The Fundamental Nature of Time by Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

Sorry, it was me who posted this. I did not know how I logged out.

Regards

Ajay

My essay's link is incorrect above:

Is Mathematics fundamental

Dear Edwin,

Here we are again with essays in another contest. I appreciate very much the stimulating comments you wrote about my essay. Given your comments, I can see that I need to clarify and extend my thinking, and perhaps to modify it, on several matters. Although I do not suppose that believing something (for example, that free will is an illusion, or that it is not) makes the belief true for the person who believes, the relations among truth, belief, and illusion can get complicated when the belief is about the person who believes or about the believing process itself. Then too, I need to think more about the way in which the human predicament, or at least the predicament of an individual human being, is shaped by the thoughts of that individual, including self-referential thoughts about the individual's personal condition and about the human condition in general. And finally, you raise the important issue of degrees of consciousness. You refer specifically to Zen and similar disciplines. The point of Zen might be that the problems of being conscious are not inherent in consciousness as such and therefore do not beset all forms of consciousness. From a perspective like that of Zen, one might say that there is a form of consciousness without any awareness of an individualized subject of consciousness. It would be awareness without awareness of itself, without awareness of any subject having or doing the awareness. I am inclined to believe that this kind of consciousness does exist and that some people sometimes by effort or by accident do attain it. Nonetheless, most people most of the time exist for better or for worse with ordinary human consciousness.

But here I want to comment on your essay. I do not fully understand why you attribute to Einstein a belief in multiple time dimensions. I had thought that in the standard view of physicists there is only one time dimension, although there are three dimensions of space. (We leave aside string-theory speculations about additional spatial dimensions.) Again, according to what I have read, space and time are two different things, although it is not clear, at least not clear to me, what the difference is, and it is not clear whether the full difference between the two is described or explained in the equations of physics.

I had thought that the matter of varying measurements involving time and space, including varying opinions about whether two events are or are not simultaneous, amounted to something like this: There is only one time for the entire universe. This universal time is defined by the reference frame in which the universe is expanding uniformly. Two events are really simultaneous if and only if they are simultaneous when observed in this reference frame. This preserves universal simultaneity as fundamental to the nature of time, which is the principle you assert on page 9 at the conclusion of your essay. The relativity of measurements, including differing measurements of simultaneity, comes into the picture because all measurements are local processes within the universe. No observation process or measurement process occurs from the vantage point of the universe. Hence, all observations are modified by local conditions. One might even say that the modifications are distortions. The modifications apply to all physical processes. The modifications apply to all human observations, insofar as those observations are or rely upon physical processes. My understanding of Einstein's special and general theories of relativity is that they provide, among other things, ways of correlating one distorted local measurement with other distorted local measurements. Using Einstein's procedures one could also correlate local measurements to the the universal perspective, the perspective of universal time, if one cared to do that. However, rarely if ever is there a practical need for that. This at any rate was how I had understood matters. I do not see how to change this view in the light of the considerations you bring forward.

I am not sure whether the distinction between mathematical structures and physical reality is relevant to these issues. In any case, I certainly agree with the statement that you quote from Tim Maudlin at the bottom of page 2. We should not confuse a mathematical structure with physical reality, or even with physical possibility, regardless of how detailed the mathematical structure might be.

Perhaps you have already answered my questions in the essay or in responses to other comments. However that may be, thank you for a very thought-provoking essay.

Laurence Hitterdale

Poor me, poor me, poor me,

pour me

another glass of whiskey.

Bartender hit me one more time.

Well, okay Ed, that is a lot of mathematical argument to digest. And while I have long given up on the traditional Classical concept of universal time, I am also well aware of good arguments for the practical usage of it in local field representation. It just always seems to leave me questioning whether the many arguments for constant metronomic universal time that support the Quantum Mechanical Cartesian measurement space, are really all that complete. Now... bear with me a moment because I may have missed it; how fast did you say this universal time goes? :-) jrc

Hello Edwin,

Thank you for your positive comments on my essay, glad you enjoyed it.

Incidentally, the link I posted above goes to the wrong page, it's here. I'd appreciate it if you'd rate my essay, I've only had one rating so far.

It's worth pointing out that neither time nor energy are well defined at present, so although one might perhaps interpret SR by making either one or the other change (in the standard view both change), it's not a 'deepest level' interpretation, it's an intermediate level one. My own approach is to try to find the deepest level before assuming much on the way. SR has many equivalent configurations (it's a bit like a Rubik's cube), but there may be only one configuration that goes anywhere.

I think your idea that SR has two time dimensions is about the derivation, rather than what's in SR. It seems you're saying that dilated time is derived via a universal time - to me that doesn't mean the theory has both, it's just a way to get to the theory.

About energy and time - a point I've made is that they go in opposite directions, if you look at the two different kinds of time dilation. (I know you don't believe in time dilation, I mention it to make a point about the relationship between energy and time.)

In motion time dilation, an object's energy increases as its time rate slows down - inverse proportion.

In gravity time dilation, an object's energy decreases as its time rate slows down - direct proportion.

(With gravitational time dilation, although this is about position in the field, it can be about an object moving towards a mass.)

So I think not only are both time and energy unexplained, the relationship between them needs some explaining as well.

Wishing you all the best, Jonathan

Dear Edwin:

I very much appreciate your critique of Einstein's work and the confusion some of inconsistencies have caused. I was especially intrigued with the realization that if velocity is taken into the time derivative Maxwell's equations could be made invariant under Galilean transforms. This is an important paper.

However the conclusion seems to suggest that there is only one universal time and transforming t into t' does not make sense. I've always been in favor of Lorenz's interpretation of the Michelson-Morely experiment but appreciated Einstein's multiple independent space time attached to different coordinate frames. My difficult with Einstein is that he did not go far enough in defining the role of the observer. He talks about observer riding along with coordinate frames when each observer is a coordinate frame. If the railcar analysis is carried through to what an observer actually experiences by tracing the signals from coordinated frame detectors back to the display inside the frame on which the measurement results are displayed then it would be clear that each of us observers experience our own space and time.

Giving up a single fundamental space time background is necessary if we are to properly include the observer in physics theories as my paper suggests.

Since you include R. Cahill in your references and experiments to determine the velocity within a moving inertial frame you must be familiar with his claim to have developed such a measurement using correlations with random number generators. We worked hard with Cahill to try to verify these measurements but have been unsuccessful.

Sorry forgot to add my name to the post

And congratulations on a very good paper.

Wolfgang Baer

geneman,

I'll give you that. I was about to send an email but it would take an essay, so maybe I'll save that to become a paperback writer. People would benefit by a revival of bending a book on airplane rides anyway.

So I'll stick with where I'm in agreement. (1) SR is mathematically complete geometrically, just not physically. And (2) it only enters GR as elapsed time on a curve, it is not a radial measurement on any single pole in a spherical volume. (3) Gravitation is not negligibly weak nor for that matter the weakest of primary force effects, it is characteristically dominant where the densities have dropped below effective range of the other primaries. (4) A proper unitary field model must categorize force effects by characteristic behavior of energy under density constraints of the entire quantity of energy constituting the inertial mass. (5) It is the amount of energy in a given field of effective range, interacting with the complimentary effective amount that we measure as intensity. So at the inertial core of a hypothetical free rest mass, only a near trivial percentage of the total quantity would be required to produce a density proportional to the whole that would thereby translate inertia throughout the limit volume. And while the much greater volumes that would concentrically arrange across the continuous density range specific to the primary force effects would progress outwardly towards lower density, those volumes would require ever more greater percentage of the unitary energy quantity. Gravitation is by far then the strongest of the primary force effects.

What has stumped efforts in unification, is that you can't get an unambiguous distribution of energy in accord with inverse square law determining a spherical boundary using integration over partial differentials. Even if you assign empirical upper and lower density bounds, the proportions will follow a linear progression until the outermost layer of the onion, and then the slope will change, everytime. Add a layer, that's where the slope changes. So you always end up with a feedback, not a zero boundary. I ran across a collection of Einstein's writings years ago and he comes tantalizingly close when he described how he came to choose a spherical geometry for GR. He wrote in splendid prose about the divergence of radii, no matter how close. So you can easily see that on any of an infinite number of radii, the energy would distribute in accord with inverse square law along that radii ... but what about the rest of the volume of the sphere between the divergence of radii!?! That's the mathematical problem. There's more space for energy distribution between the buttons that on them!

And on and on it goes. Best as always, jrc

Edwin,

Thank you for clarification.

Best Regards

Ajay Pokharel

Dear Edwin;

You had a very good insight when you pointed out that "Physicists can project mathematical structure onto reality and can come to believe that the corresponding physical structure is reality".

I like they way you presented your discussion (a "trialog" between the three geniuses that originated modern physics), but, knowing the epistemological and ontological problems that plague the traditional fundamental concepts in physics, I felt like reading a treaties on the "Sexes of Angels".

Note:

There is a solution to the Heaviside-Hertz electro- and gravito-magnetic theory without having to include mass in the photon. In the same way as there is no electric charge in the photon, and it has associated an electric field, there is a gravitational field associated to the photon without it having mass (see "EMG Theory of the Photon, http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/links/Papers/EMG%20III.pdf).

I wish you had time to read in my essay my concept of space, space-time and time.

Yours;

Diogenes

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

While I don't like beer, and my computer has minor problems to correctly reproduce all formulas, I would like to recomment your paper "An energy-based derivation of Lorentz tramsformation in one inertial frame" to all teachers of physics worldwide:

"We only need the Lorentz tramsformation when energy is taken into account, such as is required for particle physics."

May I suggest you commenting on Michelson's late (1923?) experiments too?

Best,

Eckard

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

an interesting essay, but a dangerous technique. While it is quite natural to think in terms of such discussions - theoretical physics is, last but not least, argumentation, and requires that counter-arguments are answered - the discussions we imagine in our mind certainly differ from real discussions a lot. First of all, in a positive way, because nobody falls back to ad hominem and nobody proposes completely stupid counterarguments. But, on the other hand, finally, the opponents in our imagined discussions give up and admit we have the better argument (if not, we change our own position, instead of writing it into a paper). This happens also if our own arguments have weak points we have not recognized. In real discussions, even among scientists today, you will seldom find such agreement.

This makes such dialogues always very unrealistic. A point which holds also for classical examples like Socrates.

The problem becomes much more serious if we use, as our opponents in the imagined discussion, not no-names we have invented ourselves, but real scientists. This essentially changes how one reads the dialogue. Even if it is only a ghost of Einstein who participates, every place where Einstein admits you are right is dangerous. Even if you would be really right, not everybody will agree with this, And those who will not agree will make conclusions which are very unfavorable for you, like "oh, this is one of the many ether cranks who claim to have found logical errors in Einstein's theory". And you receive immediately 10 points for point 18 of the Baez' crackpot index http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html So, the story you use is an extremely dangerous technique, far too open to attack, and extremely difficult to defend.

And it is indeed not that difficult to find things attributed to Einstein which may be reasonably questioned:

AE: My dear Prof. Hertz, I never realized that your equations of electrodynamics are Galilean invariant.

Of course, if EM is an ether theory, it does not have any problem with Galilean invariance, the preferred frame of the Maxwell equations is simply the rest frame of the ether, and one can, of course, rewrite them for a frame moving against the ether too. I think (or I would guess, without having studied this) this was the standard position of pre-relativistic scientists about Galilean invariance for the Maxwell equations of a luminiferous ether. Today it is the standard view about sound wave equations in condensed matter theory too. To assume that Einstein was somehow unaware of this is at least questionable.