological crisis that was well said Carlo Rovelli article

SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT CERTAINTY: A PHILOSOPHY OF PHYSICS:

«This is a standard idea of how science works, which implies that science is about empirical content, the true interesting relevant content of science is its empirical content. Since theories change, the empirical content is the solid part of what science is. Now, there's something disturbing, for me as a theoretical scientist, in all this. I feel that something is missing. Something of the story is missing. I've been asking to myself what is this thing missing? I'm not sure I have the answer, but I want to present some ideas on something else which science is.

This is particularly relevant today in science, and particularly in physics, because if I'm allowed to be polemical, in my field, in fundamental theoretical physics, it is 30 years that we fail. There hasn't been a major success in theoretical physics in the last few decades, after the standard model, somehow. Of course there are ideas. These ideas might turn out to be right. Loop quantum gravity might turn out to be right, or not. String theory might turn out to be right, or not. But we don't know, and for the moment, nature has not said yes in any sense.

I suspect that this might be in part because of the wrong ideas we have about science, and because methodologically we are doing something wrong, at least in theoretical physics, and perhaps also in other sciences. »

The mystery of time (" time's arrow ") can " grab " if uncover the ontological structure of space. "Structure" - a key concept. About understanding well said Gregory Gutner "Event held in grasping structure means understanding" (G.Gutner Ontology mathematical discourse).

Way the captain of the ship one, at Polaris: "grab" structure of "mathematical point" on the basis of ontological unification of matter. Here we can recall the line Henry David Thoreau:

It is by a mathematical point only that we are wise,

as the sailor or the fugitive slave keeps the polestar in his eye;

but that is sufficient guidance for all our life.

We may not arrive at our port within a calculable period,

but we would preserve the true course.

Physics went to a phenomenological way. But when she delved into the matter, where empiricism has stopped working , you need to include a new compass - ontology. That's right, here is necessary to comprehend the eternal eidoses universe , as did Plato , and give them a new interpretation and representation . Expanding the primordial structure of the universe , based on the Logos and its invariants , you can " grab " the nature and essence of the " arrow of time " to answer the question : Who steers Earth's future?

I think you will agree with Alexander Zenkin : «The truth should be drawn and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators.» (Science counterrevolution in mathematics - Quote from his article in Russian ) .

I invite you to my forum and my essay FQXi Essay 2012-2013.

I wish you good luck!

All the Best,

Vladimir

Andrej Rehak

Dear Vladimir

Thank you. It was pleasant to read your healthy, clear and distinct criticism of grasping the idea of the infinity of knowledge. Grasping structure enables one to visualise indeed. If one can visualise, one can see the path. Thank you for your references as well (my mother tongue is Russian, so I can read it, a bit slower though...). Looking forward to read your essay.

regards,

andrej

John Merryman

Andrej,

The point I keep raising about time is that since we are single points of perception, we experience it as a sequence of events and so think of it as the point of the present moving from past to future, but the essential reality is that the changing configuration of the physical turns future into past. It is like seeing the sun move overhead, but its the ground moving the other way. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the world turns.

This makes time more like temperature than space. Time is to temperature what frequency is to amplitude. With temperature we think of the collective effect, yet it consists of a multitude of individual velocities/amplitudes, but with time we think of those individual changes and measure their frequency, but cannot decern the measure of the universal rate of change. That is because, just like with temperature, it is a cumulative effect of those many actions.

Since this makes time an effect of action, that leaves space as the essential background. We treat it as three dimensional, yet three dimensions are just a coordinate system. As such, it must be specified which are the coordinates, otherwise it is valueless. Yet if we specify the coordinates, then we can also specify other coordinates in the same space and use two, or more such reference frames to define the same space. This is done in politics all the time. The Israelis and Palestinians use different coordinates to define the same space, as do many other groups. They do so using that narrative construct of the group history, or timeline of remembered events. Yet different people have different perspectives of even the same events. Thus spacetime is a good model, but it is no more reality than the giant cosmic gearwheels of epicycles.

Space is both absolute, in that all the curvatures of expanding radiation and collapsing mass balance out to overall infinite, flat space. These, the absolute and the infinite, are the polarities allowing energy to travel for billions of lightyears and yet pulling it back to equilibrium, as mass contracting. The imperfections are where things are temporarily out of balance, yet if everything were in balance, it would be just a big flatline. We are the imbalance seeking balance and fortunately never quite attaining it.

Regards,

John Merryman

Andrej Rehak

Dear John

Thank you. I would add a tiny but crucial correction to your last statement. As all (unnaturally undisturbed) natural forms, we are the balance seeking balance and fortunately never quite attaining it. A simple instruction to construct balanced eternity. Regarding your time-temperature analogy, try to express temperature, or any other physical phenomenon or unit, without its space time description. The inseparable trinity of space, time and speed is the circular tautology which can be written as 1=1 (which is the same if we write 1=1/1 or 1=1*1). It is the unitised and referent form of the valid statement g=cd, applicable to all orbiting entities. In words, gravity g (wave-length) is the vector product of vector of time d (wave-time) and their scalar, speed of light c. Although in an unavoidable surrounding of constant acceleration, every wave-length in its wave-time, measures constant speed of light, thus constructs linear perception of propagation of space and duration of time. From this fundamental, and in fact, the simplest imaginable relation, all equations of motions and shapes are derived. I would appreciate if you convince me that the stated is not true. However, the only tool you are allowed to use is mathematics, and its physical reflection - measured reality.

Looking forward to read your essay.

Regards,

andrej

[deleted]

Andrej,

Does vacuum fluctuation need a vector of time? What measure of change would be its clock?

The only effect you could measure is the frequency of the particles popping into and out of existence. How is that more fundamental than the amplitude of the energy by which they do so?

Those quantum particles no longer exist once they have been extinguished. They did exist, but no more. Just like yesterday, the 12th of May, did exist, but now its in the past and will recede ever further into the past, as the earth keeps turning.

So all you have are these events, formed by quantum indeterminacy, or the sun shining on a spinning planet. What creates them is the energy. The amplitude of the sun is much more than that of a quantum, so it creates a much larger event. If the earth happened to turn a bit faster, or a bit slower, than time would seem to go faster or slower, but the energy of the sun would be the same.

We still see the sun and stars moving across the sky and with much measurement and calculations, devised a very precise method of computing where they would be. Yet while the math of epicycles was good, the model was still wrong because we did not include the earth spinning. Just as spacetime is very accurate math, it still cannot explain much about the reality we experience, such as why time is asymmetric, or why we can see across space, but only back in time, etc. Like a movie, we watch one scene at a time, but it's the scenes which move, from being in the future to being in the past, not we who are in the present. We just think it's the present that moves, like we thought the sun moved.

Regards,

John

Andrej Rehak

Dear John

Particles aren't popping into and out of existence... It is one of many wrong interpretations of natural phenomena. Think of a sound wave which is out of our hearing spectrum. Depending on its position (below or above our hearing range) by altering its frequency, the sound would appear or disappear, certainly not into and out of the existence, but simply into and out of our hearing range... Think of a sound which is accelerating relative to the observer. What the observer hears is the sound appearing from a high and disappearing towards low frequency. The sound continues to accelerate, but for the observer it ceased to exist. On the other hand, if the observer moves together with sound, what observer hears is the constant tone. Since all dimensions are separated by their speed frame, particles are popping into and out of the spectrum of our perception as a consequence of alteration of their speed. If you think of the visible spectrum, it is like colour changing from black to violet and back to black. To get "closer" to the observed, instead of altering our speed frame, we are altering the speed frame of the observed. In other words if the observed space-time is smaller than ours, like in the case of particles, by increasing their speed, what is actually performed in LHC collisions, one witness the same effect of "appearing" and "disappearing"...

When we see across space, we also see across time. Every entity observes other entity's past, so each entity present is another entity's future. Every observable entity absorbs future and reflects past. So when one thinks one is looking over space, inseparably, one is simultaneously looking over time. What we call matter, is in fact the dynamic container of time winding space.

When saying that energy is a creator of events, it is necessary to define energy in a way that all the variables of its definition are inexpressible without energy, and that energy is inexpressible without them.

Regards

andrej

John Merryman

Andrej,

I agree the idea of quantum indeterminacy is a description of a more extensive reality and the energy of the particles does not disappear. What I'm arguing is that the concept of spacetime is a similarly distorted view of reality.

When we see events which occurred in the past, the reason we see them is because the information created by their occurrence is now reaching our position in space, because it is no longer manifesting the event which created that information. A star blowing up and the light of that event now reach us, means that particular event occurred many years in the past and no longer exists. It would be similar to walking through an old city and seeing a building that is centuries old. While we are seeing the creation of something from long ago, we are only seeing evidence of past events, not the events as they are happening.

This is because time is a process of change. The energy is moving around and its most basic variables are frequency and amplitude. Frequency, the rate of change, is what we measure as time.

It is simply that our sense of self is a function of being able to remember and record that process of change. So this narrative then becomes a form of dimension.

Regards,

John

Andrej Rehak

Dear John

I see that you are talking of a present of the events at their specific space-time orbit of observed radius r. However each event is consisted of the infinity of space-time orbits. In fact, each "event" "started" in infinite past and it will "end" in infinite future. No matter how far in space and time, when the radius of a specific event reaches the observer, it becomes the event of its present. When the radius of that event of the observer reaches back the space-time position of the observed, it becomes the present of the observed i.e. the future of the observer. Imagine it as two, three or infinity of distant mirrors. The events are constantly received and emitted and received back and emitted again... towards the infinity. In other words, our present is a constant absorption and the reflection of all infinite events of our past. Thus, looking at past or witnessing present is observing the events that will be reflected back in the future.

Everything is a change indeed, except the law of that change.

Imagine a point on a circle. Alter the circles radius, rotational velocity around its axes and its normal velocity. Observe the wave trail of a point. By altering radius, one alters the amplitude. Alteration of its rotational velocity, alters the frequency. By changing its normal speed, its wave length is changed. Since frequency is a measure of the amount of wave-times in observers unit of time (1/t) which measures constant speed, its frequency changes respectively. Frequency and amplitude are different ways of expressing time and space.

Regards

andrej

John Merryman

Andrej,

Really what you are talking about is conservation of energy. All those prior events were forces of energy interacting, combining, absorbing, radiating etc. Yes, it will contain information of prior events and any way you were to measure and extract that information would be another event where you intercepted it with another force/mass, which, like your eyeball, absorbed it and extracted that information, further changing the form of the energy.

" Frequency and amplitude are different ways of expressing time and space."

Now imagine you have lots of those circles, of all different radius and velocity.

Is there a universal measure of either? How about simply a collective measure of a finite number of them? The average amplitude would be the temperature of this group. The reality is the same applies to frequency. There is no universal measure of time, just a cumulative effect of lots of individual frequencies. That's why you can have identical atomic clocks on the ground and on gps satellites, recording different frequencies/rates, yet still in the same system.

The physical reality of this collective system is what we refer to as the 'present,' while it is the events being created, the peaks/cycles, which come into being and dissolve, as the conserved energy moves onto the next cycle. So it is the creation and dissolution of these events, which is the effect of past and future. Physically there is only that conserved energy.

Regards,

John

pjackson

Andrej,

Great essay. I loved your sailing ship analogy. As an offshore racing skipper I picture it well and agree it's entirely accurate. Much current physics has indeed emerged from as the ship of foolishness. As you say; "Such physics is a contradiction of physics." Top marks for that alone. I not only agree your hypothesis but sent Bob and Alice off our planet to escape the Earth-centric thinking that ties us to stupidity, with astonishing results.

I'm sure you'll understand and like my derivation. Some did, but then a hail of 1's from the troll archers hit and it' sinking badly. I hope I may also persuade you to read my previous essays, showing how SR also converges to meet QM. But I show we must be aware of those tautologies with false assumptions, such as Bells theorem. Spin always has two poles both N and S. What the coherent physics really lacks so far is someone with skills in computer animation who also understands coherent physics. Do you know anyone who fits that description and wants to help steer the right way?

I greatly look forward to discussing on my essay blog.

Very best of luck.

Peter

Andrej Rehak

Dear Peter

Skipper says thanks to skipper :) (I just came back from the intense sailing week)

The simple law of nature is that stupidity extinct itself. The universe animates, computes, knows its coherent physics and renders itself quite well :). I wouldn't say that its harmonic structure cares for local, insignificant and irrelevant interpretations of its eternal being. Thus, as regards theorems referring to invalid theories, the universe considers them irrelevant. The universe wants to be understood. Therefore, it is its inevitable destiny.

Looking forward to read your Bob and Alice adventure.

Regards,

andrej

Hoang Hai

Dear Author Andrej Rehak

Very interesting - the Time always be the most serious competitor in our race to the future.

10 points for your conclusion "Who steers Earth's future?" - Hải.CaoHoàng

Hoang Hai

Looks like there has been a breakdown in the assessment grading so I can not give point for you ?

Andrej Rehak

Dear Hai

Thank you. Looking forward to read your essay.

Regards,

andrej