Edwin

I have to commend you on a witty essay, and I liked it enough so I gave you a grade of 8. i.e. very well done

However, this is my nit.

The initial time step, call it either delta t, is either intrinsic within a system as done by Barbour in his essay about emergent time, or it is super imposed upon the system say by cyclic cosmological intervention from prior universes upon our present universe.

In essence, I would like to have a clear distinguishment made between emergent time, as stated by Barbour, or by some other agency, say as in cyclic conformal cosmology (penrose)

Aside from these nits, I frankly felt your essay was the most enjoyable one I have encountered in this contest and I am saving it as a gem.

Just because I raise this issue does not mean I disapprove. On the contrary I give you high marks and am asking for an extension of your dialogue to include the distinguishable choice I am referring to.

Andrew

    I am going to put in here what I used to reply to your comment as to my essay:

    quoting upon what I said in your essay discussion

    quote

    Edwin

    I have to commend you on a witty essay, and I liked it enough so I gave you a grade of 8. i.e. very well done

    However, this is my nit.

    The initial time step, call it either delta t, is either intrinsic within a system as done by Barbour in his essay about emergent time, or it is super imposed upon the system say by cyclic cosmological intervention from prior universes upon our present universe.

    In essence, I would like to have a clear distinguishment made between emergent time, as stated by Barbour, or by some other agency, say as in cyclic conformal cosmology (penrose)

    Aside from these nits, I frankly felt your essay was the most enjoyable one I have encountered in this contest and I am saving it as a gem.

    Just because I raise this issue does not mean I disapprove. On the contrary I give you high marks and am asking for an extension of your dialogue to include the distinguishable choice I am referring to.

    Andrew

    end of quote

    Answering you was a pleasure, Edwin, but the choice I made was to include in time as in the form of Barbour,

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.3489.pdf

    And the super structure I used was to focus upon the cosmological constant as I referenced it, as a way to initiate the placing of time as I saw it in the present cosmos.

    Hence, I worked with forming the cosmological constant, as a bench mark for initial conditions enabling the development of time as given by

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.3489.pdf

    What may surprise you. Edwin, was that I initially was to make my essay about time,and shifted to the cosmological constant as referred to in my essay after reviewing what I know of time, as a way to conjecture out an initial structure consistent with

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.3489.pdf

    Please consider what I brought up about either emergent time, or the other choice of time, as I tried to answer it in my replies to you

    I after this FQXI contest, will continue this discussion at great length, Edwin

    Finally, please tell me if you think Barbour is full of beans, i.e. this essay

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.3489.pdf

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.3489.pdf

    Please comment upon this idea by Barbour.

    Thanks

    Andrew

    Edwin, it turns out, space is the ether, and the ether is space. It's mythology, it remains to say that in the ether聽聽fly聽angels. Descartes firmly, space is matter, which we cannot see because it is transparent as glass, and which constituted the whole world.

    You deserve to be the winner, but I appreciate those who take a look at my essay and give a comment, i.e., apply Descartes.

    With respect Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich

    Dear Boris,

    There's much overlap in our interpretation of physics, particularly your emphasis on the fact that

    "Sometimes discovery is not a physical property of an object, but a property of the mathematical structure."

    I touch on this in my essay when I quote Maudlin:

    "...even if we can describe a mathematical structure that everywhere looks locally like a possible space-time structure, it does not follow that the whole object corresponds to a physical possibility."

    There are many examples of such projection in physics, many of them applying to quantum mechanics. As one example I would suggest that the Compton wavelength, considered as the size of a particle, is almost certainly incorrect. Nevertheless it appears useful.

    My focus is on the Einsteinian "ether, physical space, and field" becoming synonymous. I prefer the concept of 'field', and in particular the gravito magnetic field, which is a circulation/vortex in the field. This seems to agree with yours/Descartes's view in many interpretations.

    If you read my last essay on the Nature of Mind, you will find it not far from your final sentence.

    Best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Andrew Walcott Beckwith,

    Thank you for your very kind remarks. I'm very impressed with the work you do and generally attempt to read your papers. [I still pity your reviewers.]

    The topic of cyclic cosmology is beyond a comment, so I will attempt to respond to your questions about Barbour's nature of time (an earlier FQXi essay).

    He begins by noting that his mechanics books define neither time nor clocks. He further complains that the fundamental notions of duration and simultaneity are almost universally ignored, the latter due to Einstein's 'relativity of simultaneity'. In fact, Barbour states that only Newton discussed duration. Barbour hopes to persuade one that time as an independent concept has no place in physics.

    In agreement with Einstein, ("There exists no space absent of field.") I view 'space' as contingent on 'field', where field is substantial in the sense it has energy, hence matter. Similarly, I view time as contingent on energy, essentially energy in the field (see Hertz's 'energy' quote, on my page 5). Barbour quotes Mach to the effect that 'time is an abstraction'. I would not go that far. I would agree with Newton that:

    "Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called duration."

    The nature of time, in my opinion, is universal simultaneity, and its property of 'duration' is almost certainly tied to local energy, and very likely to the constant of action.

    In this sense I somewhat agree with Barbour that

    "...intervals of time do not pre-exist, but are created by what the universe does."

    The "intervals of time" are supposedly what clocks measure, as described in my essay as "counting frequency" or "measuring energy".

    Ignoring his 'rotation of the earth', etc., I disagree with Barbour that "Newton was wrong... Mach was right, we do abstract time from motion." This is, if not duplicitous, at least confused; motion is no more fundamental than time, in my mind not as fundamental. Motion is essentially local, while time is universal simultaneity. Universal outranks local every time. Perhaps Barbour believes that Einstein's attachment of time dimensions to local moving objects make time also 'local' in nature. I do not.

    The key to Barbour, as I see it, is his statement on page 4:

    "Modern textbooks, leave us to fathom the meaning of t, say that all these quantities are functions of the time: phi(t), a(t), r(t)."

    If this is true, one would expect that a clever approach could factor out t and this is what he does, ending on page 9 with an expression for delta-t in terms of energy.

    I'm not impressed that Barbour has accomplished anything other than to support my arguments in my essay. I do not support all of his arguments.

    My very best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Yes, Edwin, behind the mathematical structure the material content is forgotten or distorted. Here is your example of the circulation of the vector of electrical tension - it's a whirlwind, with this no one argues. Disagreement goes on. You say this is a whirlwind of ether, and I say it is a whirlwind of space, which is matter, according to the principle of the identity of space and the matter of Descartes. Space has one synonym - matter, the rest is its state. A physical vacuum is a state of the physical space when there are no corpuscles in it. Corpuscles are stationary vortices of space. A field is a space, each point of which has a potential. Etc.

    I want all those who speak about the ether to be winners on one condition that they forget the word "ether" and will use instead of it the concept of physical space, which is matter. This is difficult to do, but it is necessary that physics develops further.

    I wish you success! Boris Semyonovich.

    Hello Edwin,

    I remember our positive and worthwhile discussions during the 2012 essay contest. I enjoyed your essay, good to make it into a dialogue, and show some different angles - even though I couldn't help wishing we knew what they'd really have said. A point on the later part of your essay - I think Einstein was using the word 'ether' rather differently by the 1920s, meaning space itself, rather than something that fills space. By that time he was talking about fields as being set in space itself.

    I have a question for you - what exactly do you mean when you say SR implies two time dimensions? You have Einstein conceding this point, I suspect he might not have... I know Einstein was initially against Minkowski spacetime, and called it 'superfluous learnedness', but he later came around to it.

    I also know that in 2012 you were arguing for some kind of universal simultaneity, and I understand that better now. We agree that SR is correct in terms of predictions and experimental results. The interpretation may be questionable - but then there are so many ways to interpret it. To me they don't matter, unless you can get at the physics somehow, either by making a prediction, or by showing something to be true, such as by showing that the apparent flow of time cannot be emergent. This was done by experiment in 2015, see my essay, by showing that events at the quantum scale are not reversible, although the Schrödinger equation is. They found a directional flow of time down there, events were affected by entropy - it makes Minkowski spacetime even more questionable, and suggests that a new view of time is needed.

    To me the phenomenology of what was being discussed in that bar is more interesting than the different interpretations. Trying to get somewhere without an underlying picture is premature - there are so many different ways to describe something mathematically. Einstein said (in real life) that there was a need for a conceptual basis for physics, and that one would be found in the future. He talked about the 'future conceptual basis of physics' - Wheeler said the same, many times. The quotes are in the essay, which argues that whatever's at the deepest level MUST include a conceptual picture, as some of the puzzles it would shed light on can only have conceptual solutions, such as time and QM.

    There's also a point about time you might find of interest, near the top of page 2, the para that begins: "And trying to put these layers in the right order leads to an interesting point." In an email exchange with Anthony Aguirre in 2014, he commented on it - it's a point of mine, I've never seen it made elsewhere. Although one would never guess the point from his comment, he said:

    I very much like your other point, which is that if I just invent a Unitary Block description of some sort (say, define GR, a Hilbert space, and a Hamiltonian), there seems no reason to believe that it should admit of some description in which there is past and future, 'flowing' time between slices of similar coordinate time, 'objects', etc. It's a bit like the 'fine-tuning' problem, in which it seems like a bit of a miracle that the Universe (or Unitary Block in this case) so happens to be compatible with observers like us.

    My essay also argues that conceptual physics is the best way forward, and gives examples of puzzles that can only be solved by conceptual thinking.

    I'd very much appreciate your comments on the essay - thanks, and good luck.

    Jonathan Kerr

      Hello again Doc!

      I'm going to do another read but commend your essay generally. Also Dr. Beckwith's contention that the fundamental nature of time is imposed by earlier cyclic conditions is an interesting idea, and I do like that he accepts conjecture as a valid element to reason.

      Just a thought for now; since Minkowski it has been taken for granted that the scale of space and time are identical (I can't recall for sure but think it was Eddington whom argued that we might as well treat spacetime as equal scales for each). There is nowhere to be found, any universal scale for either time or space. Only the absolute velocity of light. So... wouldn't it be more problematic (in the good way) to assume that at any juncture of initial condition the relative scales would be set by the respective lengths of span of each in an intersection, and that a leap-frog attenuation would arise seeking equilibrium of proportion (say *phi*, for instance) limiting at light velocity?

      Best wishes and Good Luck, jrc

      Dear Jonathan Dickau,

      I very much enjoyed your excellent essay; you say "things from the Mandelbrot set ... teach lessons in physics." I would say that you gain insight from the Mandelbrot set and teach yourself. Regardless, your focus on asymmetry is fruitful. I had not thought of the

      "near perfect symmetry at higher magnification... [and] asymmetrical at lower magnification."

      I agree with you that "entropy can be characterized by spreading and sharing." As I've noted in earlier essays, energy is transmitted through space and time. If that energy crosses a systemic threshold and effects a change in structure of the system, then that 'in-formation' of the system is a record of information. One can show that Bekenstein's holographic entropy formula based on "screens storing information" can be derived exactly in terms of energy only, never mentioning, using, or even conceiving of information.

      My point is that if energy is fundamental, and one can define an abstraction, say information or entropy, and derive abstract results, then a clever person can often begin with the abstraction and work back toward the fundamental as if it "emerges from" the abstraction, as Verlinde does. Barbour does something similar with time.

      The same applies to 'quantum information', as you so well describe at the top of page 3. I of course do not deny the obvious usefulness of the abstraction of information, but what is fundamental is energy.

      Jacobson asks "how did classical general relativity know that horizon area would turn out to be a form of entropy?" As I noted, the horizon formula can be derived strictly as a distribution of energy. Since thermodynamic entropy is derived in terms of energy distributions, and since formulaic similarity between 'thermodynamic entropy' and 'information entropy' leads [as ET Jaynes notes] to "proving nonsense theorems", it should not be surprising that clever persons can run the derivations backwards, from abstract to fundamental. Here fundamental is made to seem to "emerge" from abstraction. That appears to be quite the fashion in physics today. Hence Jacobson and Verlinde.

      You, on the other hand, observe:

      "...that asymmetry is as fundamental to physics as symmetry takes some getting used to."

      Hooray for you. You mentioned SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) is fundamental, but SU(3) is a valid symmetry only for equal masses, yet it is applied in cases where masses differ by two orders of magnitude. As you note,

      "there is a tendency in physics to oversimplify."

      You "see condensation as a general feature of all theories of emergent and induced gravitation." While I wholly reject "emergent gravitation", I heartily concur with you on the importance of 'condensation'. And I do agree with you that

      "Asymmetry is as much a fundamental to physics as symmetry is."

      I think this is a major contribution to this particular essay contest.

      Gravity is fundamental, not emergent, and the key asymmetry is that expressed in the gravito-magnetic equation

      curl C = - mv

      where C is the gravito-magnetic field, m is the mass/energy density and v is the velocity. The - represents the fundamental asymmetry that is left-handed circulation. This underlies the asymmetric left-handedness of the universe from galaxies to neutrinos to biology. If Mandelbrot brought you to this insightful understanding, you have used it well.

      Congratulations on a superb essay,

      My very best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear Jonathan Kerr,

      I enjoyed your essay immensely, and not just because you focused on the fundamental nature of time.

      You ask exactly what I mean when I say SR implies two time dimensions. I base this on Rindler's definition of inertial frame as one in which spatial relations (as determined by rigid scales at rest in the frame) are Euclidian and in which there exists a universal time [such that Newton's laws of inertia hold] and on Einstein's formulation of his two principles of relativity in terms of (at least) two inertial frames.

      One might say the "universal time" is the same in both inertial frames, but Einstein goes on to derive the Lorentz transformation in terms of t' =/= t, so that the times clearly are not the same universal time. That they can share one time t' = t = 0 in common does not make them the same time. If they had no point in common they would be impossible to relate to each other, effectively separate elements of a multiverse. The Lorentz transformation of 4D entities mixes time and space based on the idea that the time axis can be rotated from t' into t. If there's only one universal time then t' = t and it does not mix time and space.

      As I develop in the essay, time does not 'dilate'; it 'flows equably through all space'. Local "clocks" measure energy, which is conjugate to time, and each 'tick' is a measure of a local time interval that is characterized by the energy of the clock mechanism. Motion-based energy differences of clocks do not represent variations in the time dimension, which is simultaneous across all space.

      Daryl Jansen, back in the day, argued strongly that the 4D block time is nonsense and that any discussion of it immediately introduces a fifth dimension where things change. Nothing changes in block time. It exists only because of the Minkowskian idea of 4D rotations in 'space-time'. If time does not mix with space (it doesn't) then the 4D block time is a mathematical artifact, having no physical reality.

      I agree with you that conceptual physics is the best way forward, but many react to new concepts as if they were the plague.

      Thanks again for reading and commenting on my essay.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear jrc -

      Thanks for offering to read my essay again; it's 'chock full of nuts' and probably requires more than one reading to appreciate. [I certainly would not extract all the ideas in one reading.]

      I certainly agree that conjecture is what we base new physics on, just as "a guess" is often where we obtain new mathematical solutions. I'm generally not friendly to the idea of a cyclic universe, but I have no drop-dead argument against it. It's probably a personal inclination.

      You are correct that no scale (other than the Planck scales) exist, and light speed rather relates time and space to a field that crosses space and time. I come at the basic scale question from a different direction, but it doesn't fit nicely into a comment.

      Thanks again for (re-)reading and commenting.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Hi Edwin Eugene Klingman

      You explored nicely about the Fundamental Nature of Time using equations of Einstein with deHaas in SR dear Edwin Eugene Klingman, it's a large amount of work. .......... very nice idea....... I highly appreciate your essay and hope you also will go thro my essay and spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

      Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

      -No Isotropy

      -No Homogeneity

      -No Space-time continuum

      -Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

      -No singularities

      -No collisions between bodies

      -No blackholes

      -No warm holes

      -No Bigbang

      -No repulsion between distant Galaxies

      -Non-empty Universe

      -No imaginary or negative time axis

      -No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

      -No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

      -No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

      -No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

      -No many mini Bigbangs

      -No Missing Mass / Dark matter

      -No Dark energy

      -No Bigbang generated CMB detected

      -No Multi-verses

      Here:

      -Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

      -Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

      -All bodies dynamically moving

      -All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

      -Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

      -Single Universe no baby universes

      -Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

      -Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

      -UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

      -Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

      -Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

      -21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

      -Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

      -Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

      - Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

      http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

      I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

      Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

      In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

      I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

      Best

      =snp

      • [deleted]

      • Post #75

      Hello Edwin,

      Here are some things that I have concluded reading your essay:

      1) Your essay says that Time is used to derive energy; since mass has energy, time can be fundamental both in quantum and classical mechanics.

      2) There is no proper clock

      3) You are the Tavern Keeper.

      Your essay was, truly a well-written essay and of course, different from others. I enjoyed many parts of your essay and indeed learn many things.There were some parts which disturbed me. I am going to point them out:

      1. "In other words, Einstein, there are no perfect clocks -- all are subject to local energy conditions. You entirely ignore this reality; positing 'perfect clocks' and a method to synchronize perfect clocks, and then you imagine the clocks measuring different time dimensions" This particular part, where you (Or HH) assumes that there is no perfect clock to measure the time dilation or for other purposes. I agree with the statement but we cannot say some phenomenon is not perfectly true (in this case time dilation and Lorentz contraction) only because we cannot observe them clearly; for instance, in quantum mechanics we assume several things, from the momentum of particles to their position in space and we assume their uncertainty given by uncertainty principle. Similarly, we also assume that body cannot exceed 'c' speed although we have not seen if a body can exceed. What I mean is that we have some limitations to prove things correctly; hence we use the term 'precisely'. We use mathematics and pattern to derive something and if we go on questioning the result produced by them by matching them with what we cannot predict in real life due to our limitations, then it might occur that many theories could be not perfect as well. It is just what I think, could you reflect your views on this.

      Also, I came to know about your description above and I found out that one of your papers from 1979 describes how numbers and math derive from physical reality; meanwhile my essay explain how physical realities are derived from numbers, patterns and mathematics. I think we can have a great discussion on my topic.

      Also, a month ago, I came across this article "Changing the arrow of time" which might me of some interest to you.

      Anyway, your essay is one of the enjoyable essays with facts and best among other. Your Essay got my best points as well. I wish you all the best for the competition.

      Kind Regards

      Ajay Pokharel

        Edwin,

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

        Regards

        Ajay

        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