Essay Abstract

To order the levels of description in physics, and find out what makes one layer more fundamental than another, the concept of emergence helps. If one phenomenon is the result of another, and clearly emerges from it, that places them in order, and shows which runs deeper. But here it is suggested that alongside emergence, we need to think about each layer explaining the one above it. Explanation is a concept that comes very much from human thinking, but then so does some of the surrounding landscape. That's because the levels we identify in physics are in the first place, to some extent, levels of conceptual understanding. The view here is that 'fundamental' has an objective element involving emergence, and a parallel subjective one, involving explanation. The two give the same directional ordering of the layers.

Author Bio

An independent British physicist, published in peer reviewed journals, who since 1995 has worked almost entirely on the physics of time, and the foundations of quantum mechanics. This led to a forthcoming book, 'The Unsolved Puzzle', which is with the publishers, who have aged noticeably since I first met them. It takes the view that some questions to be answered in the 21st century can only be solved by conceptual thinking.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Dr. Jonathan Kerr,

In qualifying the aim of the 'What is Fundamental?' essay contest, Dr. Brendan Foster, the FQXi.org Science Projects Consultant wrote: "We invite interesting and compelling explorations, from detailed worked examples through thoughtful rumination, of the different levels at which nature can be described, and the relations between them.

Real Nature has never had any abstract finite levels.

I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Dear Jonathan Kerr,

Nature produced one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single dimension that am always illuminated by mostly finite non-surface light millions of years before humanly contrived finite mathematical information ever became evident on earth.

Joe Fisher, Realist.

Dear Jonathan,

I think FQXi.org might be trying to find out if there could be a Natural fundamental. I am surprised that so many of the contest's entrants do not appear to know what am fundamental to science, or mathematics, or quantum histrionics.

Joe Fisher, Realist

4 days later

Dear Jonathan Kerr,

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

On my page you asked exactly what I mean when I say SR implies two time dimensions. Rindler's definition of inertial frame is 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 transform 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 against 4D block time since any discussion of it immediately introduces am effective '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 then 4D block time is a mathematical artifact, having no physical reality.

I appreciated your discussion of the 2015 experiment that has cast doubt on the reversibility of time at the micro-level.

I agree with you that conceptual physics is the best way forward, but many react to new concepts as if they were the plague. While this slows the spread of false ideas, it also slows the advance of good ideas. Also, it is difficult to advance and support a new conception in 9 pages, and FQXi is one of the very few places that even welcomes new concepts. Nevertheless, I think a re-conceptualization will occur within the next decade and be well on its way to acceptance. The need for such is becoming too evident to ignore.

Thanks again for reading and commenting on my essay.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Hello Edwin,

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

    Incidentally, 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

    5 days later

    Dear Jonathan Kerr,

    In a discussion with Klingman you wrote: "events at the quantum scale are not reversible, although the Schrödinger equation is."

    How to explain this? I don't only consider the laws of physics and Schrödinger's as well as Heisenberg/Born' pictures like mere maps of a territory we used to call reality. In my current essay 3009 I even tried to reveal how unwarranted mathematical assumptions led to redundant descriptions and to oddities.

    Therefore I will read your essay.

    Eckard Blumschein

    Hello Eckard,

    I remember your contribution to discussions in 2012. I haven't submitted an essay since then, but one reason I did this year is that a very important experiment was done in 2015, which I've described and referenced in the essay.

    It may take time before the result filters through, but it means that the apparent flow of time cannot be emergent, even though the standard view says it is. The experiment showed that the single idea that led to the standard view is false - the idea that the world is reversible at the particle scale, as the equations suggest. But it turns out that equations such as the Schrödinger equation are not a complete description of the world.

    I've also made new points showing that the apparent flow of time can't be emergent, one in particular. As I said to Edwin Klingman on his page:

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

    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 in current physics that can only be solved by conceptual thinking.

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

    Thanks Eckard, I'd appreciate your comments on the essay, and please give it a rating, as I've only had one so far, while some have had many. Best wishes,

    Jonathan

    Hi Jonathan Kerr

    The idea "That's because the levels we identify in physics are in the first place, to some extent, levels of conceptual understanding" is the first step in conceptual thinking, thank you for giving a good philosophical thinking dear Jonathan Kerr

    ............. very nice idea.... I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity. You may please 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

    Dear Jonathan Kerr,

    In a paper published earlier, I did mentions it (Shapiro time delay of light), in the name of Gravitational time delay.... I will contact you with full details ASAP....

    Thank you for mentioning this...

    Best

    =snp

    7 days later

    Dear Jonathan Kerr,

    Thanks for your feedback. The simplest way to interpret SR is that Einstein is adding a time dimension for each inertial frame. If one tries to maintain a single 'universal time' (per Rindler) that varies with velocity (and position) it is incomprehensible to me. An 'elastic' time dimension that is stretched by motion cannot be real (in my opinion). How is the stretch to be measured? With perfect clocks? These don't exist.

    You say "it seems you're saying that dilated time is derived via a universal time..." I'm saying that "dilated time" in the SR sense - "your clock runs slower while my clock runs slower" is pure nonsense, derived from space-time symmetry. Instead of time changing with velocity, I suggest that energy changes with velocity, and since atomic clocks measure energy/frequency directly this changed reading is misinterpreted as "time dilation". Einstein argued with perfect clocks which is a naïve consideration although he could not have known that.

    You are correct that kinetic energy and gravitational energy behave inversely with respect to 'time dilation'. I believe I have an explanation for this, but it doesn't fit into a comment. Gravitational energy is 'negative' energy, while kinetic is always positive, and as you mentioned, it's position dependent.

    I view time and energy as dual, and do not expect either one to be 'explained'. I view the self-interacting gravitational field as the most fundamental entity, but would be very interested in what you discover as the 'deepest level' interpretation.

    You're correct that SR has many equivalent configurations. I realized this over the last year in discussions with physicists. As soon as my view conflicted with a configuration that they had in mind, they typically shut down, rather than ask how to reinterpret the situation. It's been a fun year!

    Re-reading your essay with its focus on time and energy, I think you might find it rewarding to re-read my essay. It's pretty hard to grasp all my points in one reading. (I wouldn't be able to do it.)

    By the way, I believe the unidirectional nature of time arises from the self-interactive nature of the gravitational field, not from entropy or thermodynamics. In other words, it's built-in, not emergent. Finally, I don't know why you have so few ratings. I believe your essay is quite well written. It's difficult to score you since one score does not move you as high as you deserve to be, while the next score moves you beyond others who I think deserve their place. I hope you get a little more visibility from this.

    Best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Hello Edwin,

    Thank you for your comments on my essay, and for saying that it deserves to be doing better than it is.

    I'm glad we both think (the apparent flow of) time is not emergent, as the 2015 experiment I've outlined makes it harder to take that view. Although it needs reproducing, the experiment had press coverage at the time, as it showed for the first time that the world at the quantum scale is not reversible, but is subject to entropy, just as in the large-scale world. It leaves time very much unexplained.

    I've seen quite a few attempts to explain the direction of time, where the given cause turns out to be a process, needing another flow of time underneath it. I don't know about your idea that the direction of time arises from the self-interaction of the gravitational field, but any forces (or pseudo forces) are at risk of needing time already in place, if they are to have what we call effects - just as cause and effect implies a time sequence.

    Good luck, best regards,

    Jonathan

    Dear Mr. Kerr,

    thanks for this very interesting essay. I think it gives an original and intelligent description of what fundamental means. Clearly written and engaging. I appreciated your hierachy of "levels of conceptual understanding" that, together with the importance you attribute to emergence, is a brilliant alternative to ontological reductionism.

    I hope you will find a moment to heve alook at my essay as well (https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3017).

    I am sorry you are not receiving the attention you deserve. The least I can do is to rate you very high.

    Best of luck!

    Flavio

    Dear Flavio,

    Thank you very much for your kind comments, I'm very glad to hear from you. I've been reading your essay (have more reading to do there), and the many comments on your page.

    My general feeling about the discussion is that physics is now at a point of constantly questioning its own basis, there's a massive process of self-searching going on. This is not just to do with the subject matter this year, it's part of a wider identity crisis that arises because in a number of ways we're now stuck, and are having trouble finding a way forward.

    To me the underlying cause is that progress has been made only in the mathematical and experimental domains, but not in the conceptual domain, for some time. And as I've said in the essay, conceptual physics is the backbone of physics, and we need it more than we might realise. My view is that if we made a bit of progress with the picture, we'd stop worrying, and get on with it. But without that kind of progress, we question what our theories are - - this is ultimately because without the picture they're incomplete.

    Thank you again, best wishes and good luck,

    Jonathan

    Dear Jonathan Kerr,

    QM claims that an electron can be both spin-up and spin-down at the same time. In my conceptual physics Essay on Electron Spin I have proved that this is not true. Please read: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3.pdf

    Kamal Rajpal

    Hi Jonathan:

    I enjoyed reading your essay and especially note your statement - ".........Einstein also mentioned what he called 'the principle of the universe', and said that it 'will be beautiful and simple'. John Wheeler said that at the bottom of it all, we'd find not an equation, but an utterly simple idea."

    Simple and conceptual would be the deepest layer of physical reality; this is also the theme of my paper -- "What is Fundamental - Is C the Speed of Light", I propose the missing physics of spontaneous mass-energy conversion (as observed in wave-particle behavior) that bridges the observed relative mass-energy-space-time states to the ZPS while resolving the paradox of the missing dark energy that is revealed as the relativistic kinetic energy, the paradox of the collapse of the wave function that is explained via transition to the classical space-time from the fully dilated space-time when a measurement is made, the black hole singularity of GR eliminated via mass dilation at small R, and solution to other current inconsistencies as well as weirdness of mainstream theories as described in my book.

    I would deeply appreciate your comments on my paper as it is built upon the principles in your paper.

    Best Regards

    Avtar Singh

    Jonathan,

    I'm glad to find another essay of yours, at last. And I want you to know your publishers aren't the only ones who've grown old and hoary waiting for your book to appear... hopefully soon!

    I very much agree with you about the importance of "conceptual physics" - if only we could show some strong examples of success there, without going back a hundred years. And certainly, what we mean by "fundamental" has to do with the ways we find to explain things. The term "emergence" bothers me, just because it doesn't help explain anything - there are so many layers of nested order in the world, and each one seems to have emerged in a different way, under different circumstances. Such different kinds of explanation are needed, for example, for the emergence of atoms and of organisms.

    But I want to focus on your argument about time, in section 1. I agree that the notion of the world as a static 4-dimensional "block" is a misunderstanding of special relativity - this is something that you and I and George Ellis argued about regarding your first FQXi essay, back in 2012. So I'm in sympathy with your defense of the "flow of time" as physically fundamental, and I think there's a sound basis for your nice rhetorical question here - if time isn't fundamental, "what were the laws doing there, sitting in the block in this 'just add water' sort of way?"

    However, I don't think the notion of "flow" is adequate to carry your point. You say that the laws of motion "depend on a flow of time" - "It becomes clear that wherever we put the laws of physics in the ordering of the layers, the flow of time might need to go underneath them." But of course this isn't at all clear to the many physicists who still take the "block time" viewpoint as given. They take it for granted that "running the time slices in a sequence, or making them appear to run in a sequence" is perfectly well accounted for by laws governing the static pattern of "worldlines". You and I don't find this convincing - it seems obvious that the time we experience moment-to-moment is anything but static. But I don't think we can change anyone's mind by suggesting that by their very nature, the laws of physics were "born to run".

    I do think there's a version of this argument that's very strong, but as I recall, you rejected the premise I proposed in section 3 of my 2012 essay, where I pointed out that Minkowski's spacetime has neither the geometry nor even the topology of a 4-dimensional "block" - due to the difference in sign between the space and time variables. So even though there is a kind of "mixing" of space and time, so that "simultaneity" between distant events has no physical meaning, the spacetime of relativity does preserve a universal distinction between past and future, and agreement on the causal sequencing of events for all observers. This aspect of time has no parallel in space, and it can't be dismissed as "subjective illusion". So with respect to this, one can certainly argue: if time has no fundamental role, why should spacetime be structured in this very peculiar way?

    As to "emergent" time, this is something I take up in my current essay. I try to show that there are several layers of structure here - for example, the unique "axis of time" can be seen as more fundamental than the "arrow" of time along that axis. What we experience as the "flow of time" has to do with the dynamics of massive bodies in space and time, which I suggest could not have been measurable, or even definable, in the early stages of the cosmic story. I don't see this as threatening the fundamental status of time in physics, because I don't think of the foundations as something fixed and given in advance - even the fundamental structures of our current universe had to emerge in stages.

    I think you may not agree with some of this, but I do hope you'll take a critical interest in my point of view and leave me your comments. I'm not rating any essays yet, but I plan to go over all those I've managed to understand and appreciate before the deadline, and I'll give yours a high mark for clearly addressing the contest question and getting to the heart of the matter.

    Conrad

    Dear Conrad,

    Good to hear from you - I have happy memories of the 2012 essay contest, and the discussions we had, particularly with four of us - You, me, Edwin and Daryl Janzen. It felt good as I had been working alone for too long. There were also occasional posts from Ben Dribus and George Ellis.

    Thanks for your comments on my essay, much appreciated. I've just read yours, and will read it again - it's very far-reaching, and is thought provoking - it makes one stand back further than usual.

    Correct me if I'm wrong - (I'll also post this on your page). You're talking about emergence, and mechanisms for the emergence of, among other things, time. But you're not talking about time emerging from the standard four-dimensional block of block time, which means your view is not the view that I've been arguing can't be true.

    My argument against emergent time, if it's seen as coming out of the standard interpretation of SR, is that the laws of physics were frozen into the time sequence of the block at a deeper level than anything like a 'flow of time' that somehow emerged later. So if we think an apparent (or real) flow of time, like the one we seem to observe, emerged, we're then left with a coincidence to explain - why was what emerged so appropriate?

    If it emerged at a shallower level, it would have been largely unconnected with the laws which it then neatly allowed to function. And yet the laws look like they were waiting for it to arrive. No-one has refuted this argument so far, though some have said they like it. One physicist said the coincidence might be explained by anthropic reasoning - that's not my view. My view is NOT that is shows time to be fundamental, but just that time looks unavoidably more fundamental than some of the laws.

    Returning to your essay, you seem to be doing something a bit like Lee Smolin's attempt to find a way for the universe to have created itself in a series of stages, with his 'cosmological natural selection'. Am I right? It seems that way. There also seems to be an analogy between a living system and the universe - perhaps it's only an analogy, or are you saying that it's more than that?

    The emphasis on measurability and the self-defining aspects of a system, obviously seems to come at least partly from QM. If it comes only from QM, my view is that we shouldn't infer too much from a mystery that is still unsolved, and unexplained. But perhaps you take more of a range of sources than just QM, and perhaps the analogy that relates us to the wider universe is a part of that.

    Anyway, wishing you the best of luck... good to read your essay, I'll read it again.

    Cheers, Jonathan

    Jonathan,

    The problem I see with our understanding of time is that since we experience reality as a sequence of cognitive flashes, we think of time as the point of the present, "flowing" past to future, which physics codifies as measures of duration, between events, but the logical cause is that it is change turning future to past. As in tomorrow becoming yesterday, because the earth turns.

    This makes time an effect of action, similar to temperature. Time being the individual frequency, while temperature is masses of frequency and amplitudes.

    Duration is simply the present state, as events coalesce and dissolve.

    Time is asymmetric because it is a measure of action and action is inertial. The earth turns one direction, not both.

    Different clocks can run at different rates because they are separate actions. All things being equal, a faster clock will use energy quicker, just like with metabolism.

    Simultaneity was dismissed by arguing that since different events are observed in different order from different locations, they must all being existing on some spatial dimension, but this is really no more consequential than seeing the moon as it was a moment ago, simultaneous with seeing stars as they were years ago. It is the energy that is conserved, not the information presently carried by it. It's the very fact that the energy manifesting an event is radiated away is both why we can see it and why it no longer exists.

    Also it is the occurrence of an event which fully calculates the total input into it, so the future remains probabilistic, because the information doesn't travel faster than the energy carrying it.

    One might observe that reality is a dichotomy of energy and form. Energy manifests and form defines. As such they go opposite directions of time. Energy going past to future, form future to past.

    A good proof of the depth of this relationship is that after a few billion years of evolution, we developed a central nervous system to process information and the digestive, respiratory and circulatory systems to process energy.

    As such, energy is the medium and information is the message.

    it is also worth observing that the Eastern concept of time is that the past is in front of the observer and the future behind, while in the West, we tend to think of the future as in front and the past behind. This because we view ourselves as distinct entities, moving forward, through our context and toward the future, while in the East, the view is of the observer being past of their context and so see what has happened, thus the past is in view, while the future and what is behind are not.

    As Alan Watts observed; The boat creates the wake. The wake doesn't steer the boat.

    Regards,

    John Merryman

    Jonathan,

    I liked your -concept- :)

    It reminds me of a line in a poem: "The universe is made of stories, not of atoms". I would say you modify it a bit to be "The universe is made of stories and atoms".

    If you already haven't done so, check out the essay: A Universe Made of Stories by Philip Gibbs. And checkout the poem "The Speed of Darkness".

    I cannot figure out why the few votes for your essay. I thought it was excellent.

    Good to see you back in a contest,

    Don Limuti