"Forget time" by Carlo Rovelli

Nov.03 post awaits your response, Carlo. Hopefully , u consider it appropriate for your essay! Parallel between TIME & temperature seems a significant issue. Will you like to give weight to space/time concept over the reality of gravity?

Probability considerations require complete randomness in physical processes. What do you feel if i say ' Order contains randomness but not the reverse of it '?

Hello Carlo,

Above you write, "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. "

You say that research needs "wasted time and money."

Above you also kindly write, "Dr.E. ha posted a friendly note, arguing that perhaps gravity needs not to be quantized, quoting Dyson on this, and pointing out his "Moving dimansion theory". I thank him for the indication. I'll look at it (I suppose this is one of the purposes of the Forum)."

I never heard back from you regarding Moving Dimensions Theory and its mechanism for the emergence of time and change; as well as the theory's weaving of change into the fundamental frabric of spacetime. --http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/238

To date, quantum gravity research, including string theory and numerous other ventures, has recieved hundreds of millions of dollars over the past thirty years, with nothing to show for it. So it is, Carlo, that you justify this spending of hundreds of millions with the conjecture that that research needs "wasted time and money."

Well, I was wondeirng if you might have a few minutes to read the Moving Dimensions Essay, and if you could perhaps opine on how much money it ought to receive.

I think that you will find it to be worth a few million, if not more.

While quantum gravity regimes generally ban the asking and answering of foundational questions (string theory even ignores the foundational fact that spacetime bends an dmoves), and while the pursuit of quantum gravity has not yet resulted in any *physical* postulates nor *physical* equations, MDT asks foundational questions and answers them with a *physical* model--with a *physical* equation--dx4/dt=ic, and a postulate: the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

All motion and tiem rests upon this fundamental universal invariant--the fourth dimenion is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic. Every object moves at but one speed through space-time--c. This is because space-time moves at but one speed through every object--c. Catch up with the fourth expanding dimension, and you'll be going close to c relative to the three spatial dimensions. Remain stationary in the three spatial dimensions, and you'll be traveling at close to c relative to the fourth dimension. And isn't it cool that the faster an object moves, the shorter it is in the three spatial dimensions? This is because it is physically being rotated into the fourth dimension--the fundamental source of all motion by its never-ending motion, which sets the universe's maximum velcoity at c.

Relativity implies a frozen, timeless, block universe. But as Galileo said, "Yet it moves!" *Why* is this? Because dx4/dt = ic! And the spherically-symmetric expansion that the expanding fourth dimension manifests itself as--this smearing of locality--jives perfectly with the motion of a photon as well as its nonlocal properties, setting its velocity to c independent of the source and rendering it timeless and ageless--stationary in the fourth expanding dimension, which would also explain entanglement with other photons with which it once shared a common origin! And we also get a *physical* model for entropy and time and all its arrows, whowing that they emerge from a deeper *physical* principle.

Well Carlo, I hope that you do not find the answering of foundational questions regarding the emergence of time off-topic in a forum at the "foundational questions institute" that is devoted to the nature of time.

Thanks for your time! I hope that in reading the MDT essay it is not wasted, as so much time (and money) has been tragically wasted in the pursuit of quantum gravity, which has displaced *physical* physicists from the academy, leading to our current crises, the dominance of antitheory regimes, and the absence of progress in theoretical physics over the past thirty years. I just read somewhere someone referring to your generation as "the lost generation" of physics. I will try to find the source. It is curious that "the lost generation" is the same thing as the "best-funded generation."

Perhaps, in the realms of art and science and culture, even more important than money is matching word and deed, and following through on reading an essay one promised to read. Or perhaps it is too late for the "lost generation" to change the path they are on, and prizes and titles and wasted money are worth more than honor, integrity, and immortality on the scientific, *physical* battlefield.

"Politics is for the present, but an equation is something for eternity." --Albert Einstein

And so I'll have to bet on dx4/dt=ic .

Thanks for your time & best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

For best understanding how the Universe working need some time switch of the Time.TIME OUT FOR TIME.

I do agree with J. Merryman's refutation above that temperature is not a different kind of scale compared to others based on motion, sun-dial, space, mechanical clock, seasons, Galileo's drops of water, etc.

And I do agree with Narendra Nath objection against randomization. Multiplying static events is not more predictive than dividing them would be past or memory. Dynamics cannot be based on an algebraic 'function'.

Therefore the comparison between 'time' and 'flow' is not 'intuitive' as Dr Rovelli says but a reflexive specific idea on Time that is not shared by many old or new scientists from the Greek Science until today. If this reflexion of Dr Rovelli on time phenomenon is not coming from metaphysics, as it is not physical either, what is it? Just his opinion?

Three quotations of C. Rovelli's essay to prove that Dr Rovelli is mixing physics with arithmetics or algebra:

- CR: 'Familiar physical quantities that disappear when moving to a deeper level of description'

- FLR: Quantities are not physical but legal; they do not 'disappear' but they just change as Fahrenheit are becoming Celsius degrees when you cross the fronteer; the example taken is a 'surface of a liquid': water is 'physical' but not its abstracted 'surface' which is only a poetic or algebraic idea of liquid matter.

- CR: 'Experience shows that we can find mathematical laws characterizing sequences of events (This is the reason we can do science.)

- FLR: 'Sequences of events' are still mathematical laws. Here the argument is redundant and Science based so on tautology. I am not surprised because Central Limit Theory is obviously a tautology too.

- CR: 'In nature, there is no preferred physical time variable t'

- FLR: For sure because there is no 'variable' in Nature. Here is the reason why some scientists think that the problem is to find the adequate scale to make predictions.

The good question is not to use a better ratio, to find the adequate arrow or scale including time but the problem is adequation or equivalency. Why is the Modern Science using so (blindly) interchangeable ratios that drive to exchange Nature or matter with variables like a video-game player hesitating between the virtual reality of his screen and the 'real reality' backwards.

The time subtle 'phenomenon' has become in Modern Science obviously a 'happy hour' for this puzzle of carrots and turnips and their packings together, in Einstein's Theory as in Quanta Physics based on a pre-determinated factor time too.

Time- anesthesia help better understanding anatomy of the Universe.I think is right time and right place forget about time.

Dear FLR & Carlo,

i tend to agree with most of the points made above by Flr. Huge posts by John Merryman & Paul Butler are mere elaborations of their respective view points in their essays.i personally feel that this competition is not about individual egoism but more about expanding paradigms in science. Also, the latter is not possible if we make scientific methodology static for all times to come. Thus, there is need to broaden one's outlook and possibly make it tend towards the all-encompassing nature, the storehouse of total knowledge. Taking assistance of the non-physical concept of 'consciousness' needs to be welcomed, as our brain/intellect is more than pure physico-biological system.

There are indications about its power in the ancient literature that now requires systematic evaluation based on scientific tools developed. in my essay, i have indicated about such holistic considerations based on my own personal cum professional experience.

Narenda;

I see that you have mastered some of this world's propaganda techniques that are often used by those in low level civilizations to marginalize and attempt to discredit the works of others that one feels threatened by, or does not agree with, or does not understand. These techniques are usually used by those who do not have a good counter argument because those who do have the true argument find it much more effective to just present the true argument which will show the invalid argument to be false. I believe that your argument is based on the following concepts. 1. John Merryman's and my posts are too long. 2. Our posts are mere elaborations of our respective view points in our essays. 3. You believe that individual egoism is involved (name calling propaganda device). Let me answer your points in order.

First my comments are long because my intent is to present information in such a way as to make the points as clear as possible and this can require information space. I like to use visualization techniques to allow those that are on the reception end to actually see the concepts in their minds if they have the ability. This also takes information space. I have made a total of four comments in the total contest area including this one. One is on my own paper's comments space and three (including this one) are on this paper's space. Although these individual comments may be long, my total use of the contest's comment space has been less than some others. On the other hand, John Merryman's comments on this paper's space have generally been very short (often shorter than yours). At the same time you did not mention a problem with Dr. E's comments (in this comment space) which are longer than mine and also more in number. So your point number one does not agree with the evidence to any significant degree.

Your second point is basically true, however, it is also generally true of all of the comments in the contest space. Each contestant is trying to get his view points across to others for one reason or another and comments by contestants tend to be in line with their current levels of knowledge and points of view. If another contestant's view is close to yours, you can just congratulate him on his point of view, but doing so is just another way of bolstering your own point of view because of its similarity to yours. So although this point is true it is a non-issue because it is a common trait of all commentators.

The third point is a harder one to address because it goes to intent and a person's intent or purpose in generating the thoughts that are expressed externally such as in these papers and comments is often not clearly seen by analyzing the thoughts that are presented. This leaves a lack of visual evidence that can be readily pointed to when trying to refute such attacks on one's integrity. All I can do here is to reiterate what I said in my Author Bio, which is that my intent is to attempt to pass on to others some of the information that I have amassed over the years because it would seem to be a waste for it to be lost to man when I leave this world. Not that I am anyone special in this context. I believe from what I have read of your material that you may have a similar intent, as may be the case with others also. Although they may be important to some, to me the prize money and the glory of winning are not important. It is getting across the information that will allow the advancements in science that are necessary to avoid a great loss of life and also will provide a better life for people in this world in the future that is important. It saddens me greatly that so many put their immediate gain in fame and money ahead of the needs that are so apparent in the world around them. At the same time, I do realize that the current funding system (which rewards those who are most closely aligned with the current predominate theories and tends to marginalize those who have new insights that diverge to any degree from the concepts in those predominate theories) can make it difficult if not impossible for a scientist that must make his living from his work to make a reasonable living for himself and also get new concepts into the mainstream information channels where they can be taken seriously, analyzed, and utilized (if found to be true) to advance the level of scientific knowledge. The easy way to success in the current system is to just look for some overlooked niche in the current theories and exploit it. That is why I found it interesting to test this contest to see if it truly will reward those who offer new, different, and useful concepts or whether it will just be another promotion of those with the different concepts that are the most closely aligned to the mainstream.

To answer more particularly about my intent in my first comment to Carlo, it was to show him that he is on the right track in trying to get away from the T time function that goes back to a comparison with a time standard and the belief that time is some physical dimension, but that he also must keep in mind that the true meaning of time, which is the relationship between distance and motion amplitude is not something to be avoided because it is a real part of our world and to try to get away from it would result in a theory that would not accurately describe the real world. I also showed him that his use of thermal concepts do indeed include to true meaning of time because when one measures temperature, one is actually getting an average value of a large number of entities traveling through various distances with various motion amplitudes. I went on to show him that he could get a more accurate actual value that can be applied to an individual interaction without the averaging effect by just replacing the time based R term in the T=D/R formula with a motion amplitude function that is based only on a comparison with a selected standard motion amplitude level. This could greatly simplify his work and give him new insights that are currently hidden to him because of his current approach. Of course one must also understand the base structure that generates quantum effects to go beyond the current quantum based theories, but he is on the right track as far as his treatment of time is concerned.

My second comment in this space was to answer John Merryman's comment concerning my first comment to Carlo. I admit that I got sidetracked in that thoughts about the timelessness of photons came to mind so I put them down. Maybe they came from the universal consciousness (or God if you prefer). It could be that someone needed that information at that time and so it was given through me. I thought it best to answer John's comment on this space because his comment was placed on this space and also because if anyone else who had seen his comment was interested in the same thing, he would be able to see it too. I did, however, redirect any further comments to me to my space so as not to offend anyone more than necessary. I also said that although I felt it appropriate to answer John's comment because he had made it before your request for silence, I would not make any further comments on this space until Carlo had responded. I kept that promise and would probably not have commented further on this space yet if at all except to respond to your negative remarks about John and me.

You are right that consciousness is more than the pure physical structure that is currently able to be seen and scientifically understood by man in this world. That is because although the body and that portion of the soul that interfaces with the body is composed of matter and energy structures that can be observed and scientifically studied, the spirit and that portion of the soul that interfaces with the spirit is not composed of matter and energy as known to man in this world, but is of another source that is not known by man in this world. This means that you might be able to determine a man's thoughts from observation of his brain's matter and energy structures and patterns, but you would need to have a much higher level of knowledge to be able to determine his intents that generated the thoughts. Given man's present rate of progression, this is not likely to happen very soon. That is all of the information in that area that I am currently releasing (any comments to me can be addressed to my paper's page) and as this is turning into another dreaded huge post, I should and will end this post now.

Dear Paul,

As this is a post on Carlo's essay, may i just go to your essay to respond pleasantly and cheerfully to you comments on the above posting on Nov., 15.You appear to object to the comment i happen to make on very long postings by some authors/commentators!

Narendra;

Yes you may (as I mentioned at the end of my previous comment to you, in order to minimize any offence to Carlo)Sorry Carlo. This is me doing a very short comment.

Carlo's wise silence continues, may well be for the good of us all, provided we contemplate!

Hi all, contemplate indeed! I can see where Carlo is coming from, but the relational elements still require creation in a real (non-virtual) context. The creative cascade from my quantum pseudokinematics (QPK) can be seen as giving either spatial or temporal locations in a constructive context. It just depends on how you like to define the concepts. Even if a quantity is ratiometrically hidden (caused to vanish) it still intrinsically exists, to ghost its consequences...

'Non-virtual' or 'No Time': same idea. One can define on this forum three kinds of people:

-Those who do admit the idea of virtual matter and are 'ready to travel in Time';

-Those who think Matter is both virtual and material and have as many subjective ideas to make the link between their 'informational matter' and their 'strong matter'. Rovelli's subjective idea is 'thermic scale' because it gives more solid feeling than the informational Space and speed-scale that Einstein introduced in Physics;

-Those (me) who think that matter can be seen as an informational thing but is not at all. So that it is necessary to let the binary Algebra on one side because it is responsible of the mixing of real Physics with virtual Physics that cannot allow to understand Matter better.

Dear Carlo,

Considering the merit of your essay on' Forget Time ', i posted many posts between Oct 22 and Nov.11. These were all short ones but in my view it had points directly relevant to your theme essay. However, you preferred not to respond to the specific queries raised therein. May be, you prefer to adhere strictly to your own contents of the essay and any alternate line of approach meets with your silence! May i request finally that you kindly consider the alternates mentioned with your own reasoning for rejecting them all. That will add to the spirit of this open essay contest on ' The Nature of Time '. Otherwise it so appears that you want to reject the theme itself!

Dear Dr. Rovelli,

I enjoyed reading your essay.

1. A century ago, physicists tried to make the laws of Physics compatible with the principle of relativity. To do so, they had to "forget time" as a special direction in space-time, to obtain the covariance.

Now, you remember us to "forget time", proposing an interesting way to do this for Quantum Mechanics.

2. In General Relativity, the time can be easily recovered. Any localized enough system has already a proper time - the natural parameter on that curve. What is missing is the direction of time (positive or negative), and we use for this the thermodynamic time arrow.

3. You propose a thermal time, which also comes with a thermal time arrow. Sometimes, this thermal arrow points in the same direction as the thermodynamic arrow, while in other cases, it doesn't.

A. For instance, in your example, the Friedmann universe has a special symmetry, which singles out a time direction anyway. Because of this symmetry, I think that is hard to give a general definition of time which differs, on this particular example, from the Friedmann time.

B. But we can easily provide counterexamples. A particle moving through a medium has a proper time, while the thermal time of the total system may be very different from it.

Cristi

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/322

- 'Relativity Theory' is not a 'Revolution' as Dr Rovelli says and the new idea that the algebraic conventional reference is more real than reality itself was introduced by I. Newton, R. Descartes, C. Huygens, P. Fermat before Planck, Poincaré and Einstein.

The idea that 'Subjectivity is stronger than Objectivity' is the same idea. Symmetry, Infinity, Eternity are as many subjective approximations of Nature that is not symmetric, infinite, eternal, contrarily to Einstein theory, CLT, Quadratic equations, cells and vectors of time/space...

This is the reason why the subtle Time, so 'intimate' that Dr Rovelli wants to let it on one side with a lot of decency, this is the reason why the Time took bit by bit the lion's share from C. Huygens until the Travel in Time illusion.

In Descartes 'Natural Philosophy' for example you still have all the stuff: 'Squaring the circle', 'Paradox', 'Trigonometry', 'Translation of Geometry in Algebra' and guess what? 'String Theory' too.

- Galileo's or Newton's pendulum/is not giving any 'special direction' as C. Stoica is suggesting here. Clock is just a rythm, a symmetric oscillation phenomenon and a speed too, that is not the same if you are in the mountain or in the flat country. Galileo used a pendulum for a practical reason in his ballistic experiences although Newton seem to 'believe' in the clock reference somewhere.

About the thermic scale: water is not boiling at the same temperature depending from the altitude too.

- Let's take the Snowboard image: as a group of snowboarders would love to ski. Some want to forget the board material, others the snow matter, but no one the idea of snowboard itself! I do not even speak about dreamers that believe that video games are more real than evrything...

Hi Carlo,

Your Conclusion #4 is "to forget the notion of time all together, and to define a quantum theory capable of predicting the possible correlations between partial observables", which perhaps is related to your statement that "general relativity challenges strongly our intuitive notion of a universal flow of time."

But you stressed in gr-qc/0604045 v2 that "the proper time [tau] along spacetime trajectories cannot be used as an independent variable either, as [tau] is a complicated non-local function of the gravitational field itself. Therefore, properly speaking, GR does not admit a description as a system evolving in terms of an observable time variable."

Ergo, GR cannot reject something that is beyond it. Perhaps it would be a good idea if you consult Prof. Karel Kuchar.

P.S. Following the line of reasoning adopted by C. Rovelli, in a fundamental description of nature we must "forget" 3-D space as well, because there is noting in GR to reveal some mechanism producing a spacelike hypersurface with respect to which people talk about "time", as in ADM hypothesis on "the dynamics of GR". In this sense, GR cannot reject something that is beyond it, as stated in my preceding post. Nor can GR explain the apparent time-orientability of spacetime, which also is beyond its applicable limits.

It is completely unclear to me how Rovelli's "patrial observables" can shed light on something that is beyond both GR and QM.

It seems to me that Rovelli's recipe for quantum gravity is this: take Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity in their current formulation, with all their well-known problems, blend them into some new theory with "patrial observables", and hope that the problems of QM may be solved from GR, and the problems of GR may be solved from QM. Don't try to solve any of the initial problems of QM and GR beforehand. Just hope and pray that the "good parts" from QM and GR will cure all problems.

Picture this: you have a car (QM) which runs quite well on some roads, but fails miserably on some essential roads, and a helicopter (GR) that also runs in some favorable weather conditions, but is totally useless in bad weather. Take the car and the helicopter, and build a brand new vehicle, which will run better than the car and fly better than the helicopter, and will also allow you to dive deep into the ocean, as a perfect submarine.

Is this Rovelli's recipe for quantum gravity?

'Pray' is the good word in this 'Time Chapel', Chakalov.

I suggest another metaphor: Time is God but Carlo R. does not believe in God and saint Einstein anymore. So he kills the God but keep the ornaments and the Folklore, the saint statue, not to offend people around too much.

Dr. Rovelli,

Please do not mistake it as a personal attack if I ask you to explain step by step how the imaginary unit in your equation (5) relates to our real world.

While we seem to agree on rejecting the widespread belief in an a priori existing time extending for good from eternity to eternity (-oo < t < oo), my suggestion "Let's Benefit from Special Mathematics for Elapsed Time" intends to focus on fertile rather than futile stuff. Maybe I am wrong?

Look at http://home.arcor.de/eckard.blumschein/M283.html for more refutable details.

Regards,

Dr.-Ing. Eckard Blumschein