Wrinkles in Spacetime

Steve Agnew,

Hi Steve, I think that you can give no empirical support for this claim:

"Time is just a property of objects and has both the time dimension of an atomic period as well as the time dimension of the decay of those periods. There are no defects in time since time is just a property of objects. There are plenty of defects in space and space is really just convenient representation for the time delays among objects."

James Putnam

Hmmm...this seems so easy that I am not sure why there is a question. An atomic clock measures the frequency of an atomic transition and since every object in the universe (except for space) is made up of atoms and atomic transitions, every object has its own atomic time.

Using two atomic clocks and comparing over time them shows that they drift apart, the so called Allan variance or deviation. The decoherence rate of two initially synchronized clocks represents the second dimension of time for an object.

People measure both of these properties and so they are both empirical, but somehow I do not think this is really the answer to your actual question...

Steve,

"The decoherence rate of two initially synchronized clocks represents the second dimension of time for an object."

"People measure both of these properties and so they are both empirical, but somehow I do not think this is really the answer to your actual question..."

Theoretical constructs "...the second dimension of time..." are support for theoretical constructs "...Time is just a property of objects..."

Evidence of object activity supports claims about object activity. It was the claim about activity of time and space for which I was asking for empirical evidence. What experiments have been performed upon either time or space? Empirical evidence consists of effects. What is the evidence for effects upon either time or space?

James Putnam

CLUES FOR SABINE

Having previously read your article, Minimal Length Scale Scenarios for Quantum Gravity, and with the intro saying you have the ability to shoot down theories, let me offer a few suggestions/ clues/ pointers, with the best of good wishes on the FQXi grant award...

1. You say, "We know the theories we have right now are inconsistent--when you combine them the answer is nonsense", ...and further, "It is clearly not how nature works, there has to be a better answer".

Quantum Mechanics separates space and time, while Special and General relativity welds them together. There are then two probable options, it is either Space and time are separate or they are one entity, spacetime. This being the case, it is rational to apply the welded entity to Quantum mechanics and see if it also works, and in turn apply space and time as separate entities to Relativity and also see if it works. Where they don't work, why not? Are there alternative explanations that would not require welding of space and time?

2. They said, you have been working on models involving flat spacetime because it is easier to do the math. And you are quoted to have said, "We don't live in flat spacetime -- (...)".

I therefore put this question to you. If we don't live in flat spacetime, where were the experiments conducted on which basis the theory for spacetime rests its validity? If an experiment is conducted underwater, can it be used to substantiate or make theoretically infallible claims of what exists above water? You may have heard of the claim made severally that the domain of applicability of Special relativity is flat spacetime, and you have now said that we do not live in such a spacetime, how then can the NULL experimental findings of Michelson and Morley, 1887 be said to be due to the effect of Special relativity on the behavior of light in the experiment, a theory that applies only in flat spacetime which you have said we are not living in.

If you measure the speed of light in curved spacetime, can it have the same value in flat spacetime? Einstein says No, but some physicists insist Yes. More on this later, if necessary.

3. You say, "People like to talk about 'atoms of spacetime'".

In the intro, it is said that Spacetime is the four dimensional fabric conceived of by Albert Einstein in his theories of relativity. It is therefore clear that talking of atoms of spacetime applies only to the conceptions (or misconceptions) of Special and General relativity and does not apply to Quantum Mechanics, where space and time are separate. When looking therefore through a Quantum Mechanical lens, what people will expect you to look out for are 'atoms of space'. It is noted that in the introduction to the Living Reviews article linked above, you have yourself stated and asked, "For one, this is because Democritus' search for the most fundamental constituents carries over to space and time too. Are space and time fundamental, or are they just good approximations that emerge from a more fundamental concept in the limits that we have tested so far? Is spacetime made of something else? Are there 'atoms' of space?".

The study of space is basically geometry, and the definitions of concepts in geometry recognize the atom of space as the 'point'. The next question then is whether this atom has a minimal length or is of zero dimension? Look at this. I will urge that you shoot down the theory that says the atom of space is of zero dimension. You will thereby be removing infinities that are plaguing our physics.

Finally, the greatest clue of all is to find out whether these 'atoms of space' are eternally existing objects. That is, can they perish and cease to exist, and can they arise out of nothing? If they can, would this not be the most fundamental event underlying all other phenomena in our physics? Would such annihilation and emergence of its atoms create 'wrinkles in space'? Would the disparate lifetimes of the atoms not interfere with the otherwise continuous nature of space, thereby causing discreteness with 'time' being the separator since space cannot do its separation into discreteness? If the universe itself can be conceived in some cosmological theories as arising out of nothing in a Big bang, and annihilating to nothing in a Big crunch, can an atom of space then be eternally existing and be incapable of being extinguished?

All the best as you confront these profound theoretical physics problems.

Akinbo

Correct. Infinity is not durational.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Newton and Einstein failed to notice that all objects have a complete surface and all observable surface travels at the same constant speed. Light does not have a surface, therefore, light is the only stationary spirit in the real Universe.

Joe Fisher, Realist

"One one hand, time in quantum mechanics is a Newtonian time, i.e., an absolute time. In fact, the two main methods of quantization, namely, canonical quantization method due to Dirac and Feynman's path integral method are based on classical constraints which become operators annihilating the physical states, and on the sum over all possible classical trajectories, respectively. Therefore, both quantization methods rely on the Newton global and absolute time. (...) The transition to (special) relativistic quantum field theories can be realized by replacing the unique absolute Newtonian time by a set of timelike parameters associated to the naturally distinguished family of relativistic inertial frames."

The two concepts of time are not both true and cannot be reconciled, so either quantum mechanics or special relativity will have to be discarded. In my view, both special and general relativity will be abandoned soon:

"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time (...) The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."

Pentcho Valev

The socond POSTULATE of thermo and heat tells us that the time is irreversible on the entropical Arrow of time.It is a postulate.The special relativity also,it is a postulate.It is proved you know.It is not because we have these postulates that we cannot analyse the gravitation differently.Special and general relativity are two Tools very important for the classment of our evolution.The mass curves our space time and c is correct.

I have my book near me ."Heat and themodynamics" by Mark W. Zemanski,PhD.

All the équations and works in this book are deterministic and rational.And the second law of thermo is well utilised.If the second law was not a reality, how could you analyses the engineerings correlated with heat, themro, work.....Ask to Stirling about the machine or to an engineer in refrigerators in a thermonuclear industry ???? Mr Valev, you must really rething your foundmentals but it is just a suggestion of course.

Time is not an object. Time is a property of an object. Just like mass, time is just another property. However, time is axiomatic, just like matter. That is, we simply must believe in time and matter and there is no way to prove a belief. However, time and matter make up a very nice axioms for understanding action in the universe.

Perhaps you are asking me to prove that time is an axiom. All I can do is derive a universe from the axioms of matter and time and predict the futures of objects. Thus time and matter make very convenient axioms in which one simply must believe.

and if it was this central cosm.BH,the biggest sphere ,this main coded singularity,the real secret of all.Time seems correlated with its rotation implying the universal clock of evolution.The gravitation and time are created there in fact due to its weak rotation.This sphere is connected by the gravitational aether with all quantuml central sphères, the quantum coded singularities.The time is a property indeed.They turn so they are, they turn so they create space and time ,a gravitational evolution.Mass curves our spacetime, the spherisation is natural like is the gravitation.

"In quantum mechanics, time is absolute. The parameter occurring in the Schrödinger equation has been directly inherited from Newtonian mechanics and is not turned into an operator. In quantum field theory, time by itself is no longer absolute, but the four-dimensional spacetime is; it constitutes the fixed background structure on which the dynamical fields act. GR is of a very different nature. According to the Einstein equations (2), spacetime is dynamical, acting in a complicated manner with energy momentum of matter and with itself. The concepts of time (spacetime) in quantum theory and GR are thus drastically different and cannot both be fundamentally true."

So general relativity is doomed but why should quantum mechanics and spacetime coexist? Many Einsteinians suggest that spacetime, the "immediate consequence" of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, should be abandoned too:

"Baumgarte began by discussing special relativity, which Einstein developed, 10 years earlier, in 1905, while he was employed as a patent officer in Bern, Switzerland. Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

"Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce. (...) Einstein's famous insistence that the velocity of light is a cosmic speed limit made sense, Minkowski saw, only if space and time were intertwined. (...) Physicists of the 21st century therefore face the task of finding the true reality obscured by the spacetime mirage. (...) Andreas Albrecht, a cosmologist at the University of California, Davis, has thought deeply about choosing clocks, leading him to some troubling realizations. (...) "It seems to me like it's a time in the development of physics," says Albrecht, "where it's time to look at how we think about space and time very differently."

Pentcho Valev

The real unique observable Universe consists of infinite surface. It is observable because it is illuminated by an infinite light that does not have any surface. All objects have a complete surface. All solid, liquid and vaporous surface is physically connected. You are all wrong about invisible finite atoms and invisible finite particles and invisible finite gravity waves and finite duration.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Mr Fisher please ,could you develop , we are on a Platform of sciences.It is irritating to always see your post with this surface and this light.Please develop with scientific words.Develop with équations and laws please.Stop to repeat this philosophical post.If you develop a little your analyse of the luminerous aether, it could be well.In fact we don't need a course about the infinity and the light.You think that we don't understand the infinity above our walls? Please develop I don't know even if you speak about the luminerous aether in a spiritual point of vue.Really develop, your spirituality, your physics, your maths, your philosophy ,....something but please develop your analyse.Anybody can understand your post in fact.Please develop.

Steve Agnew,

"Time is not an object. ..."

Agreed. Objects are known to exist because they change their velocities. Time has not been shown to undergo changes of velocity.

"...Time is a property of an object. ..."

I think again that there is no empirical support for this claim.

"...Just like mass, time is just another property. ..."

Time is a 'given' empirical property as is space. Both exist without any explanation. They are indefinable properties. All other properties are inferred to exist from measures of duration and length. We have no ability to measure either time or space. Duration and length are our substitutes. Both duration and length are explained by physics as aspects of object activity. Mass is inferred to exist from patterns of changes of velocities which are measured in units of duration and length.

...

"Perhaps you are asking me to prove that time is an axiom. All I can do is derive a universe from the axioms of matter and time and predict the futures of objects. Thus time and matter make very convenient axioms in which one simply must believe."

Emphasizing "... However, time and matter make up a very nice axioms for understanding action in the universe."

I presume that this claim refers to the use of time and properties attributed to matter in equations that quite successfully predict the futures of objects. The properties attributed to matter are not being addressed yet by me. It is accepted that they are inferred to exist from physics empirical evidence which consists of measures of duration and length. With regard to the property of time, it has never appeared directly in physics equations. It has always been substituted for by aspects of object activity. The unit of second, which is customarily referred to as the unit of time, is not a unit of time. It is a unit of object activity.

James Putnam

Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?"

This is an incredible question. Obviously people who work on quantum gravity don't have a clue about what they are doing.

Pentcho Valev

Dear Mr. Dufourny,

The real Universe was not created from finite invisible scientific precepts, or by an invisible God's command.. You have a real observable complete skin surface. Every object, be it solid, liquid or vaporous has a real observable surface. Obviously, surface must be infinite. Obviously, infinity cannot contain any finite features. Please stop wasting your time with codswallop supposedly finite physics conjecture.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Mr. Valev,

The real observable Universe is simply an infinite surface illuminated by an infinite amount of non-surface light. Visible infinity cannot contain finite invisible particles, or have a finite duration.

Joe Fisher, Realist

a phenomen ,apparently you don't want to develop .I have tried to have explainations but you don't want.