The Fundamental Nature of Time by Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin Klingman,

[My pledge: goo.gl/KCCujt] First I will assess your essay, then discuss your conclusions. Positives:

-- Wow, you know your targets well! I sort of kept hoping for Maxwell to drop by to, but it would have distracted Einstein from the main topic. I think the main reason that Einstein never modified SR after GR forced him back to the ether was , well... he couldn't quite figure out how to do it? You really need a more modern computer modeling concepts of how to handle binding times to implement the virtual frames with absolute fidelity, and that concept suite and was flatly not available to him. So ironically, he stayed block universe to keep SR happy, even as he defined a unique "ether slice" sequence that was curved but on average remained orthogonal to your universal simultaneous time.

-- I like very much that you pulled out the GR ether connection. People still are shocked by that, and at the time Einstein's fellow physicists tried very hard to pretend Einstein never went back to the ether. There is an attraction in the mathematical symmetries of SR that is incredibly appealing to many folks, especially if you are mathematically inclined. The idea that such symmetries might be nothing more than virtual limits in a reality that like to fake people out does not appeal in the same way, unless you happen to be more computer-science-ish in mind set.

-- You pull in lots and lot of really good, highly specific threads of though, though there are so many that a seriously deep look at them could take days or months (or years).

-- Your conversation format is entertaining, though at times it makes it a bit difficult to recognize exactly what the main point is going to be.

Negatives:

-- You pull in lots and lot of really good, highly specific threads of though, though there are so many that a seriously deep look at them could take days or months (or years).

-- Your conversation format is entertaining, though at times it makes it a bit difficult to recognize exactly what the main point is going to be.

-- My standard complaint: The intent of the FQXi request as I read it was to write an essay on how to recognize a fundamental theory, rather than write an essay to provide a fundamental theory.

--------------------

Now, let's see if I understand your point (I may not!). When you end by saying:

"the fundamental nature of time as universal simultaneity"

I think you are saying that there exists a singular curved foliation of spacetime, which Einstein in his post-GR years would have called "the ether", in which all causality unfolds at the "same time" (e.g. as measured by a hypothetical solid sheet of tiny clocks all making synchronized hand-shake time measurements with their immediate neighbors).

That is of course utterly heretical to SR perspectives, because it would make that single foliation absolutely unique and the only "real" source of causality. However, again, it is not even all that difficult from a computer simulation perspective to define structures in which the primary foliation creates asymmetric embedded virtual foliations -- other frames -- that internally look exactly like the primary frame though a combination of directionally-dependent early and late binding of causal events in the primary frame. In fact, you can do that so well that there is no way to distinguish internally between the cases... which is of course exactly what SR requires!

Again, assuming that I'm even understanding you correctly, your frame of temporal simultaneity would almost certainly be the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) frame, the frame that has undergone the least number of acceleration-deceleration events over the history of the universe. As long as matter in that CMB frame remains unaccelerated, any other matter in the universe that "come to visit" the lazy CMB matter will be guaranteed to have less elapsed time; that is, the CMB frame will always have the fastest time in such comparisons, and no arrangement of other matter in the universe can overcome that speed advantage, no matter how you arrange the test.

The CMB frame will also be the only frame that "sees" the real minimum energy of the universe as it looks out and assesses the total relativistic energy of the rest of the universe. Any frame moving relative to the CMB will see overly high energy totals.

So, your "single simultaneous time" will both be the fastest possible time in the universe -- which just makes sense if it is the real driver of all causality in all possible frames -- and it will be the home of the only accurate "view" of the total mass-energy of the universe.

Finally, I think a test for the existence of such a primary frame - that is, for your simultaneous-time ether foliation -- may in fact exist, but it will necessarily be a very subtle test. I brought this issue up in a comment under Del Santo (topic 3017).

Hi Edwin,

Thank you. I think the concepts we use when we think about these things are so dependent on an implied flow of time, that it's hard to remove that. You mention 'action', as in 'interaction' or 'self-interaction' - to me you can't explain time with those concepts, because you need time already in place to use them, as they wouldn't exist. You say there's only one thing that exists, so it can only interact with itself, but if so, in some sense it has 'moving parts'.

So it's hard to 'get underneath time' in order to do any physics and try to explain it, for instance with a mechanism, because it's hard to find a mechanism that would work at all - mechanisms need time if they are to work.

And I think mathematical concepts are equally at risk of having this kind of problem, or more so, as they're often two steps away from what we need to get at, instead of one.

I felt there were four or five main avenues for getting to a better understanding of time, and explored them while trying to write a book. The conclusion was that all of them, without exception, are blocked in some way. I then looked at the question of whether any of them might become unblocked if there was a fundamental change to the underlying assumptions, and found that one of them, and only one, had the possibility of becoming unblocked.

I'm all for creative thinking on the subject, and don't want to sound otherwise, but I think the way people take time out of the mathematics, and feel they can move things around here and there, is often inappropriate. Incidentally, Huw Price, who takes absolutely the opposite view from me, is also very strict about removing a pre-existing flow of time from our thinking. But he does that for different reasons!

Anyway, best regards,

Jonathan

Dear Edwin.

Thank you for kindly comments

I agree many points in your essay, concerning fundamental question, is very interesting as it gives rationally explanations that focus most imortart fundamental aspects of nature of the Gravity and light which I also have implications of 19th century's benefits of philosophy linked physics namely Classical Physics.

"TK: No. I hope we can discuss the proposition that: all light propagates in local gravity. Photons have energy, hence mass, and bend in gravitational fields"

It suggests that even photon mass was included the concept mass energy equivalence.

Considering the points of your coments I will focus on it more and will discuss later.

". My suggestion would be to focus on mass and charge, in terms of gravitational fields and electromagnetic fields, as described in equation 1 in my essay. You state that "strong and weak force are both a gravitational force." Since gravitation interacts with itself, while the electromagnetic field does not have charge, so does not interact with itself, we have a linear field and an interacting nonlinear field. I do not believe the situation has been......"

In fact this hypothesis is based on idea that is a collectively view " picture in mind" of all scientific theories and facts. Deeply thinking to many possible imaginations considering Nature's similarities and after choosing one rechecked and compared its relation to the facts. Since this Hypothesis is based on scientific ingredients it must agree/confirm all known facts and also recorrect it's interpretation or make predictions. By searching some parallel approaches in the contest I found many related in somehow but focusing deeply on specific aspect. In other words, I believe that all scientific facts are somehow right, no matter whether it's classical Physics or Quantum Mechanics, except of some fundamental interpretations.

I think what is missing is only (interpretation) fundamental theory that compiles all scientific theories into same ground (same basis). Since this Hypothesis is a different view, it's basics assumption is that clustering process of the Nature began with absolutely one kind of extremely large quantity of small-sized particles (photon) and one kind of attraction force (Gravity) as it may agree with Big Bang event, There are some expected communication Challenges it may face and overcomes namely;

Terminological metaphors may make term confussion unless redefinition, example; "Photon is particle that gives elementary charge (e) character and basic energy quanta (1eV) therefore its really the natures elementary particle" may sound quite strange.

It may be far from the Current Physicist's way of viewing the Nature's Physical phenomenon ( expectations ), and best communication would be Spherical Geometrical modelling. I think similar principle that the architect and philosopher, Buckminster Fuller used.

Under consideration of gravitational force as basic with categories;

Linear interaction interactions: electrostatic force and planet's centrifugal force.

Non liniear interactions: Orbiting object( charged vs non charged or magnetic non magnetic) influencing other external particles(electro, gravity, magnetic,........ Dynamics) Electromagnetic waves as Gravitational waves type (dynamics charged particle)

and Spherical quantum modeling of charged/neutral magnetic.... and its detection system (giver and sensor) could be good, for studying and simulating Nature of particle clusters and related effects, such as Quantum correlation/monogamy, intermolecular forces, multi spatial dimensions string theory, I propose simplest octopole magnitetic cube like. Spherical clustered particles of rotating (dynamics). In other words spherical modelling of homogeneous spheres packed could reveal secrets and the beauty behind Physical science Mathematics. It would be necessary studying both matter formations and related effects and relationship between our number sequence, parity and quantum such as;

Electron proton Neutron Neutronstar. Black hole.

Pauli exclusion, Nuclear Magic numbers, DNA cell...

Elementary quanta can be applied to al matter.

We know necessary fundamental constants namely elementary energy E (1eV) for single elementary particle and speed of light (c) hence we can accurately calculate it's proportionality to any particle charged, neutral or both. The ratios of Energy and mass are exactly same, and no any other particle which can have such property.

[math]\[n\frac {M_{earth}}{m_{photon}}=\frac {E_{earth}}{e_{photon}}=\frac {Mc^{2}}{mc^{2}}=3.35*{10^{60}}n\][/math]

Best regards

Bashir

Thanks Edwin,

I've said that neither a mechanism, nor anything with moving parts, can explain time, or generate time, because those things need time to exist already. There are quite a few examples of attempts to explain time with concepts like those.

Then there are attempts to explain the direction of time, by saying it emerges from thermodynamics. One of several problems with this is that emergence itself is a process, so it's another of those concepts that needs time if it's to function. And it's hard to make something that moves and changes emerge out of something that doesn't.

Another problem with this is a point near the top of page 2 of my essay, which I'd say entirely removes emergent time, and shows it not to work. A third problem with emergent time is the 2015 experiment, which found entropy at the quantum scale, and time working just as it does in the large-scale world, showing the reversibility we imagined at that scale was false.

Illusion time is also removed - emergent time is a wider set of possibilities, which includes illusion time, as illusion time would be an emergent effect.

So this is part of a process of elimination I've done, where I think we can get clues about what time really IS like, by eliminating various pictures that it ISN'T like. That's what my book's about, and the essay is a potted version, with some of that process. And yes, I ruled out all avenues except one, which though also blocked, had a blockage that could be removed, with a change to the underlying assumptions. Then, exploring that particular avenue, and the solution it offers, you get the change to the assumptions that it leads to, and selects out of many possibilities.

Yes, good discussing these things with you, best regards,

Jonathan

Edwin Eugene,

You had me at Einstein, until you went all Newton on me!

Find a perfect clock in my essay.

Nevertheless, decent score. :-)

All best,

Tom

Dear Edwin Eugene,

I like the way that you present your ideas in terms of a posthumous discussion of physicist. It is fun to read, and you explain some concepts really well.

However, I disagree with your conclusions. In particular, what seems decisive to me is how you would answer the following question: does your "local gravity as ether" theory make any concrete experimental predictions that DIFFER from the predictions of GR?

If the answer is "no", then it is simply a matter of taste whether one would like to adopt Einstein's formulation or yours. I would say that it's folklore among physicists that the gravitational field can, in some sense, be seen as some kind of "ether" if one really wants to. It is just that one doesn't gain anything from doing so.

But if the answer is "yes", then you should simply propose an experiment that decides between the two theories. How you feel about GR's and SR's different "time dimensions" (the word is simply chosen by you to make it sound implausible) is then completely irrelevant. The result will then either be a falsification of your approach or the Nobel prize for you.

Best regards,

Markus

Edwin Eugene,

The central concept of Einstein's theory is a belief?

Best,

Tom

Ed,

I have long thought that a covariant form of gravitation in which energy density distribution in inertial domains, interacting with each other, could be found that corresponds with results of GR. Having said that, what do you mean that, "Einstein's time dilation is symmetric in nature, but in reality (GPS) it is not." How do you understand the LT to figure into the assemblage of several kinds of maths that is the computational devise called General Relativity? And how was GR applied to the orbitals assigned to GPS satellites which were launched and are continually controlled using Newtonian mechanics? please - jrc

Edwin Eugene,

My program is experimentally-based, too, with an experiment already proposed.

Best,

Tom

Thanks for the response Ed,

I understand your argument as being that the onboard clock mechanism, the oscillation rate of Cesium atoms, is altered in relation to the earth clock by the momentum imparted by acceleration to escape velocity. This would then reflect as you propose that the earth clock is stable in the local inertial frame and the sat-clock slow due to its orbit maintaining the momentum load on the Cesium.

So then the next question is; what in the 45,000 nanosecond/day advancing rate of the sat-clock at its orbital distance. The sum of the lag and lead results in the onboard clock registering 38,000 nanosecond/day ahead of earth time, and of course has to be continuously compensated to within a 50 nanosecond window. If the gravitational force due to energy density interaction, causes the Cesium to vibrate more rapidly, would that shed momentum over time? jrc