"Forget time" by Carlo Rovelli

Let's forget the Time, then the Space, and why not the Matter after all? Let's move into a cadastral survey instead of real houses if the quantities and the variables are preceding the things and the matter and not deduced from them. That would be an original solution to housing crisis.

One can notice that, starting from the same mixing of Time and Space variables (which is not what Newton and Einstein are doing), Superstring theoricians are making n-levels buildings.

In my opinion, Rovelli's theory and Superstring's one are both 'interstitial' sciences. Translated in Aesthetics I would say they are 'musical'.

Hello Carlo,

Thanks for all the detailed responses above.

You write, "The "atoms of space" and the "atoms of time" of LQG are only figures of language, to indicate that certain physical observables aspects of the gravitational field have a discrete spectrum."

As gravity has never been quantized, and as gravitons have never been seen, and as neither time nor space has been quantized, and as "atoms of space" and "atoms of time" have never been seen in the lab nor universe, and as there is no consistent, finite, accepted theory that predicts atoms of space and time, I think it is erroneous to conclude that "certain physical observables aspects of the gravitational field have a discrete spectrum."

Perhaps I am misundertanding what you mean, but what are the "physically observable aspects" of the gravitional field which have a discrete, quantized spectrum?

Thanks Carlo!

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Dear Dr. E,

I think he is referring to the "readings" of clocks and meters. Although these are observable, I should note that I disagree with Carlo that clocks and rulers measure anything. As they do not refer to anything except themselves, they themselves "represent" intervals of time and space. I think it is very reasonable to argue that the gravitational field is quantized, while the constitutes of clocks and rulers certainly are quantized. From this, one must operationally conclude that readings of cocks and rulers are quantized too. I think the crucial (and somewhat subtle) point, however, is that all one is essentially saying here is that matter is quantized - not that "intervals" of time and space are. Again, there is nothing "there" to be quantized. The problem obviously pops up when people then start talking about "time" and "space" actually being quantized, the existence of atoms of time and space, Chronons etc. This also means that, although Planck time and length represent an operational roadblock for clocks and rulers, there is no reason why continuity shouldn't be possible on possible smaller scales.

Best wishes

Peter

Hello Peter--'tis an honor to hear from you! I have been a fan ever since I read your paper on Zeno's paradox a few years back on slashdot. I reference your work in a longer treatment of Moving Dimensions Theory.

Yes--you write, and I agree, that "Although these are observable, I should note that I disagree with Carlo that clocks and rulers measure anything. As they do not refer to anything except themselves, they themselves "represent" intervals of time and space."

I think you will greatly enjoy the attached informal treatment of clocks and rulers given by Moving Dimensions Theory, which accounts for the gravitational redshift and the gravitational slowing of clocks, while also showing that there is no need to quantize gravity. Space is seen as continuous, and quantum phenomena (wave-particle duality/nonlocality/probability) is seen to descend from the fundamental wavelength of the fourth dimension's expansion, from which relativity is derived in my paper. dx4/dt = ic, and the wavelength of this expansion is Planck's length. And every timeless, ageless photon, which remains stationary in the fourth expanding dimension, agrees! It also deals with Planck's length in a novel, sensical manner.

The tautological definitions of time and the velocity of light, rest upon MDT's fundamental invariant of dx4/dt=ic, which ensures that c is always measured to be c, even though the rate of time changes close to gravitational masses. MDT's invariance underlies Einstein's observation, "My solution was really for the very concept of time, that is, that time is not absolutely defined but there is an inseparable connection between time and the signal [light] velocity."

Thanks for the words! Enjoy the attached brief paper--an updated version of what I posted on my own topic earlier today.Attachment #1: MOVING_DIMENSIONS_THEORY_EXAMINES_THE_GRAVITATIONAL_REDSHIFT_MCGUCKEN.pdf

Dear Carlo, you have the distinction of having the highest postings thus far. It is fine as the essay is invoking wide response. However, may be, don't we all need to broaden our overall outlook on the subject, rather than sing our individual 'songs'. The truth is never confined to an individual. It encompasses us all and unites us with the creation itself! i still await your specific comments on the posting made on Oct 26. it appears naive in nature but we need to contemplate deeper, beyond our individual scientific achievements may be!

In a strange layman's way, i hint at dispensing with both space & time but not 'gravity' as a concept! i also seem to have reservations about Quantum Mechanics, in a small way similar to what Einstein himself opined at its possibly better alternative to emerge one day!!

Dear all,

I wanted to make some comments about this "essay" along with the comments I have seen above.

I wanted to point out the comment made by Narendra (which has seeminly gone unnoticed):

"An interesting combination of two set of terms and traits may be provide us with some humor! Let us take a set of service, love, knowledge and life. Then, let us take another set of attitude. reason, intellect and time. If we combine the corresponding terms and traits with words 'with' and then 'without' in turn, the net result comes out to be selfish,false,ego and finite in the first option. The other option provides us with selfless, true, ego-free and eternal. The latter is a desired ( theoretical) set of objectives while the former results in a factual( practical) situation."

This makes a very important distinction between the products of science (Narendra's practical situation) and the aspirations of humanity (Narendra's theoretical set).

I wanted to comment that while this is indeed an "essay contest" that, in reality, there is no conclusion. There is no ultimate truth which science can obtain, there will always remain the largest questions: why something rather than nothing?

However, I want to make it clear that science is my greatest passion. Yet I see science today as an faint glimmer of what it could be. We lack the heroic attitude as Dr. E has made quite evident in his postings and essay. We also have 'sold' nature short--instead of letting children witness the awe and wonder of the cosmos, we placate them with ideas such as the "big bang" which remain hypothetical. Rather than telling children our biggest problems we tell them our greatest accomplishments, we hail the paradigm of evolution; yet, the origin of life will remain an eternal mystery. I do not want to go on forever like this but I think the reader might begin to see what I am saying, as I have experienced it my whole life (for the interested reader please see John Horgan's "The End of Science").

I think we scientists need to be careful when talking about "the truth". We must realize that science is the attempt to answer the question--Who are we?--through the conceptualization of this question via the emergent phenomenon of "working-memory." This emergent property of the human brain is coupled to our conscious awareness, that is, the here-and-now. Thus, science is a form of consciousness: since consciousness is the conceptualization of the here-and-now through "working-memory." Therefore, science is a metaphor, a lie--just as all forms of art are a lie--but, it is a lie that reveals the truth: reality is what we experience in the here-and-now, and life is what one makes of it.

And so, science and the humanities stand as complementary entities--exploring and expressing our objective physicality and subjective mentality, respectively. This is why neither can lay claim to "the truth" rather they both show us that the answer is not *out there* or *in here* but is really found in realizing our shared mortality.

The belief in a 'material universe' is no more realistic than an almighty 'God.' Both of these forms of faith can foster a form of fundamentalism: be it 'scientism' or 'religious radicalism.'

"The characteristic of all fundamentalism is that it has found absolute certainty--the certainty of class warfare, the certainty of science, or the literal certainty of the Bible--a certainty of the person who has finally found a solid rock to stand upon which, unlike other rocks, is "solid all the way down." Fundamentalism, however, is a terminal form of human consciousness in which development is stopped, eliminating the uncertainty and risk that real growth entails." - Heinz R. Pagels

In the realm of ideas, there stands two polar opposites: solipsism and materialism. Both of these ideologies represent subjective doctrines of consciousness; they are unfalsifiable. However, death stands as the single solace of reality in our world. Beyond our relationships with the mind and body, we have our relationship with others. And we all know we are going to die someday.

Even so, I still cannot be sure that this world is not some type of solipsistic nightmare; or I might be "plugged into the matrix"; and it also might be the case that my conscious awareness is nothing but the random collisions of atoms. But I do find comfort in my certainty of ordinary death. Without this certainty my life would no doubt fade into meaninglessness.

Humanity has struggled since the dawn of history to expound itself, and ironically it now seems that the highest form of consciousness is derived not from some platonic postulate, abstract mystical enlightenment, or any other haughty ideology. But from a solid relationship with mortality--the one actuality that binds us all to the same fate--the fundamental essence to realizing the miraculousness of existence.

CKM

Kyle,

The knowledge of our being recedes into the past, but it propels the essence of our being into the future.

Without knowledge there is no past. With no past, there is no future.

Dear Kyle and Carlo,

Our essay discussions are joining the voices of young 20 yrs with elders over 75 yrs. The wide spectrum provides the wealth hidden in our deliberations. We all need to assimilate the differing points of view and then comprehend them as mere complementary to one another. Thus, humanity gets enlightened.

If we try to work a bit harder and concise our presentations in discussions, the impact will be greater. Details are mere words that are used to expand the basic points of view!

i still await the response of our learned author, Carlo to the postings made on 26 and 28 Oct. by me!

As 'consciousness' is being used and invoked quite often in our discussions, i will attempt to add a few points:-

1. Actions take place through consciousness while our thoughts are with or without the same.

2. Energy for It comes from knowledge

unfortunately, my posting got on the site, without my completion, sorry for interruption!!

2. Energy comes from knowledge and enhancement comes from the 'wisdom' component.

3. Motivations lie in self will and desires. However, one needs to be careful to maintain smooth coordination between wisdom, will & desires, as these traits build ego too. It is

good to temper acts with a spirit of continuity, giving and observing the apparent opposites with calmness and reconciliation.

4.Waking, dreaming and sleep are the three known states, to which 'meditation' may be added. It is a state where we know 'we exist' but we become unaware of 'where we are'.This help provides freshness, sensitivity and all-encompassing beauty to the train of thoughts within. One is awake restfully!

5.Each body cell has life-force independently. Normally, a person has many cells in decay mode or even dead. Meditation helps individual cells to get strengthen and provide 'bubbly' enthusiasm in our actions.

6. Power of observation, differentiating discrimination and clarity gets enhanced.

Thanks for the rockin' words Kyle!

You write, "However, I want to make it clear that science is my greatest passion. Yet I see science today as an faint glimmer of what it could be. We lack the heroic attitude as Dr. E has made quite evident in his postings and essay. We also have 'sold' nature short--instead of letting children witness the awe and wonder of the cosmos, we placate them with ideas such as the "big bang" which remain hypothetical. Rather than telling children our biggest problems we tell them our greatest accomplishments, we hail the paradigm of evolution; yet, the origin of life will remain an eternal mystery."

A great thing about this discussion are the young voices who don't have a dog in the fight in the string/lqg/quantum gravity wars, and who see that physics is ultimately not about winning prizes in "The Matrix"--some socially-contructed arena built with PR and hype, but physics is about that long, rugged journey that we find ourselves on while seeking to aprehend *physical* reality.

Thanks to fqxi.org for this wonderful forum and the ocncept of the essay contest! Surely this is a format superior to arxiv.org, which hasn't exactly lead to any advancements in physics. . .

Max Born wrote, "All great discoveries in experimental physics have been made due to the intuition of men who made free use of models which for them were not products of the imagination but representations of real things."

And yet, today, the quantum gravity regimes have rejected simple physical models along with the belief that the math ought represent *real* things. And thus, despite hundreds of million in funding, there is no quantum gravity. There is no graviton, nor any consistent theory of quantum gravity. Instead, there are literally an infinite number of string theories, and fair about of loop-quantum theories, none of which quantize gravity in any finite, consistent way; let alone in any way that makes predictions that can be tested. There is no proof whatsover for tiny, vibrating strings, nor atoms of space and time, nor twistors, nor tiny little loops, nor multiverses, nor hyperspace, nor parallel universes. And the Greats themselves--Nobel Laureates--both living and dead, have spoke out against such pseudo-science, which has become a religion.

Instaid we get communal efforts which end up opposing progress in physics, as they oppose the individual heroic spirit by which all higher physical truths are ultimately apprehended.

Science is more of an art than a science, and it always seems to advance in manners never before anticipated by the establishment, as Planck stated. One cannot legislate, nor vote on, nor dictate the advancement of science by fiat. Do not take my word for it.

"One cannot pray a lie," as Mark Twain once said.

"New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment." --Max Planck

And again we see the primacy of the honest individual in the classic, epic hero's journey!

"A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man." --Joseph Campbell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth

And the Nobel Laureate eocnomist F.A. Hayek agrees!

"The tragedy of collectivist thought is that, while it starts out to make reason supreme, it ends by destroying reason because it misconceives the process on which the growth of reason depends. It may indeed be said that it is the paradox of all collectivist doctrine and its demands for "conscious" control or "conscious" planning that they necessarily lead to the demand that the mind of some individual should rule supreme--while only the individualist approach to social phenomena makes us recognize the superindividual forces which guide the growth of reason. Individualism is thus an attitude of humility before this social process and of tolerance to other opinions and is the exact opposite of that intellectual hubris which is at the root of the demand for comprehensive direction of social purpose." -F.A. Hayek, The End of Truth, The Road to Serfdom

Along comes a scientist who agrees with Einstein and Max Born and Planck. Along comes a physicist who agrees with Wheeler, and Feynman, and Glasgow, and Godel, and Bohr, and Gamow--wishing that he could watch old Westerns with Bohr and Gamow. Along comes a scientist who agrees with Nobel Laureate Robert Laughlin and Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek, with Newton and Dirac, with Heisenberg and Minkowski, with the great mythologist Joseph Campbell. Along comes a scientist with simple theory that has a simple postulate and equation from which all of relativity may be derived; from which entropy naturally arises, and which accounts for time and all its arrows and assymetries across all realms, while also providing a *physical* model for entanglement and nonlocality, as well as a *physical* model for Huygens' principle and the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. Not only does the multi-billion-dollar physics establishment ignore it, but they have so much funding, that they can hire grad students and profesors to snark the theory, so as to defend their perptual-motion NSF money mahcines and religions of wormholes, time warps, quantum gravity, multiverses, tiny, vibrating strings, and geometric mysticism/PR/hype, which Moving Dimensions Theory has no need for, as it concerns itself with physics and physical reality--with logic, reason, and simple postulates and equations that represent a hitherto unsung universal invariant--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c.

What we have here is a modern-day Inquistion.

Check out:

http://www.jklarsen.com/myblog/index.php?blog=6&title=confession_of_galileo_galilei&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Where it is reported: "In 1633, physicist Galileo Galilei was brought before the Roman Inquisition. Tried on "vehement suspicion of heresy," Galileo was forced to swear that he "abjured, cursed and detested" the errors of his work, which extended the findings of the Polish astronomer Nicholaus Copernicus that the Earth Moves."

Now I have postulated that the fourth dimension expands relative to the three spatial dimensions, and not one person in the entire quantum gravity regime has ever, ever, taken the time to comment on my theory. It's not like MDT is a secret, so their silence puzzles the will. Carlo promised to look at my paper above, but he has not yet commented on it.

I realized that perhaps before commenting on MDT, they are all waiting for a confession.

Well, here is my confession, based on Galileo's, which can be enjoyed here:

http://www.jklarsen.com/myblog/index.php?blog=6&title=confession_of_galileo_galilei&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

I, Dr. E, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei of Florence, aged 70 years, tried personally by this court, and kneeling before You, the most Eminent Antitheorists and Reverend Lord Cardinals of M-Theory Multiverses, Inquisitors-General throughout the Quantum Gravity Republic against heretical depravity, having before my eyes the Most Holy Gospels of an Elegant Universe, Not Even Wrong, and The Trouble With Physics, and laying on them my own hands; I swear that I have always believed, I believe now, and with Ed Witten's help I will in future believe all which the Holy Quantum Gravity and M-Theory Church doth hold, preach, teach, and hype to the press, including E-8 and next year's E-9 anti-theory.

But since I, after having been admonished by this Holy Office entirely to abandon the false opinion that the fourth dimension expands relative to the three spatial dimensions, and that quantum mechanics' entanglement, nonlocality, entropy, relativity itself, time and all its arrows and assymetries across all realms, the gravitational slowing of clocks and time, Huygens' Principle, probability, and all the dualities (space-time, wave-particle, mass-energy) derive from this simple principle of MDT and its equation dx4/dt=ic, and that I was neither to hold, defend, nor teach in any manner whatever, either orally or in writing, the said false doctrine; and after having received a notification that the said doctrine is contrary to the Holy Writ of Hyperspace, I did write and cause to be printed a blog and forum in which I treat of the said already condemned MDT doctrine, and bring forward arguments of much efficacy in its favour, without arriving at any solution: I have been judged vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having held and believed that the fourth dimension's expansion is the universe's fundamental invaraint, and that the block universe does not exist and time is not the fourth dimension, but that time is a parameter that emerges because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c, that change is and ought be woven into the fundamental fabric of spacetime with dx4/dt=ic, and that the fourth dimension, like the earth, does move.

Nevertheless, wishing to remove from the minds of your Tenured Eminences and all faithful LQGers and String Theorist this vehement suspicion reasonably conceived against me, I abjure with sincere heart and unfeigned faith, I curse and detest the said errors and heresies, and generally all and every error and sect contrary to the Holy Quantum Gravity Regimes, and I am ready to foregt time, forget space, and forget physical reality, while embracing multiverses and tiny, vibrating stirngs. And I swear that for the future I will neither say nor assert in speaking or writing such things as may bring upon me similar suspicion; and if I know any heretic who speaks out against tiny, vibrating branes, anti-theories, or atoms of space and time, or one suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office of Time Travel, or to the Inquisitor of Wormholes and Ordinary of the place in which I may be, which will of course be in the block universe, which MDT falsely liberated us from, while falsely grangting us free will and free thought, as it falsely froze time. I hereby remit all future free will, as I return to the block universe with the hopes of receiving the funding that is a part of my pre-Ordained future, as a member of the Quantum Grvaity Church.

I also swear and promise to adopt and observe entirely all the penances which have been or may be by this Holy Office of Loops imposed on me. And if I contravene any of these said promises, protests, or oaths, (which Ed Witten forbid!) I submit myself to all the pains and penalties which by the Sacred Canons of String Theory and other Decrees of D-branes general and particular are against such offenders imposed and promulgated. So help me God and the Holy Warped Passages/The Trouble With Physics/10^99 indecipherable arxiv.org papers--which I touch with my own hands.

I, Dr. E, aforesaid have abjured, sworn, and promised, and hold myself bound as above; and in token of the truth, with my own hand have subscribed the present schedule of my abjuration, and have recited it word by word. In America, at the Convent della Minerva, this 28th day of October, 2008, right before I go shopping for my Halloween costume.

I, Dr. E, have abjured as above, with my own hand."

And as I'm walking away to serve out my house arrest after this confession, I turn to the crowd that had gathered to hear me read it and smile.

And I say, "And yet it--the fourth dimension--moves! Eppur si muove!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pur_si_muove

Happy Halloween everyone!

I think I'm going to celebrate our newfound free will and liberation from the block universe, frozen time, and frozen progress in physics by being a cowboy this year, in honor of Galileo, Bohr, Homer, Gamow and all those classical heroes--so many of them unsung.

Thanks to fqxi.org for this wonderful forum and to all the participants!

Best,

Dr. E :)

Real McCoy (Dr.E), Kyle & Carlo Rovelli, the author,

i am getting confused with author's wise silence while Dr. E continues with his lengthy comments. The young Kyle put in some freshness as expected from the young but most of us continue to sing about ourselves. May we all join to bring cohesion, preciseness to our large number of postings on this essay. i firmly believe science can only talk about relative truths and none of us need bother philosophically to project the ultimate truth. Theories have names tied just as each of us have a tie with a name. Neither seem to hold for long. Only when one has the capacity to broaden to the level of cosmos and then comprehend the phenomenon being attempted for explanation,the right direction is likely to be missed!

IT IS TIME CARLO COMES UP WITH RESPONDING POST and clear the mess from building up!

Carlo and all previous responders;

I find it amazing how one can dance completely around a point without seeing it, but we are all somewhat subject to that problem so I can't say too much. First many picked up that time seems to be connected to motion, which is true. It is also interesting that you desire to replace time with thermodynamics, which can generally be considered to be a study of the generalized quantitive motion of a large number of particles traveling through distances as a contained or isolated group (of course, the relative equilibrium of the motions etc. is also a part of it). This is because you are substituting time in one form with time in another form.

Time is a derived function of two variables. They are distance and motion amplitude, where time equals distance divided by motion amplitude (usually called rate or speed) or T=D/R. Distance is the more fundamental variable since it is a property of and emerges in any dimensional system that contains at least two identifiable points as the separation between the two points. Motion is a property of an entity that exists within such a dimensional system. Distance exists as a part (property) of the dimensional system, but an entity must exist in the system to carry motion through the distance. The simplest concept of an entity is one that is composed of motion. The motion contains within itself such information as its position, direction, and amplitude as it travels through the distance between the two points. From this it is possible to generate the complete physical world as a large motion machine in which each particle of sub-energy, energy, and matter is composed of a motion in each of the dimensions in which it participates.

There is no flowing of time as a separate thing from the motions that exist in the entities that exist in the dimensional system. The perception of time flowing is caused by the fact that we exist in a continuum of motion composed of a vary large number of individual motions that are moving in relation to us and are also actually even going on in our own bodies. As an example, if you call a taxi and then wait by the street for it to come so you can get into it, when you see it coming down the street a few blocks away, the action of getting into the taxi is still in the future. When the taxi reaches you and stops and you begin to reach out your hand to open the door, the action of getting into the taxi is now in your present. After you have opened the door entered the taxi, told the driver your destination, and closed the door, the action of getting into the taxi is complete and becomes a part of your past. What has happened, however, is a continuum of motions. You're feeling of the flow of time from the future to the present and then to the past is just a matter of the relationships between motions in terms of your planned (in this case) action of getting into the taxi. It has to do with the relative positioning of the motions in relation to each other. This type of serial sequence of motions is one thing that gives us a sense of the flow of time. Another is the fact that the world is alive with motions all around us. This continual bombardment of motions on our senses that changes in many ways as we and they move, gives us a sense of placement in and movement in time by the markers of the motion content that are continually changing. Repetitive motions also add to the sense of the flow of time as measured by the number of repetitions. Time then is not a separate entity that somehow flows in one direction, but the measurement of motions through distances. It is the motions themselves that give us the sense of flow as they flow all around us. When you understand that it is the continuum of motions that are flowing, it is easy to see why they only go in one direction because a motion goes in one direction until it is acted upon by another motion and then it may go in a different direction or at a different motion amplitude as a result of the interaction. This pattern of motions and interactions between motions is continually happening all around us. The only way to go back in time (or at least appear to do so) would be to simultaneously reverse all motions in the universe and then reverse them again when they were back to the positions that they were in at the previous condition of all motions that you wanted to get back to. You could then relive the same pattern of motions over again, but you would not know it because you would have also reversed your own motions and all of the motions that stored your remembrances of the previous motion passage would be reversed also and would thus remove your memory of that first pass though of the motions. There is no past to travel to because all of the interactions that have brought motion conditions to the place that they are now at have effectively erased those past motion conditions and the motion conditions that will be in place in the future are not there yet because all the interactions that will take place from now to the place you want to go to in the future have not yet occurred and so the future motion conditions don't yet exist either.

Now the easy way to get around using time in your equations is to replace time (T) with the variables that make it up (D/R). The only problem is to replace (R) with a motion amplitude function that does not contain time, but instead is generated as a position on a continuous motion amplitude scale of the range of possible comparative motion amplitudes. This would have a certain chosen motion amplitude as the unit of motion amplitude and all compared motions would then be expressed in terms of that unit. If the proper unit is chosen you might be surprised at how it might make some other things easier to understand hint, hint. Of course you must remember that distance also becomes a multi-amplitude function in matter at high velocities and you must properly account for it.

Time standards are actually just specific sets of distances and their associated motion amplitudes that generate the same result when you divide the distance by the motion amplitude. As an example, one standard is the day, which is the time that it takes the earth to make one rotation on its axis. If you look at a line of points that go from the equator to one of the poles, you see that as you travel from the equator toward the pole each point has a slightly shorter distance to travel than the point before it to get all the way around the earth. In order to get around the earth when all the other points on the line do, it must, therefore, travel with a slightly lower motion amplitude than the point before it and a slightly faster motion amplitude than the point after it. This continues for all the points on the line so you get a continuous spectrum of distances and their associated motion amplitudes that equal one standard day. Of course, any other motion that went through a specific distance with a specific motion amplitude that would be completed in one revolution of all those points on the earth around the center of the earth would also be part of the standard set of one day.

Once you can get centered on the concept that motion is the key to the generation of all entities (energy photons, matter particles, etc.) the next step is to consider how many motions are required to make them all up, what dimensions the motions travel in and what type of dimensional interfaces are necessary to make it all work. Just to cover some very basic concepts, we know from E= MC^2 that energy and matter are basically the same thing, but it takes a large amount of energy to make a small amount of matter. If all entities are composed of motion, it follows that matter contains more motion than energy. We know that motion on a large scale generates mass effect in that a truck that is traveling at 40 mph will usually display about twice the mass effect as it would if it was going 20mph on an object that it hits. This can be extrapolated to all entities with the concept that motion equals mass. So in general matter particles possess a greater motion content and, therefore, also display a greater mass effect than energy photons. If you try to slow an energy photon down to stop its motion, its mass effect decreases and it eventually ceases to exist, but you can bring a matter particle to a complete stop in the first three dimensions and it still retains its mass effect. This implies that the motion is stored differently in the two types of entities and that the motion in the matter particle is somehow bound up in the particle itself and is separate from its three dimensional motion. The motion stored in the energy photon that is depleted as you try to slow it down is also not its three dimensional motion as it continues to move at the speed of light. It, therefore, also contains an additional motion that is stored in some other way than in the lower three dimensions. The energy photon also displays a frequency and wavelength effect with a variable mass effect such that if you try to slow it down its frequency and variable mass effect decrease and its wavelength increases. This can give us a good hint at what type of dimensional interface would be necessary between the dimension that stores its extra motion and the first three dimensions in order to generate these effects. The matter particle also demonstrates a frequency and wavelength effect so it also likely stores some of its motion in the same way as the photon, but in addition it stores some of its motion in a different way. This implies that this additional motion is stored in another dimension with a different type of interface that can cause this motion to be bound up in the particle separate from its three dimensional motion. When you put it all together, you get a hierarchical structure with the energy photon at the lower level with velocities in the first four dimensions and the matter particle with velocities in the first five dimensions. Motion can be transferred to or from the photon's fourth dimension velocity directly by attempting to change its three dimensional velocity. Motion can be transferred to the matter particle's fifth dimensional velocity by applying motion to its three dimensional composite velocity to increase its fourth dimensional velocity which can then pass it to its fifth dimensional velocity. The rate of transfer from the fourth dimension to the fifth dimension increases with an increase in the velocity in the first three dimensions. Because an energy photon can exist with about .511MEV and an electron can also exist with about the same .511MEV, it is apparent that velocity does not automatically transfer from the fourth dimension to the fifth dimension to generate a matter particle. This can be traced to certain angular components that must also be present due to the nature of the fifth dimensional interface to enable motion transmission. As a matter of fact the mass/inertia effect is greatly due to the fourth and fifth dimensional angular components. I hope this will be of help.

Paul,

"Time then is not a separate entity that somehow flows in one direction, but the measurement of motions through distances. It is the motions themselves that give us the sense of flow as they flow all around us. When you understand that it is the continuum of motions that are flowing, it is easy to see why they only go in one direction because a motion goes in one direction until it is acted upon by another motion and then it may go in a different direction or at a different motion amplitude as a result of the interaction. This pattern of motions and interactions between motions is continually happening all around us. The only way to go back in time (or at least appear to do so) would be to simultaneously reverse all motions in the universe and then reverse them again when they were back to the positions that they were in at the previous condition of all motions that you wanted to get back to. "

So time and temperature are emergent descriptions of motion.

As such, it seems the real confusion over time is that by modeling it as a fundamental dimension, the tendency is to view it as going from past to future. While Einstein disproved it is a fundamental dimension, he still seemed to model it as going from past to future, yet as an effect of motion, where each event is replaced by the next, what we view as this linear dimension of cause and effect is actually going the other way, from future potential to past circumstance.

Many comments have come during the past week and Carlo Rovelli is keeping a wise silence among some lengthy narrations. Let us make him feel easy to respond to what he feels like responding. The next post may be reserved for the author to clear the 'mess' getting generated on such a nice essay that attempts to simplify rather than complicate matters in understanding what Nature has done for us by creating the Universe, then our Earth and then trees/plants, animals and finally we humans with ability to comprehend it all!

John;

You are exactly right. Temperature is the measurement of the average free motion in an isolated system containing a large number of energy photons and, or matter particles and since these motions all have motion amplitudes and travel through distances they exhibit the property of time. It is just a more average statistical time structure than if you could look at each individual entity's distance traveled and motion amplitude and then combine them all together to get the average distance and motion amplitude, which you would then use in the formula to get the average time. The result would generally be the same either way though if both approaches were completely accurate.

In analyzing the current state of man's technology, I have found that several scientists have come to the conclusion that the current understanding of time is lacking, but they generally lack enough background information about the structure of the dimensional system and the entities that exist within it to get the full picture. For example, a common belief is that energy photons do not experience time because they are traveling at the speed of light. This is generally true as long as you restrict your study to those things that are only affected by the photon's velocity in the first three dimensions because all photons have the same composite motion amplitude in the first three dimensions. If you make the speed of light equal to 1 in your motion amplitude scale then all photons would possess a motion amplitude value of 1, so you end up with a formula of T=D/1 or T=d. Since (in this limited context) time equals distance, there is no need for the separate derivative of time. The problem is that all photons don't possess the same fourth dimensional motion amplitude. In practice most interactions between photons and other photons or matter particles are sensitive to the effects generated by the fourth dimensional velocity. All photons with the same fourth dimensional motion amplitude are truly identical and generate the same interaction effects. This is what has given rise to the idea of the quantum nature of energy in that all photons with the same frequency and wavelength seem to possess the same quantum (quantity) of energy as measured by their mass effects in interactions. This in reality is just saying, however, that they all have the same motion amplitudes generally in the same places that can be applied to the interaction. Because the electromagnetic spectrum appears to be a very wide range continuous analog progression from a very low fourth dimensional velocity (very low frequency and mass effect and a very long wavelength) to a very high fourth dimensional velocity (very high frequency and mass effect and a very short wavelength), there does not appear to be any true quantum effect. What is actually seen is that the continuously variable fourth dimensional velocity generates a continuously variable set of effects (frequency, mass effect, and wavelength) that are in lockstep with each other and the single variable that causes them (the fourth dimensional velocity). I know this is a little departure from your comment, but it came to mind and it does have to do with time and I have compassion for those who are struggling with the concept of the timelessness of photons so I thought I would try to give a little information about it that might (and I hope will) help. Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

You are right that from our perspective which allows us to only interact with a small portion of the motions in the world, the first step of interaction with one of us is for a motion to get into a position that will ultimately interact with that one. Through large numbers of high speed motion interactions our future is continually forming around us to ultimately generate our present. As an example, if someone could look at a given photon in your office, he might see it traveling away from you and assume that it would never interact with you and be a part of your present, but through many millions of bounces off of matter particles in the office walls and other things in the office it might bounce off of your desk just as you are looking at it and be a part of the image that you perceive as the appearance of your desk, thus becoming a part of your present when the interaction occurs. In practice we are bathed in a continuous bombardment of such high speed motion interactions and we are too slow to be able to observe and keep track of them all in real time so they appear to us to be a continuous overall flow of motion. Our senses tend to give us overall averages of the motions such as the way our eyes take the interactions with large numbers of individual photons and combine them to generate an average composite image. This is much like the difference between looking at and keeping track of each motion and motion interaction in a container of gas on the one hand and just inserting a thermometer into the container to read the average of the motions on the other hand, though maybe not quite as extreme.

Another thing that gives us our sense (especially of past and future) is the way that our minds work. Let's look at the taxi example a little closer. In order to have called the taxi in the first place, you would have started by forming an intent to do so in your spirit. This intent could have been the result of a previous intent. As an example, while you are sitting in your chair, your body might send a pattern of motions to your soul that would cause your soul to generate the thought that you are hungry. These motions might be detailed enough to let your mind know that you need potassium. Your soul would then generate the thought that you need food with potassium and send it to your spirit. Your spirit would then generate the intent for you to get up out of your chair and walk to your kitchen and get and eat a banana from the place where you store them. This intent would be sent to your soul which would generate the needed thoughts that would then be sent to the necessary body parts to cause you to actually get up and go to the kitchen. At this point the light hitting your eyes from the place where you store your bananas tells your body that the bananas are gone. Your body sends motion patterns to your soul to inform it and your soul generates the thoughts and passes them to your spirit to let your spirit know that its intent can't be performed as given and why. Your spirit then creates a new intent that is a sub intent to the first one, which is to call a taxi to take you to the store to get bananas and then passes the intent to your soul which generates the thoughts that are necessary and sends them to your body in the proper way so that your body will perform all needed motions. Of course things are not quite that simple. Part of the reason that we have this feeling of a continuum or flow of time is that our interaction with any given thing (the taxi in this case) can at any given instant have some interactions that are in the future, some that are in the present and some that are in the past. To show this point let's suppose that your body gets tired of standing while you are waiting for the taxi so it sends signals to your soul that causes your soul to generate thoughts that it passes to your spirit to let it know that you cannot stand much longer. Your spirit generates an intent to solve the problem by sitting on a nearby bench. Your soul then generates the thoughts that cause your body to perform this action. At first when you are sitting there the taxi itself and the action of taking it to the store are completely in your future. To you, they are only in your future because you have stored the intent to take the taxi to the store in your mind and you have performed the planned steps leading up to your ability to take it when it comes, but it is still beyond the range of your senses. When the taxi gets close enough that you can see it your interactions with it begin to enter your present because you presently see it. At this point you may generate the intent to stand up and walk to the curb so you will be ready to get into the taxi when it gets to you and stops. After you have completed that action, it is stored in your mind as a completed part of your interaction with the taxi caused by the interaction of your seeing it coming down the street. You now have the taxi in your present because you can see it and it is still in your future because your planned action of getting into it can not yet be performed until it reaches you and stops. You also have your interaction with it in your past because you have completed the act of getting up from the bench and walking to the curb as a response to your visual sight of it. This joining together of past, present and future in our interactions with things can give a sense of continuity. Of course only the present motion conditions actually exist. We only have the concept of the past because our minds can store the present state of motion conditions and then can refer back to those stored records to give us an idea of how they have changed. If our minds did not have this ability we would be greatly disabled in our ability to make any sense out of the world because we would not be able to take advantage of knowledge gained by observing repetitive patterns in actions around us, which would mean no science. Every time we saw the sun come up it would be a new experience to us. This type of effect can actually be observed in people with certain types of dementia. If you were to suffer from the early stages of such a condition you might retain some very short term memory and usually you would still retain your long term memory. In our taxi example, you might get to the kitchen and see that you are out of bananas and call the taxi. You also might go outside to wait for it and if you got tired, you would likely sit down, but if it took the taxi a half an hour to get to your house, you would likely have forgotten the reason that you are out there on the bench by the time it gets there. You could have done the first things because in the early stages of the disease your long term stored memories would still be intact and your mind could still base actions on those records. As the disease progressed even these memories would be lost and you would become less able to intelligently act in reaction to the interactions that you encountered with the world around you. After awhile each time you tried to do anything you would have to try to figure it out again from scratch, and since there are usually more ways that you can do something wrong than there are to do it right, you would have many more failures than successes. Even if you happened to put your cup of tea in the microwave, closed the door and by chance hit the number 2 and it came out just right, you would not be able to retain that new knowledge until the next time, so you would be back to hitting a chance number again the next time. After awhile you would not even retain in your memory the microwaves purpose. You would live more and more in the present and you would even understand it less and less. It would more and more seem to be filled with random meaningless motions. Even if your mind could still think, you would not be likely to come up with much useful information without all the results of your past experiments with your surroundings and those that you would have also picked up from others. If you did come up with some good insight, it would not do you much good because you would have forgotten it by the next day. You would likely not bother with all the work after a while and give up.

If the stored records of previous motion conditions are more closely associated with our sense of a past, the ability to generate intents to fulfill purposes is more joined to our sense of the future. It is these plans that we imagine and then work to complete, but have not yet been completed that give us the concept that a predictable future is out there waiting to happen. The more successful we are at satisfactorily fulfilling our intents, the more real the future seems to be for us. If someone were to lose the ability to form intents to fulfill purposes, he would become a disconnected observer of the world with no ability to take actions to interact with the world around him.

There is much more, that can be said about the subject, but I have probably already offended Narendra Nath and for all I know possibly others by not only not keeping quiet, but also by making what has turned out to be my second lengthy narration in this contest space. It just happens that they are both in Carlo's portion of that space. Since your comment to me was here before Narendra's request though, I thought that you deserved an answer from me and thought it best to answer it here, so you would be sure to find it. In order to please Narendra, however, further comments can be put in the comment area for my paper "The Physical Nature of Time" if anyone is interested. Sorry Narendra and Carlo and anyone else also if I in any way have offended any. I will now wait until Carlo has had a chance to respond per your request Narendra before making any further comments here in Carlo's space.

Paul,

I'm in general agreement with what you are saying. I'll add a further idea that's been rattling around my head on your thread.

Hello Carlo,

We miss you!

You write above, "Then there is a post on the waste of public money on research about time in quantum gravity. I take this seriously. Often at conferences I listen to talk after talk, and I wonder "is public money wasted here"? Maybe yes. But was it wasted public money the money that the Ptolemy's Kings put in Ptolemy's astronomy? Or that the Church put in supporting Copernicus completely useless searches? Or that supported Maxwell and Faraday, Shcroedinger or Einstein? No, it clearly was not. Is there a way to chose a priori who will be next Dirac? No, there is not. Research needs courage, wasted time and money, false directions. The history of our civilization is the proof that all this money is not wasted, in my opinion.

Carlo"

How much government funding did Einstein receive as a patent clerk, when he wrote his five miraculous papers which revolutionized physics?

For that matter, how much money did "Ptolemy's Kings put in Ptolemy's astronomy?" And was this public money? Sometimes I feel like we've reintroduced Kings in the realm (empires) of science, so maybe that is actually a good analogy!

And how much money did "the Church put in supporting Copernicus completely useless searches?" And were Copernicus's searches really useless? I thought Copernicus liberated us from the geocentric universe! And how much government funding went to support "Maxwell and Faraday, Shcroedinger or Einstein?" Unless I miss my guess, they all made their monumental contributions *before* they received massive amounts of funding, if they ever did receive massive amounts of funding. I'll bet you $100 on this. :)

Then you write, "Is there a way to chose a priori who will be next Dirac? No, there is not." This is true, so why does so much funding go to so few who never really advance physics? And then after a few years of not advancing physics themselves, they are given 10x as much funding to pick out the next Dirac, or the next Einstein, or Bohr. It seems that these days, unlike the past, the less one advances physics on one's own, and the more one sticks with "communal" ideas that go nowhere, the more and more funding they receive, until we have entire empires--the richest scientific empires in the history of science, which have frozen progress in physics, while outlawing new ideas.

Science is more of an art than a science, and it always seems to advance in manners never before anticipated by the establishment, as Planck stated. One cannot legislate, nor vote on, nor dictate the advancement of science by fiat. "One cannot pray a lie," as Mark Twain once said.

"New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment." --Max Planck

And again we see the primacy of the honest individual in the classic, epic hero's journey!

"A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man." --Joseph Campbell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth

And the Nobel Laureate eocnomist F.A. Hayek agrees!

"The tragedy of collectivist thought is that, while it starts out to make reason supreme, it ends by destroying reason because it misconceives the process on which the growth of reason depends. It may indeed be said that it is the paradox of all collectivist doctrine and its demands for "conscious" control or "conscious" planning that they necessarily lead to the demand that the mind of some individual should rule supreme--while only the individualist approach to social phenomena makes us recognize the superindividual forces which guide the growth of reason. Individualism is thus an attitude of humility before this social process and of tolerance to other opinions and is the exact opposite of that intellectual hubris which is at the root of the demand for comprehensive direction of social purpose." -F.A. Hayek, The End of Truth, The Road to Serfdom

Not only do the contemporary antitheory empires concentrate epic amounts of funding into a small group of physicists' hands, but by and by that group does not only not fund the advancement of physics, but it funds Ph.D.'s and postdocs to go forth and actively ban, censor, castigate, and attack new ideas, often anonymously, so as to please their elder kings and shore up their funding. Is this a prudent use of funding? Would we not be better off without such funding? Getting rid of this funding would remove the incentive for joining groupthink and regimes, along with the incentive to ignore and/or attack simple theories rooted in logic and reason, so as to keep progress in physics frozen.

Carlo--since, as you say, one cannot predict the next Dirac, why not distribute smaller amounts of funding to a greater number of physicists? Would this not make sense from both a statistical and moral standpoint, and lessen the probability of kingships and empires and their hired mercenaries who oppose the advancement of physics, thusly freezing its progress?

Even though the Greats have been banned from the Academy, every physicist ought read George Orwell and Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayke, who expound on how groupthink, in the absence of the moral appreciation of the Truth, leads to tyranny:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm (about when the LQGers overthrow the String Theory Regime and institute their own government, where all anti-theories are equal, but some are more equal than others)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four (about a young man working at the Ministry of Physics and a young woman working at the Ministry of Corporate-State Curiosity)

Well, no man is an island, and physics has ever been advanced by cordial conversation in the context of rigorous honesty and a humble acknowledgement of empirical facts. Einstein and Bohr disagreed often, but yet they had a deep respect for one-another, and I highly recommend the perusal of their converstations! Where would be be without the disagreements between Einstein and Minkowski, between Bohr and Einstein, and between Pauli and just about everybody? Contrast their exalted dialogues to the snarky dialogues in the modern string-LQG wars (and the 10x snarkier attacks lauched against MDT), and the perhaps even more troubling complete *lack* of dialogue for topics and approaches transcending those two "theories" which might not even be *physical* theories after all.

Again, the Nobel Laureate Max Planck writes,

"New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment." --Max Planck

And yet today's science is dominated by "communal" theories bolstered by multi-million-dollar media teams. And again, these theories aren't really *physical* theories. They are often merely "not even wrong"--and they defend their not-even-wrongishness unto the death, as it provides the center and circumference of a groupthink regime, which in turn guarantees infinite funding, accolades, press, televised mini-series, and awards for a small set of "leaders" heading anti-theory regimes.

Planck also wrote, "Eine neue wissenschaftliche Wahrheit pflegt sich nicht in der Weise durchzusetzen, daß ihre Gegner überzeugt werden und sich als belehrt erklären, sondern vielmehr dadurch, daß ihre Gegner allmählich aussterben und daß die heranwachsende Generation von vornherein mit der Wahrheit vertraut geworden ist."

Translation: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Once upon a time new theories were opposed by established scientists and established science. But today, new theories are opposed by established anti-theory bureaucracies and established bureaucrats, which have done little, if anything, to advance or contibute to actual science. So walking into town with a new theory is more akin to Galileo standing before the Inquisition.

Bohr and Gamow loved Westerns--I woudl do anything to watch some Westerns with those guys. Westerns always open the same way. The lone cowboy--the high plains drifter--drifts on into town, and immediately the boss's lowly gangsters and postdocs mock, belittle, and intimidate him, just like how it goes down in today's "communal" realms of non-physics and anti-theory regimes, which are always run out of the saloons with the crooked dealers.

This is what it sometimes feels like talking about Moving Dimensions Theory, when I ride into town on a mule, as I don't have the funding to buy the BMW--the preferred ride of the anti-theorists I have heard:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADzFve-tKnU

Director Sergio Leone was a genius! Perhaps you saw some of his films in the original Italian! You can see how Sergio has that Homeric poetry in his soul.

It seems too many physicists have forgotten the Hippocratic Oath--"first, do no harm."

Perhaps we ought contemplate a oath for scientists!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath_for_Scientists

So, in light of all this, Carlo, I'm thankful for this conversation and to fqxi for providing this forum which brought us togetehr!

MDT provides opportunities for novel research programs and curriculums--for new directions and exalted pursuits in physics, philosophy, and knowledge--based upon the foundational works of physics. And on a deeper level, the "heroic spirit" the program exalts could find use across all realms in academia and throughout our economy, in which far, far too many people profit by saying one thing and doing another--activities which have lead to our current financial crises and familial, cultural, and scientific delcine.

MDT predicts all of relativity from a simple postulate and equation that also provides *physical* models for entropy, time, and all its arrows, quantum entanglement and nonlocality, and all the dualities--space/time, energy/mass, and wave/particle. Not bad for one small equation: dx4/dt = ic, which offers a *physical* unification across all realms of physics, tying together entities as diverse as quantum entanglement and the timelessness of the photon, while presenting insight into a novel physical facet of our universe--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

Finally, Carlo, you write, "Research needs courage, wasted time and money, false directions."

Well, I agree Research needs courage. Classic, cowboy courage!

Courage is a kind of salvation. --Plato

Moral excellence comes about as a result of habit. We become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts. --Aristotle

O friends, be men, and let your hearts be strong,

And let no warrior in the heat of fight

Do what may bring him shame in others' eyes;

For more of those who shrink from shame are safe

Than fall in battle, while with those who flee

Is neither glory nor reprieve from death.

- Homer's Iliad (bk. V, l. 663),

All serious daring starts from within. --Harriet Beecher Stowe

Moral cowardice that keeps us from speaking our minds is as dangerous to this country as irresponsible talk. The right way is not always the popular and easy way. Standing for right when it is unpopular is a true test of moral character. -- Margaret Chase Smith

If you lose hope, somehow you lose the vitality that keeps life moving, you lose that courage to be, that quality that helps you go on in spite of it all. And so today I still have a dream. --Martin Luther King, jr.

Whatever you do, you need courage. Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you that you are wrong. There are always difficulties arising that tempt you to believe your critics are right. To map out a course of action and follow it to an end requires some of the same courage that a soldier needs. Peace has its victories, but it takes brave men and women to win them.

--Ralph Waldo Emerson

But none of the physicists you listed would agree that research necessarily needs "wasted time and money, false directions." It is not in a true physicist's nature to wish for wasted time amd wrong roads, as we know how fleeting life is.

All the wasted money, which is wasted so flippantly these days--so pridefully--is a vast and resounding insult to all the honest postdocs, grad-students, and hard-working professors, who are never. never paid enough.

And so it is that I propose a more equitable distribution of grants, for as long as "money is wasted," and "nobody can predict the next Dirac nor Einstein," why not approach the world, and one's fellow physicists, with more humility, kindness, and common courtesy?

For "humility, kindness, and common courtesy," cost nothing extra, and will go far further in returning the classic, heroic spirit to the realm of physics--the spirit by which physics has ever advanced, than will hundreds of millions of dollars, which cannot buy one iota of truth, any more than it can buy the soul.

An education obtained with money is worse than no education at all" --Socrates

"Humility, kindness, and common courtesy" will do far more to advance knowledge, wisdom, and culture than vast amounts of funding for regimes that have made a God-King of failure, and now bolster the black holes of anti-theories with hired mercaneries who play little games of censorship, snark, and PR hype, while penning 10^99 meaningless, indecipherabel papers. I am not convinced that such entities are necessary to the advancement of science, and I would, in fact, postulate that they are antithetical to the adavancement of science and culture, which find merrier companionship in truth, logic, reason, simplicity, honesty, and a keen appreciation for and dedication to *physical* reality.

For know this:

And yet it--the fourth dimension--moves! And its movement hath liberated us from frozen time, liberated us from the block universe, and liberated us from frozen progress in theoretical physics!

Change, my friend, has been woven into the fundamental fabric of spacetime, where it needs to be! For change encompasses every physical realm! There can be no measurement without change, and thus there can be no physics without change!

O happy day! A new, hitherto unsung universal invariant has been bestowed upon us--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c! dx4/dt = ic!

And this motion hath taken us to a brave, new heroic age!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pur_si_muove

E pur si muove!

Now and Forver!

And unless I miss my guess, we are in for one wild night. . .

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Paul Butler, John Merryman and Dr. E have dominated the scene since my posting of Nov. 01 seeking response of dear author, Prof. Carlo Rovelli to similar lengthy postings prior to November 01. He is still keeping his silence for reasons best known to him.

In the series of essays on 'Nature of Time', we have had two unique theories presented, one TGD by Dr. Matti Pitkanen and the other by the other MDT by your self. Where do we stand to understand the physical universe with respect to the non-physical entity called 'consciousness'. i will appreciatively request Prof. Rovelli to come out with his responding post ,clearing the air filled with lots of historic quotes and lengthy comments, no offence meant towards such postings either!

Carlo, I have a question about unitarity. In the timeless picture you propose there is no unitarity, right? Does this mean that probability conservation can be violated? Bob