Video Image

Video URL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc5cRGOGIEU

Video Description

Professor Paul Davies describes the "Worm Hole Billiard Ball" paradox as if Einstein's Relativity proves not only that gravitationally affected oscillators "run slow", but as if GR also proves the existence of "time" and "different Times", (e.g. a temporal "past" and "present"). However, a careful examination of section 1 of "on the electrodynamics of moving bodies" shows Einstein provides no proof, or reason at all to convince us that extra to motion, and (dilated) change, there is also a past, and or future, or thing called "time" that "passes. Specificallly - "Electrodynamics" on "time" , states only.... [We must be] 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." (This reasoning only "assumes" a pointer attached to a motor shows the existence and passing of a thing called time Thus,without citing other proof, all that is shown here is that "trains" and "rotating pointers" may stationary or moving, and there locations and velocities can be being compared if one wishes). Instead "Electrodyanmics" seems only to "assume" a thing called time exists, and describes its findings as if Time is proven elsewhere - however, critically, most scientist seem to assume that the demonstration that a moving light clock ticks differently to a stationary one -also- proves the existence of a past, future, and "time". This video demonstrates how "IF" Relativity only shows us spaghettification, warped space, and dilated rates of change, the "Worm Hole Billiard Ball" paradox may be resolved completely.... without any parallel universes, or Hawking's "chronology protection conjecture". Matthew Marsden (auth "A Brief History of Timelessness" )

Video Creator Bio

Matt (welcome) Marsden, is a stand up, and science geek, his ""A Brief History of Timelessness" eBook website and Youtubes attempt to explain and explore (open mindedly) a question and possibility that no other expert on "time" seems to have considered. Let alone considered and dismissed or otherwise. The key question addressed being "if matter just exists, moves, interacts and changes.... including the matter in our own minds... would this be enough to mislead us into thinking a "temporal" past, and thus a thing called time might actually "exist"? the analysis is not "metaphysical" or "phylosopical" or "sematics", but science and logic.

Hi FQXI contest viewers, if you have any questions re this possible timeless interpretation of the wormhole billiard ball paradox, please post a comment.

M. Marsden.

11 days later

Hi Joe,

Thank you for watching my video, and your comments ( no I don't take them as vindictive : ). Far from "completely mistaken", the theme for this video is based around a very legitimate and well known and established time "paradox" that far from mistaken, is published in scientific American, and mentioned in many books and articles exploring the suggested nature of "time", if it exists.

The nature of the scenario is deliberately abstract, because like any "thought experiment" or "Gedankenexperiment" the idea is to simplify a scenario to it's simplest logical components (without worrying at the first stage, about too many concrete details, e.g. 'how would you build a wormhole', 'what actual particles are you considering sending through it' etc), so as to analyse the most basic logic of a particular theory or argument.

This way if a "paradox" can be shown to rely on false assumptions, or to fail in even a simplistic abstract analyses of it's logic this can indicate that there may be no need to go to the effort and expense of analysing an idea in a more detailed theoretical, practical or experimental level.

What I think I have shown here is that the initial suggested paradox relies on unproven assumptions that 'time', and a 'temporal past' exist. And, if it is considered without these assumptions it becomes sensible and solved... ultimately suggesting that the paradox itself far from proving time, and it mysteriousness, in fact shows how the 'theory of time' itself may be invalid, and unfounded.

mm

2 years later

Hi Mathew,

I have only just come upon your video. Its nicely done. Thanks too for your comments about the nature of the paradox.

I agree with you about objects only existing Now and the particular argument you present on that point. However I am surprised when you nonetheless go onto talk about the object Now passing through the wormhole, when you have explained that there is no actual evidence for the existence of time in Einstein's description. So isn't the whole idea of the wormhole scrapped by your suggestion? Why do you still need to consider warped space?

I don't want to entirely eliminate the idea of the 'time tunnel' but to present a different idea of what it is and how an object would interact with it. I'd say that there is potential sensory data in the environment and its not completely unfeasible that it could be disturbed in such a way as to form a tunnel. The object only exists Now though, and passing through a tunnel of potential sensory data would not affect the time at which the object itself exists. As it is only Now it wouldn't meet itself or need to be spaghetti-fied. The potential sensory data with temporal spread within the information continues to exist Now but where the object was and is Now do not both exist. So no meeting itself, unless it is a long object already, that fits all of the way through the tunnel of em information. The 'wormhole' entering object is just encountering data pertaining to different -Now configurations of the Object universe, the older on exit compared to younger on entrance. Yet it is always within the only foundational time that I call uni-temporal Now.

This paradox like the other temporal paradoxes is dispelled by recognition of the need to differentiate material objects in foundational reality, potential sensory data in that environment, and outputs formed from sense-able information.

6 years later
Write a Reply...