Wrinkles in Spacetime

"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.

[link:www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-600-why-do-we-move-forwards-in-time/]"[George] Ellis is up against[/link] one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order - 
A, then B, then C - someone moving 
at a different velocity could have seen 
it a different way - C, then B, then A. 
In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."

Yes, safely leaving the sinking ship is a daunting task indeed.

Pentcho Valev

Dear Mr. Dufourney,

Reality is not phenomenal. Reality is infinite surface illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Infinity cannot be developed. Only ignorant ideas about invisible phenomena such as invisible black holes, or invisible particles, or invisible gravity waves can be developed, and they can only be developed by ignorant fabulists.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Mr Fisher,

We are thanking you all for these wonderful explainations.We understand all now the infinity now.We have all understand the light, the surface and the infinity.I don't know what say.Thanks for this development about light, infinity and surface.But we have understood, so it is not necessary to post still.Please it is not Facebook.

Regards

Humor in Einstein Schizophrenic World

Einsteinians are given a $1.32 million dollar grant to say if Einstein is wrong:

University of California Santa Barbara: "Could Einstein's theory of relativity be wrong? That's among the burning questions being asked by theoretical physicists today. It's a startling claim and one that has received a lot of attention from other scientists. Researchers from UC Santa Barbara's Department of Physics and the Kavli Institute for Theretical Physics (KITP) have received a $1.32 million dollar grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to continue their work on finding an answer."

Mark Srednicki and Joseph Polchinski found the joke really amusing, took the money and said that Einstein was not wrong.

Pentcho Valev

The Eotvos experiment dates back quite some time ... late 1800's I think. It has been improved upon several times. Even Newton performed a simple version of it. BTW, the o's it Eotvos have two dots above them. I do not know the correct pronunciation.

Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

You are very correct and I agree...time is not the actual property of an object but simply a shortcut for time delay and decoherence rate that are the actual time-like properties that we do measure for each object.

James A Putnam replied on Apr. 4, 2016 @ 19:41 GMT as "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."

I also agree that changes in all of matter, matter phase, time delay, and decoherence rate are what we interpret as time and space. Where we disagree is of course with the nature of space.

Aethertime predicts all action with just matter, time, and phase and so space becomes just a convenient way to keep track of objects and their time delays and decoherence rates. That way the whole universe behaves in a nicely quantum manner and space becomes whatever it needs to be to make relativity happen.

General relativity then becomes simply the principle of mass-energy equivalence and the velocity of light is just a convenient representation of the rate of matter decoherence for the universe.

Inconstant Speed of Light (Goodbye Einstein)

"Researchers at the University of Ottawa observed that twisted light in a vacuum travels slower than the universal physical constant established as the speed of light by Einstein's theory of relativity. (...) In The Optical Society's journal for high impact research, Optica, the researchers report that twisted light pulses in a vacuum travel up to 0.1 percent slower than the speed of light, which is 299,792,458 meters per second. (...) If it's possible to slow the speed of light by altering its structure, it may also be possible to speed up light. The researchers are now planning to use FROG to measure other types of structured light that their calculations have predicted may travel around 1 femtosecond faster than the speed of light in a vacuum."

"In a paper, published in Science Advances today, the researchers demonstrate that for light from a source such as the Sun, random fluctuations of intensity give rise to correlations of twisted light beams. (...) "Twisted light is all around us and occurs naturally," said Omar S. Magaña-Loaiza, first author of the study and a Ph.D. student in Boyd's team."

Do you still believe in the constancy of the speed of light, Einsteinians? If you do, here is more information for you:

"Physicists manage to slow down light inside vacuum (...) ...even now the light is no longer in the mask, it's just the propagating in free space - the speed is still slow. (...) "This finding shows unambiguously that the propagation of light can be slowed below the commonly accepted figure of 299,792,458 metres per second, even when travelling in air or vacuum," co-author Romero explains in the University of Glasgow press release."

"The speed of light is a limit, not a constant - that's what researchers in Glasgow, Scotland, say. A group of them just proved that light can be slowed down, permanently."

"Although the maximum speed of light is a cosmological constant - made famous by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and E=mc^2 - it can, in fact, be slowed down: that's what optics do."

"Glasgow researchers slow the speed of light"

"For generations, physicists believed there is nothing faster than light moving through a vacuum - a speed of 186,000 miles per second. But in an experiment in Princeton, N.J., physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering. The pulse traveled 310 times the distance it would have covered if the chamber had contained a vacuum. Researchers say it is the most convincing demonstration yet that the speed of light -- supposedly an ironclad rule of nature -- can be pushed beyond known boundaries, at least under certain laboratory circumstances. (...) The results of the work by Wang, Alexander Kuzmich and Arthur Dogariu were published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature."

Nature 406, 277-279 (20 July 2000): "...a light pulse propagating through the atomic vapour cell appears at the exit side so much earlier than if it had propagated the same distance in a vacuum that the peak of the pulse appears to leave the cell before entering it."

Pentcho Valev

Steve Agnew,

"...time is not the actual property of an object but simply a shortcut for time delay..."

This explanation is not empirically supported. It is an example of theoretical physics. Theoretical physics is the practice of substituting imaginative guesses about what can be substituted in place of that which is unknown. There is no empirical evidence for time suffering delays.

"... and decoherence rate that are the actual time-like properties that we do measure for each object."

There are no time-like properties. This is theoretical bait and switch. Only time is 'time-like'. All other properties are like themselves. Clocks are clock-like. Clock-like is not time-like. Perhaps when physicists recognize a universally constant increment of actual time, then clocks might be said to be 'time-like'. The practice in theoretical physics of giving indirect explanations while wording them to give the impression that they are actual explanations is not science-like. In order to make this point at a more common knowledge level, I point out that temperature is not a measure of average molecular kinetic energy. Temperature is a measure of temperature. The indirect substitute explanation is an attempt by theoretical physics to appear to be explaining something for which they lack an explanation. It is the case that physicists do not know what temperature is. For uncertain readers: Temperature is not fixed to average molecular kinetic energy and physicists know it. In general, average molecular kinetic energy can vary while temperature remains the same value. In limited cases, temperature is proportional to average molecular kinetic energy but in no case is temperature actually the same thing as is average molecular kinetic energy. It is an historical fact that temperature was entered into physics equations without its being explained. To this day, temperature remains a fundamental indefinable property.

Steve Agnew quoting me: "James A Putnam replied on Apr. 4, 2016 @ 19:41 GMT as "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.""

I repeat this quote because the point made needs repeating.

Me quoting Steve Agnew: "I also agree that changes in all of matter, matter phase, time delay, and decoherence rate are what we interpret as time and space. Where we disagree is of course with the nature of space."

I repeat the point made similarly earlier: There is no empirical evidence for interpreting object activity as representing either time or space. We have no experimental data for effects upon either time or space. The only empirically justified conclusion about the nature of space is that it consists of room for objects to move about in. Both space and time are fundamental indefinable properties. In other words, they cannot be explained. Only in the empirically unsound interpretations of theorists does speculative imaginings become 'science-like'.

"Aethertime predicts all action with just matter, time, and phase and so space becomes just a convenient way to keep track of objects and their time delays and decoherence rates. That way the whole universe behaves in a nicely quantum manner and space becomes whatever it needs to be to make relativity happen."

I am not at this time addressing the properties attributed to the assumed substrate called matter. Empirical evidence cries out for those to receive some fixing. Nor am I now addressing empirical evidence and relativity theory. The context of this message concerns the practice of theoretical physics of making empirically unjustified claims about the nature of the universe. An example given here is "... space becomes whatever it needs to be to make relativity happen." There is no empirical evidence for changes to space or effects caused upon objects by space. Rather what is stated is an example of how theoretical physics has subsumed empirical scientific learning.

"General relativity then becomes simply the principle of mass-energy equivalence and the velocity of light is just a convenient representation of the rate of matter decoherence for the universe."

I refrain from venturing off into addressing relativity theory in this message. The point of this message is to address, at least in part, the lack of empirical support for much of theoretical physics. The usefulness of physics equations results from how accurately they mathematically model the patterns in changes of velocities of objects. It is the patterns that allow for successful extrapolations and interpolations very often yielding good predictions. The names and explanations of terms in physics equations do not have to be accurate to achieve accurate predictions.

All properties are represented in physics equations only by their units. The units can themselves be arbitrary, meaning without empirical justification. Kilograms is one example. What is important is that the units are defined in terms of measurable properties. The two measurable properties are length and duration.

Steve, If you wish to not continue this exchange, I understand. No hard feelings. Other 'scientific' forums censor my messages or remove me from participating when I make these points. I will mention in closing that my recollection is that you once gave mention of having read some of my work with understanding, but not of course with agreement. I sought to test your understanding of my work by asking if you were familiar with my critique of mass? I believe you did not respond. I take this opportunity to make clear that my work begins by explaining that the decision to accept mass as a fundamental indefinable property was the first error of theoretical physics. (I am not suggesting that force should have instead been chosen to be a fundamental indefinable property. Both force and mass should have been and could have been defined properties. Empirical evidence gives us guidance on how this can be done.) The act of now defining mass has begun the process of returning physics equations back to their empirical forms. That is what I do. I remove the non-empirically based, speculative, imaginative intrusions into physics equations that have been made by theoretical physicists.

Regardless of my opinions being different, I thank you for sharing your knowledge and ideas here at FQXi.org. Your messages are always worth reading.

James Putnam

You mention objects and you mention activity and so you do seem to believe in objects and activity since you use those words. Since there is no meaning to the word activity without time, it is not clear to me why you keep repeating that there are no time-like measurements.

James A Putnam replied on Apr. 9, 2016 @ 14:03 GMT as "...I repeat the point made similarly earlier: There is no empirical evidence for interpreting object activity as representing either time or space. We have no experimental data for effects upon either time or space. The only empirically justified conclusion about the nature of space is that it consists of room for objects to move about in. Both space and time are fundamental indefinable properties. In other words, they cannot be explained. Only in the empirically unsound interpretations of theorists does speculative imaginings become 'science-like'..."

I do actually agree that time is an axiom and so time is like activity which is like time, which is an identity. However, a second way to define a fundamental axiom is with the other two axioms of matter and action. Since action (or activity in your words) is the integral of matter in time, time is the differential of action with matter. This is the trimal nature of a closed universe.

Color is a measurable property of an object. Color change is a measurable property of an object that is time like. Change is what happens to objects with different time delays. These are very common measurements of objects no matter what kind of stuff you use to make those objects.

A real observable vacuum tube needs to have a real visible complete surface. All real solid objects have a real visible solid surface. All real liquid has a real visible surface, and all vapors have a real visible surface. All real surfaces must travel at the same constant speed, otherwise, it would be imposible for any surface to be visible. In order to be visible, surface must be illuminated by light. Light cannot have a surface, and because light does not have a surface, light has no effect on the constant speed of surface. These esearchers claims that invisible light is capable of twisting is utter codswallop.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Sabine Hossenfelder is going to find a consistent theory that combines two inconsistent ones:

"In particular, Hossenfelder is searching for a good theory of quantum gravity - a framework that would bring together Einstein's theory of gravity, general relativity, which describes how cosmic bodies move, and quantum theory, which governs the behaviour of particles on the smallest scales. "Some people work on problems that I don't think are problems at all," she says. "But the question of how to find a consistent theory that combines gravity with quantum field theory is one that everyone agrees is a problem--and one that has to have a solution." (...) "We know the theories we have right now are inconsistent--when you combine them the answer is nonsense," she says. "It is clearly not how nature works, there has to be a better answer."

That is, Sabine Hossenfelder is going to find a theory where the Newtonian absolute time and the Einsteinian relative time coexist consistently. Bravo, Sabine Hossenfelder:

"One one hand, time in quantum mechanics is a Newtonian time, i.e., an absolute time."

"In quantum mechanics, time is absolute."

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?"

"In Einstein's general theory of relativity, time depends locally on gravity; in standard quantum theory, time is global - all clocks "tick" uniformly."

Pentcho Valev