The Fundamental Nature of Time by Edwin Eugene Klingman

jrc

You have raised some questions and I don't object at all. However I will mention that you have changed the terms and selected different scenarios, rather than arguing within specific terms raised in the essay, or my comments about clock springs.

And I am having trouble understanding your comments and questions. I cant iron out what appear to be contredictions. The misunderstanding could be entirely my fault. The confusion could easily be mine. These conversations can be notoriously tricky, and it's so common to see people attempting to communicate these subjects (SR GR) while not even approaching a common understanding. That's why I keep my considerations and arguments within reach of an observation and measure. A clock spring communicates definable values of force, while the hands communicate measure of time. I can point to the shaft that connects the clock spring to the hands, and show that the proportional motion of one is proportional to the other. This ascribes an equivalence between expressions of force and measures of time, that's justified by observation and measure. Therefore it is not theoretical. And it is a much simpler system with less prospects for hidden variables than isotope radio active decays, which are little understood complex behaviours of complex systems.

I think a fair challenge to my rationale would be better directed towards that to which I refer. Conversation can benefit from being centred upon an observation, measure. Rather than extrapolated terms and scenarios. Will you join me in a discussion about clock springs? If you will then perhaps we should attend my thread, if and when my essay is live, or your essay thread. Rather than commandeering Edwin's.

Steve

Steve,

Clock springs I would treat as Edwin has, that they are a measure of energy of oscillations. And I had introduced radiological decay because Edwin's own comments contend that his model is compatible with GR, and much is. But the clock in GPS is the regular oscillation of Cesium atoms which increase to translate to 48,000 nanoseconds per day faster at orbital altitude then on Earth. So if gravtitational field effect allows that atomic frequency to increase, then it should also have the same predictable effect on the frequency of half-lives. So I think Edwin is on a right track and enjoyed his artistic license, but also agree with Philip Gibbs comments. Above all, that the good Dr. Klingman shows respect for the dignity of others and will always have mine. I've also done (what I felt was reasonably successful) modeling of this sort in a Cartesian measurement scheme, and find a lot of agreement with Ed's concept of real, physical field interaction, and the geodesics of GR being akin to worldlines of equilibrium if a field is reintroduced into the barebones, co-ordinate free geometrics.

I'll just leave with one observation; ever notice that E=mc^2 is a statement of the inverse square law in different terms? Therefore, mass is energy decelerated from light velocity. It is still only a masse of energy until a unit quantity specific to a unit volume can be determined which exhibits the characteristics of matter. And that's where I very much agree with Doc. :-) jrc

Hi Edwin. The name 'river model' is rather fanciful. I also have great difficulty visualizing space moving into matter - it flows in but not out? A better explanation might be that it is some sort of wave motion that propagates through space. I am thinking of something like the moving pattern on a cuttlefish that sweeps over it in waves. The surface of the cuttlefish is not moving, but the pattern gives an illusion of motion. For waves of force, instead of lines of force, there would have to be some coupling between matter and waves, but also between waves to promote coherence.

My visualization of standing waves comes from experiencing them too close for comfort. I was fishing in a canoe with a friend at the northeast corner of the Lions Gate bridge in Vancouver. The tide was strong, a line got caught in the electric motor, and we were swept through rapids to the east side of the bridge. Having survived the rapids, we were being carried toward a field of standing waves being reflected off the shoreline looking like rows of jaws. I was surprised and terrified by the sight, and have wondered ever since whether the waves might act as trap. It is a long way to gravity from there, but the physical analogy of waves seems better than a river.

Thanks for pointing out your previous essay, and Cahill's work. Interesting how experiments (and theory) such as MM can benefit from reanalysis. Cheers, Colin

jrc

Hay good news. I read through your messages again and I understand your following points.

NASA of their Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator programs; ie, that half-life decay rates of elemental radioisotopes remain unaffected by change of proximity to dominant gravitational domains.

"And the NASA findings agree with a real, physical time dilation as predicted by GR, otherwise the RTGs would suffer shorter working lives rather than the extended ones operationally".

On first reading, these two statements sounded contradictory. But I understand how one leads to the other now. But I admitted it was probably my fault, so all good.

"real, physical field interaction"

Yes!

"I'll just leave with one observation; ever notice that E=mc^2 is a statement of the inverse square law in different terms? Therefore, mass is energy decelerated from light velocity. It is still only a masse of energy until a unit quantity specific to a unit volume can be determined which exhibits the characteristics of matter. And that's where I very much agree with Doc. :-) jrc "

and yes again!!

I find it fascinating/riveting that you are playing with the term "deceleration of light". Deceleration and acceleration are equivalent terms. Both correspond to expression of energy/force. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this you suggest as the mechanism for mass?

In my essay which will hopefully be accepted, I refer to this association you mention. I refer to it in terms of being an association between photons and gluons, whereby their expressions of force are correlated via magnitude. Velocity of photon C, and gluon C2. Deceleration of photon C to derive value of mass C2, is a very appealing notion.

If deceleration of light is the mechanism that gives mass, then you will appreciate how a variant C would act to give variant mass. Mass would be proportional to change of velocity. Do you hold constant C as sacred? Are we speaking the same language?

I believe my term "force dilation" is the same concept to which Edwin refers, "energy of oscillations" but I define it as value of force.

Edwin recently quoted Richard Feynman as saying "when we observe an acceleration, we should look for a force".

A clocks increased oscillation in orbit constitutes an acceleration. Edwin has referred to it in terms of increased "energy", terms of energy are interchangeable with "force".

I believe the breakthrough occurs when atomic oscillations currently interpreted as "time dilation" are associated with variant atomic energy/force. Atomic energy/force extends to variant mass. It's usefulness applies to, Atomic energy/mass scales dependant on gravities square law proximity to matter. This consideration of variant mass extends to "proximity of stars to each other in galaxies". Average distance between stars in galaxies, increases by the square of distance from galaxy centre.

It will sound fanciful to most, but it should be considered a curiosity that, if a baryon is considered to increase its mass proportionate to distance from galaxy centre, "dependent upon dilated proximity of stars to each other", then it does place mass where it needs to be to predict anomalous galaxy rotation velocity. An ideal fit.

Steve

Hi Edwin, it seems that many beer-mats and napkins later they left without agreement but at least had not come to blows. I don't think Einstein would have enjoyed the meeting.

We are, it appears, in agreement about there being no empty space.

You include some history but I think the most important background, which you do not point out, was that this development of Special Relativity was happening at a time when co-ordination of clock time at different places was becoming necessary for the successful running of railway timetables. After early time signal sending by pneumatic tubes, electric signals were used. It is easy to understand that the time signal is something different from passage of time. Just as a time signal can be sent and received, a light signal can be transmitted and received. The time signal is processed into a clock time and the light signal can be processed into an image. When the signal is processed is when the image is seen, not when the event it pertains to happened.

You know from your own experience of thunder storms and Doppler effect of a moving siren, that the observer's relation to the sensory stimuli affects the experience. Two observers different distances for the storm experience the thunder and lightning differently, there isn't simultaneity of the events, for them. The different time lines pertain to the different experiences. The observers are experiencing the universe differently. Those experiences are different from what is actually happening in external reality simultaneously with the 'present' experience. It is important to separate what appears to be Now from uni-temporal Now. Due to the way in which the senses work there is a causal order: production of potential sensory information, transmission, receipt, processing, experience. Thus present and uni-temporal Now can not be the same.

I can tell a lot of thought and effort has gone in to crafting your essay. It is well written. No disrespect is intended. Georgina

Edwin, the content of each observers reference frame, that which is deemed to be simultaneous, must necessarily be the product of processing of received sensory input. The content of the reference frames of organisms or devices can not in reality be the externally existing matter (outside of, and distant from the observer), independent of the function of observer's sensory systems, or function of the sensing device. As that can not be seen /has not been detected. The different time dimensions you mention are pertaining to the space-time generated by the observers.

Edwin:

I do not believe you've made much fundamental progress in the nature of time since, In my opinion, without properly including the subjective aspect of the observer and his relationship to our theories we will continue to be stuck in an old paradigm. However your critique of Einstein and emphasis on the great body of work based more on classical thinking is excellent and deserves to be praised since we must dislodge the constraints he his bigger than life reputation has trapped us in to make progress. I hope you win and will do my part to make that happen

Wolfgang Baer

Dear Edwin

I just took pleasure in bumping your score up another point.

I hope you will take the time to view my essay please? Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin.

And I also hope we will have occasion to discuss a theme common of both our works. That considerations which are traditionally delegated to times process, are better served as considerations of energy or force. Specifically, that relative motion and gravitational environments issue effects as a modulation of atomic energy or force. I understand my Darwinian scope will seam an unjustified leap to you, and I'm happy to bench that subject while we might discuss modulated atomic energy, and the theme I have already put to you regarding modulated Baryon mass and its prospect for predicting galaxy rotation velocity. Simply by issuing a modulated Baryon mass based on square law proximity of matter. Specifically, the proximity of stars to each other in galaxies. What did you make of this assertion please?

Galaxies do rotate as though their mass density is constant from middle to edge. While infact star densities decline proportional to square of distance from galaxy center. Interesting symmetry to reflect on, dont you agree?

Congratulations on a great essay. My favorite for a placing two years running.

Steven Andresen

Ed,

Good to see your rating having tough, regardless of all other disagreements about time it does mean that there is a growing realism than the hitherto strictly Quantum Mechanical abstraction that Time emerges from pure random events piling up in a bell curve. jrc

HANGING tough

oops the typo :-)

Dear Edwin

I'm glad you liked my intro and I much appreciate your complement.

I understand your grand effort contribution for this community, reading and communicating with a large number of essays and authors. I know you are extremely busy in this community service, and I feel guilty for demanding more of your time than you have already volunteered for me. But it is a relatively simple question I hope you can address for me please? An is more important to me than I might readily admit too.

I have been going on about galaxy rotation velocities. That if atomic energy is modulated/dilated dependent on gravities square law. What do you think of applying consequence to dilated mass?

Galaxies do rotate as though their mass density is constant from middle to edge. While infact star densities decline proportional to square of distance from galaxy centre. This illustrates the deviation from GR predictions. Its very tidy.

If atomic energy/mass is dependent upon proximity of stars to each other, inversely proportional to gravitys square law. Then it applies mass precisely where it need be, so as to predict galaxy rotation velocity. It presents a mathematical fit. Do you recognize my reasoning in this regard please?

Please can you tell me where you stand with this reasoning? and in light of your gravity / atomic energy considerations?

I understand your misgivings concerning the use of "perfect clocks" in theoretical context. You made that point clear in your essay. And you said to me that mechanical clocks can't measure relativistic effects. I spoke loosely within terms of, near and afar large masses. Would you object in the same fashion if the mass was sufficiently large so as to have a dramatic effect on the mechanical clocks function? A neutron star or larger mass.

Thank you once again

Steve

Even Rindler, whose name is attached to aspects of special relativity, states about Einstein's postulate:

"Light propagates the same in all inertial frames... It is not for us to ask how!"

Well since Einstein' space time based on Minkowski's Paper - Minkowsky, Hermann, German paper Raum und Zeit (1909), Jahresberichte der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung, 75-88. In the 1920 English translation...We can clothe the essential nature of this postulate in the mystical, but mathematically significant formula 3x108(metre)=в€љ-1(second)....

Well Minkowsky made Einstein's postulates mathematical by making the speed of light the imaginary unit. Hence what the imaginary unit can do the speed of light can do -- and the imaginary unit closes the algebra on the geometry for any equation. That is, by making i equals c Minkowsky got space-time.

Clearly by making the speed of light by definition the imaginary unit, we imbue "the speed of light" with all the "properties of the imaginary unit" which are the properties that are necessary and sufficient to close all equations. That is, what the imaginary unit can do, the speed of light can do to. Clearly the imaginary unit via The Fundamental Theory of Algebra forces "c=i" to behave as a universal constant always timelessly available for all observers. That is, the imaginary unit is the "timeless" number that closes algebra on a geometric number field, all numbers are "forced" by the power of mathematical certainty (obtained by deductive proof) to obey the terms and conditions of the Fundamental Theory of Algebra which states that every non-constant single-variable polynomial with complex coefficients has at least one complex root. That is, there are no "places" without the constant of closure for General Relativity of "c=i" that is, this "constant of closure" is universal and acts as a timeless initial condition for all polynomials that describe any interactions via single variable equations that are non-constant.

and recall What is fundamental in complex numbers - is how we define the imaginary unit in maths. Recall the imaginary unit is defined by solving uniquely the equation xВІ+1= 0. That is, i is a unique (i.e. distinguishable) number defined as the square root of minus one, i.e., i в‰Ў +в€љ-1. Since there are two possible square roots for any number +в€љ and -в€љ, clearly the square roots of a negative number cannot be distinguished until one of the two is defined as the imaginary unit, at which point +i and -i can then be distinguished. Since either choice is possible, there is no ambiguity in defining i as "the" square root of minus one.

Your essay uses these two imaginary units above since clearly +i(second)=c(meter) then elementary complex maths tell us that 1/i=-i, or that is -i(second)=h(Joules) that is why you say the clocks count energy not time. Clearly Joules ~ 1/time or (Quantum theory:minimum change О"EО"t~h/2ПЂ).

I feel using these basic facts you could of derived your ideas with less bother and not use the two-time and one-time frames. Since Minkowski used the +i for space-time and you include the qm -i. Yes I'm saying that our physics uses the indistinguishable imaginary units +i,-i and not the definitional i в‰Ў +в€љ-1

A marvelous read and the comments you are receiving are so great -- one of the best essays so far.

I hope you have time to read my essay "What is fundamental is the area of the imaginary unit" it goes into details about these two constants for the definitional imaginary unit

Read the attachment as well it as FAQ

Ed,

Browsing your paper for the first time surprised by the opening implicit assertion that there is something wrong with light defining a 'preferred' reference frame. Isn't that exactly what it's supposed to do? Light is the fiducial in our definition of space. The laws of physics don't change when we take light as the fiducial. That's what SR tells us as I understand it. And I'm of the opinion that one needs to understand quantum gravity to properly appreciate why this is true.

Having said that, I'm delighted by the way you set the scene in the tavern. Thank you for that.

Didn't dig into the remainder of the paper in detail, see there is not much to do with the quantum in it. Logically it is perhaps good to keep in mind that SR is three body problem, Lorentz transform is just Pythagoreus. If seeking foundations exact general solutions don't exist (afaik) beyond two body. And QM is ultimately two body. Getting three things together in one spot simultaneously gets ever more difficult as one goes to every smaller length scales.

The distinction you seek to make is between partial and total derivative? I don't know if it will help you to look at this from GA perspective, but pretty cool if it does:

vacuum wavefunction in GA can be taken to be Pauli algebra of 3D space, comprised of point, line, plane, and volume elements. One scalar, three vectors, three bivectors, and one trivector. Assigning topologically appropriate electromagnetic fields to those fundamental geometric objects generates agents in the physical world.

interactions of those wavefunctions/agents can be modeled by the geometric product, which changes dimensionality of the iteracting geometric objects. The product of two 3D Pauli algebras yields a 4D Dirac algebra, a geometric representation of the particle physicist's holy grail, the scattering matrix. The fourth dimension, time, emerges from the interactions. It is encoded in the 4D pseudoscalars of the Dirac algebra.

Does this means total or partial derivative to your Tavern Keeper? One or the other? Both? Neither?

Hi Edwin:

Thanks for your time in reading my paper and providing kind and thoughtful comments. Finally, I got a chance to read your paper and enjoyed throughout.

I do not fully comprehend all mathematical detail of your model but notice your conclusion - "The effect of this belated recognition of 'ether' is the restoration of physical intuition and understanding of the fundamental nature of time as universal simultaneity."

Your conclusion contradicts Einstein's relativity of simultaneity, while my photon model in my paper - "What is Fundamental - Is C the Speed of Light" supports Einstein as it is vindicated by the observed universe expansion data. My photon model shows that there is no unique time or clock in the universe as time is only a relative entity to the frame of the observer.

I notice that you are in the bay area; I also reside in Cupertino, may be we can get together to discuss this further. You can contact me at avsingh@alum.mit.edu.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh