Is there a physical mechanism responsible for what we perceive as time? by Chris Kennedy

John,

Everything we see is the past. My comment on the future was a lame attempt at a joke - but anyway, that's all behind me now.

CJ

Matt,

Good point on "what adds up to be macro gravity." Fqxi could have another contest on "The Nature of Gravity." I have often suspected that gravity is somehow a macro result of effects from strong and/or electromagnetic forces at large distances. Kind of like a "London force" if you will. I remember googling gravity and london force and finding others already discussing that possibility on some physics sites. Wouldn't it be a scream if it were something that simple!

CJ

Hi Chris,

thanks for leaving a note for me; it's getting challenging to keep up with things here, just downloaded 9 more papers, still haven't read all the last batch. efforts at being conscientious here are getting a bit swamped.

re:

"london force... Wouldn't it be a scream if it were something that simple!"

i expect to find gravity so simple as to be 'trivial' as they say in math, nearly to the point of incomprehensibly so. ya, it would be quite a hoot. :-)

an impression that gravity precedes emergence of that from which we derive an impression of time - motion. or is identical with that source. (there was some research in 2001 or 02, suggesting that gravity extends in time, accounting for the low apparent force when greater strength might be expected - which, while not mentioned in the research, also suggests it emerges before what we typically call 'time' - i'll see if i can find the notes on that if you're interested.)

could london force be found also in a vacuum fluctuation?

it may seem overly simplistic, but i'm actually very partial to Steven Abram's treatment of gravity in "absolutely - the nature of time and beyond?" while the 'cause' may not be entirely accurate, the depiction of the process works wonderfully, at least to my thinking. lol, that may not be saying much.

ya, gravity would be a good topic. :-)

i suspect it should have come before time as a topic - gravity is what produces the geometric framework which so shapes our perception of time...

london force... hm.

fun :-)

thanks,

:-)

matt k.

Chris,

"My sense of humor gets a little crazy sometimes."

My sense of reality seems to be crazy all the time. That's why I'm never quite sure what to make of other people, as I assume they are in similar situations. Some of us tend to surf the same wave, so life seems normal, while some of us are buffeted by lots of different waves and just get beat to a semi-comatose state. I'm sort of half way inbetween.

"But anyway, if you enjoy investigating the philosophical nature of time as much the physical nature, you may enjoy Krishnamurti. He has a few books out there that are discussions about time with David Bohm. I don't agree with all of it, and some of it is hard to follow, but there is some value there and it certainly provokes other interesting questions."

Sounds an interesting read. Though my reading time is fragmented at best and my ADD has been exacerbated by the internet. Due to limited time, I'm not a big fan of complexity, for complexities sake. It really has to be method for making an essential point, otherwise it adds to my confusion, rather than clears it up. That why I tried to keep my own essay as short and focused as possible.

- Event IS the wavefunction. Event is made of informational Time (and informational Space deduced from this informational Time). The same for the blocks used by Carlo Rovelli, Douglas Bundy or Garrett Lisi to try to strenghten the Quanta Theory.

- To sum up my French opinion is that Pacific Ocean is not both wave and water but just water. It is your romantic love for poetry and irony that makes you, Mr K., think that putting the wave on one side is a shame and the comparison of Einstein with Loney Tunes too.

- My opinion is therefore that if you think that Poetry or Subjectivity is part of Physics you must study subjective ideas from where your own subjectivity is coming. Don't you think it is the minimum? In this case, Newton's, H. More, C. Huygens and R. Descartes are concerned, before Einstein, Planck, Bohr or Riemann who inheritated of XVIIth century's Metaphysics. Studying this Metaphysics I am surprised to see that Newton has different subjective ideas of Space in different theories.

Hello Chris,

Love your words! "Thank you for the link to your paper on the role of gravity in your theory. I am reading it and rereading your essay as well. I believe one of your comments about this forum was that you likened it to a poker tournament. I couldn't agree more. Our entire planet could learn some valuable lessons from the world of poker. The poker world is filled with many very gifted and seasoned professionals, but on any given day a relatively unknown player can win at a table full of pros if he is intelligent and knows what to do with decent cards. Poker pros are very aware of that and have enormous respect for that fact. We are fortunate that, like the poker world, this forum has such respect for good ideas that they have made this contest open to the public because on any given day.... "

Yes--I love poker; and the whole philosophy surrounding its science and psychology. For poker blends the science of probability with the ineffable psychology of men.

And we see those elements--science and psychology--in this contest. Alas, we are all too human.

There is a quote from Moby Dick which states that thought is for God Alone--as men we are too much wedded to our hearts.

So many elements of the song Breakdown by G'n'R also reminds me of this contest, as we're all coming out of the cold to try and shed some light on time; and it concludes, "just because you're winnin' don't mean you're the lucky one."

For truly, in the pursuit of truth, all who strive to be truthful win; and the awards and honors given by men rarely capture this.

Rather, the greater reward is this fellowship--this shared acknowledgement of the mysterious--this shared humility before the universe's great mysteries, and our very miraculous existence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB1h_k3RCJw&feature=related

And love the saloon/poker game piano.

BREAKDOWN

We all come in from the cold

We come down from the wire

An everybody warms themselves

to a different fire

When sometimes we get burned

You'd think sometime we'd learn

The one you love is the one

That should take you higher

You ain't got no one

You better go back out and find um

Just like children hidin' in a closet

Can't tell what's goin' on outside

Sometimes we're so far off the beaten track

We'll get taken for a ride

By a parlor trick or some words of wit

A hidden hand up a sleeve

To think the one you love

could hurt you now

Is a little hard to believe

But everybody darlin' sometimes

Bites the hand that feeds

When I look around

Everybody always brings me down

Well is it them or me

Well I just can't see

But there ain't no peace to found

But if someone really cared

Well they'd take the time to spare

A moment to try and understand

Another one's despair

Remember in this game we call life

That no one said it's fair

I've come to know the cold

I think of it as home

When there ain't enough of me to go around

I'd rather be left alone

But if I call you out of habit I'm out of love and

I gotta have it

Would you give it to me if I fit you needs

Like when we both knew we had it

But now the damage's done

And we're back out on the run

Fun how ev'rything was roses

When we held on to the guns

Just because you're winnin'

Don't mean you're the lucky ones

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB1h_k3RCJw&feature=related

Enjoy!

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

What are Scientists doing since the XVIIth with binary Geometry in which Time factor is essential: they are not trying to understand the Universe and the Matter: they are creating it! Their ideology is becoming stronger than the real world. They think their ideology is 'beautiful' because it is symmetric: but Nature is not symmetric! Empire State Building or Eiffel Tower are symmetric.

Even if Smolin and Rovelli do not believe that much that Time is anything more than a conventional binary scale, they although will to keep it: it is Fetishism!

The emergent paradoxes of XVIIth century Algebraic Science are unsolved dualisms of today. I make the proof on my forum but I am afraid that it is too politically uncorrect for Anglo-Saxon Scientists.

François,

I'm not even sure if you would consider me an Anglo-Saxon since I was born in the US and am half Italian and half Irish. But I can tell you that every time I attend an Italian wedding reception, I am thankful that I am half Irish and every year I attend the St. Patrick's Day Parade to remind myself how fortunate I am that I am half Italian. You come across as someone who is a little worried that certain viewpoints pertaining to time, gravity, strings, symmetry are going to be considered more credible than others based on the professions of those discussing them? I think that this site is proof that no group has a monopoly on the truth. It belongs to you as much as it belongs to Rovelli and some of the others you often mention. If the "wrong" theory of gravity or time becomes adopted by the scientific mainstream, that doesn't mean that you or I have to go along with it. I think that all interested parties have been given an opportunity to voice their opinions and when it is all over - whatever the result, like minded people should stay in touch to expand upon and improve their theories.

CJ

Hello CJ, Thank you for the kind words. What I understand of the approach you and John share regarding motion is intriguing. I also appreciate your struggle to find the best, safest descriptors by your suggestion of "behaviors". I look forward to reading your essay, after I post a defense of FTL research. This was recently challenged as an unjustifiably fanciful goal.

While doing that and getting to your essay, I would like to pose the same question to you that I did for John: if your theory is correct, how would observations or theory be different than block time and/or other alternatives?

Hi Buck (and John),

The best way I can convey how my view of time compares to other theories is to show you what I recently wrote to Carlo Rovelli on his thread:

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

You argue that the origin of time variable features are not mechanical, rather - emergent at the thermodynamical level. Do you have any thoughts as to how velocity or gravity affect the time dilation of these thermodynamical activities? It seems to me that despite all of the essays, with so many different opinions of time's true nature - we have only two possible fundamental starting points:

1) That the thermodynamical activity, or motion (or what I refer to as fundamental behaviors in my essay) is used as a measurement of "time" but plays a more passive role because these behaviors exist "in" time and their behaviors are just a visible symptom of what "time" they existed in due to their local environment.

Or

2) What we perceive as time is a macro effect of the most fundamental behaviors among particles, forces and fields. These behaviors define time and in fact are time. Now, if the most fundamental behaviors can all be accurately described as motion, then - okay. But if some behaviors on the quantum level no longer make sense to be described as motion, then it is safer to refer to the fundamental activities as "behaviors."

For those who commit to the first possible starting point, they would not appear to be in conflict with special relativity - namely Galileo's principle. The existence of time would be part of the metric that particles and forces exist "in." There would exist Einstein's inseparable connection between time and light signal velocity. There would be no "mechanism" - instead, the relative nature of time would just be a co effect of velocity and/or changing gravitational position. Time would exist as a mysterious entity (or co entity) and more questions would certainly need to be asked as to how we could get closer to determining its true nature.

For those who commit to the 2nd possible starting point (which is the one I am committed to) that motions or behaviors define time and in fact are time: Let's take a system with all of its fundamental behaviors and increase its velocity. These behaviors slow down. If the behaviors themselves "are" time and then become altered as a consequence of their increased velocity- then we need to revisit special relativity. Something is happening on the physical level that we currently don't have a description for.

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

I know it is difficult for many people to imagine not having a "time" somewhere in the mysterious background that particles, forces and fields are expressing their behaviors "in." I am just the opposite. I say: imagine taking away all of the particles, forces and fields along with the behaviors they engage in and tell me what is left to be considered a flow of time. If there is absolutely nothing, then there is nothing to express time.

Also, I posed this question to Julian Barbour (who has written a great essay)in response to a statement he made in his essay:

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

If the universe can tell perfect time and could be considered the perfect clock, how would that assumption be affected if it is determined that there is no absolute age of the universe? If I am living on a far away galaxy accelerating at a much faster velocity than ours - then (assuming I take enough vitamins to live through the whole process) how old do I think the universe is from my perspective? Or, how old is the universe to me if I am near a black hole or better yet - If a very long time ago I watched the big bang from a safe distance (where my gravity and velocity would be very different compared to being "inside" the universe) how old would I think the universe is right now? Who would be correct?

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

In my opinion, we should try to narrow to the most likely possibilitles that describe the nature of time and build from there.

CJ

Chris,

"Let's take a system with all of its fundamental behaviors and increase its velocity. These behaviors slow down. If the behaviors themselves "are" time and then become altered as a consequence of their increased velocity- then we need to revisit special relativity. Something is happening on the physical level that we currently don't have a description for."

This may not be what you are looking for, or you already know it; What seems to be happening is that the internal atomic activity slows so the combination of velocity and spin not exceed C. A photon is "timeless" because it has no internal activity.

In a sense, it is the relationship between time and temperature, if the rate of activity is increased, the temperature is higher and time is faster.

John,

Yes we could say for the sake of arguement the photon is timeless and let's use your words: The internal atomic activity slows. Why is it slowing? is it proceeding at the same velocity, but in a slower time? Or is it physically slowing down and therefore expressing a slower time as time. I think I know what side you are on for that answer. My point is that if any observed behavior slows down as a result of increased velocity, and we agree that the motion, or thermal activity or behavior is in itself time and is not in need of some unseen dimension to define time, then good luck trying to keep Galileo's principle and Special Relativity in tact!

Also - I'm not sure what you mean when you are distinguishing micro and macro motion or behavior. If I alter macro motion within a system, it may not necessarily dilate time, but if I alter the most fundamental behavior responsible for a particle's time, I will dilate time. I'll go back to my favorite example: The muon. There is a fundamental activity taking place in the muon that gives it a life of about 2.2 microseconds. What is the particular activity that, during high velocity slows down to extend it's life beyond 2.2? That's the big question here! If I'm an Einsteinian - I'll just simply read you a couple of pages out of the Special Relativity handbook and think I've got the whole thing figured out and look at you funny if you are still asking questions after that. However, if I realize that time is a result of motion, behavior, etc. without a time "dimension" then I have to investigate a physical cause and effect elationship.

Chris,

While my knowledge is from 25 years ago, the basic explanation seems to be that the electron spins around the nucleus at a fairly high rate of speed. So if the atom is moving in a particular direction, the velocity of the entire atom combined with the internal motion of the electron, on the part of its rotation in the same direction, can't exceed C. This may well apply to internal functions of the nucleus as well. That the velocity through space isn't considered an aspect of time, only the internal functioning, is an issue which leaves unanswered questions, but we play by the rules, if we want to play at all.

I think there is another question raised as to the nature of space and whether there is some absolute state, or vacuum which does determine C, as well as some other questions, but its another issue entirely and one that only raises more ire among physicists, so I'm trying to limit my efforts to what I think is a far simpler issue, that of time.

Chris,

Re: your Dec. 16, 2008 post.

You are on the right track. Time is a relationship between the quantity of motion that a motion contains (its motion amplitude) or in simple terms how fast it is going and the distance through which it travels. Once you understand the structure of the dimensional system in which motion entities and extended motion structures (energy photons, matter particles, etc.) exist you can understand that quantum effects result primarily from the characteristics of the dimensional interfaces that exist between the dimensions in the dimensional system and the way that motions interact through these interfaces to generate extended motion structures and their interactions. When these things are taken into consideration, all basic motions (those that are beneath the level of the quantum effects and generate those effects through the dimensional interfaces) can be considered analog in nature. Cause and effect relationships are also restored without any ambiguity or the need to resort to probabilities or chance happenings because the variables that cause quantum effects are then known and can be compensated for to determine the actual outcome that will occur in any interaction.

I like your question of how time (or a flow of it) could be expressed if all entities that exist in space are removed. The answer is that it couldn't exist let alone be expressed. This is because time requires the existence of two things to allow it to exist. The first is space (distance) for motion to travel through. This would still exist if you removed all energy photons, matter particles, etc. because it is part of the dimensional system. The second is motion to travel through the distance or space to generate time. If you removed all motion you would not only be removing time from existence, you would also remove all energy photons, matter particles, etc. from existence because they are completely composed of motions. The opposite is also true.

You can't get a much narrower place to start with than T=D/R where T=time, D=distance, and R=rate or motion amplitude. It does take much building to get the complete picture, however.

Chris,

(Hi Paul)

Another useful analogy is the noise to signal ratio, where temperature(motion amplitude) is the noise and time is the signal. An interesting point this raises is that what might be noise to one perspective, could be signal to another perspective. On what we perceive as the most basic levels, we, as similar creatures, likely agree what is signal and what is noise, but the holographic effect suggests there could be realities imbedded in the same dimensions we inhabit, but could be perceived entirely differently. As a model, political, ideological, dare I say religious, even differences between the sexes, as well as simply different perspectives of reality by different individuals, mean our interpretations of the signals and the noise are different. The assumption by many people is there is some layer where the same interpretation applies across all perspectives, be it a TOE, or God, etc. My impression is that is like peeling an onion and by the time you remove all layers, there is nothing left. Empty space. ?

Paul,

I like your comment:

Cause and effect relationships are also restored without any ambiguity or the need to resort to probabilities or chance happenings because the variables that cause quantum effects are then known and can be compensated for to determine the actual outcome that will occur in any interaction.

But, I think even if we are able to theorize enough info about a cause to predetermine an effect - I'm not sure we will have the necessary data to be able to correctly predict some effects and therefore they would continue to be described as probabilities. I can't imagine hitting a proton 9 ball with a proton cueball and knowing in advance that it would go in the side pocket for that individual shot? In any event it seems like we both appreciate investigating fundamental behaviors to determine which ones might be responsible for what we see as time.

CJ

Chris, and John,

The idea of looking at time as a signal is a good one. A signal transmits or moves information from one place (the transmitter) to another place (the receiver). In our world, all signals are in the form of motion. This makes sense because the purpose of the signal is to transfer (move) information through space (a distance) from the transmitter to the receiver. The information that is transferred by the signal can range from a simple presence or absence of the signal (binary signal) all the way to a very complex structure. An example of a simple signal would be to have the advance team at a battlefront turn on a light aimed back at the headquarters when the enemy attack began. The lack of light from the team would equal peace and the presence of the light would mean war. It is not really that simple though. The light itself contains information that tells you that it is the signal that you are looking for. In our example, it must first be in the form of light and not, for example, a stream of matter particles and if it is to be directly seen by the eyes of an observer at the headquarters, the light must be within the frequency and wavelength range of visible light. A signal can, therefore, contain two types of information. The first kind of information is the signal type identification information that separates this signal from all the other types of signals that could be used. The second type of information that can be present is the information that transfers some additional knowledge or understanding from the sender to the receiver.

In the case of time, motion contains the signal type information. This includes such information as the direction, position, and motion amplitude of the motion. The direction and position information lets us determine the path or distance that the motion will travel through. The motion amplitude tells us how quickly the motion will travel through that distance. When combined together properly they generate the duration information that we call time. Looked at this way time is generated by (derived from) distance, which is an information element of the dimensional system and motion, which is the most basic information element of all entities that exist in that dimensional system. Motion itself is not time. Motion and distance are the elements from which time is derived or generated. Of the two constituents of time, distance is the more fundamental constituent because motion requires distance in order to exist because it requires a distance to move through, but distance can exist without containing motion within it.

On the other hand to look at time as the signal itself in the form of an additional dimension does not make sense because a signal requires motion to allow it to transfer information from one place to another place, but a dimension is just a spatial addition. The signal that would transfer time duration information would therefore have to be a motion in the time dimension rather than the dimension itself. Each entity that exists in our universe would have to possess this time dimensional motion. In order for all entities that exist in our universe to stay together in the present they would all have to have the same motion amplitude in the time dimension. If an entity's time dimension motion was greater than the others it would disappear into the future and unless that motion was later decreased it would never return to our present. If its time dimensional motion was less than the others it would disappear into the past never to be seen again unless that motion was later increased enough to allow it to catch up with everything else again. If you changed your motion amplitude in the time dimension you might also change duration of motions in the first three dimensions which could cause you to age slower or faster than those who's motion had not changed, but you would also travel away from everything else in the time dimension either into the future or into the past depending on whether your time dimension motion change was positive or negative. This would mean that you would effectively disappear from our universe. This does not happen in our universe, however. We just see what appears to be a local slowing down of motions within a fast moving system. The system still remains visible in our present.

The nature of noise is another interesting topic. Essentially noise is any signal that is close enough in its signal type identity information to the desired signal to interfere with your attempt to see the desired signal, but is not the signal that you desire to see. Let's look at the possibility that motion amplitude is just noise that is distracting us from seeing the true nature of time. If we lived in a world where all motions had the same motion amplitude, time duration would be dependent on just the distance that the motion traveled. Time duration could still be measured in such a world, so on the surface it looks like motion amplitude might not be necessary to understand time. As Chris has pointed out, if you took the next step and removed all motion (which would be necessary because after all, even if there is only one motion amplitude we have not completely removed motion amplitude from the equation unless we remove that one level also) you would not be able to measure time duration at all. If time somehow still existed it would not possess any signal that would inform any still existing motionless objects of its existence. Motion is at the very least that signal and motion amplitude is a necessary function of motion. Moreover if there was only one level of motion amplitude, there would be no possibility that any object could move faster than another object to cause any time dilation effects, so the multi-amplitude structure of motion is a necessary constituent of our current perception of time and is therefore a valid part of the signal and not distracting noise.

I agree that what one person considers noise may be the desired signal for another person because different people may be looking for different things or maybe only looking for different results to the same question. In the long run though, the result that is according to reality ultimately expresses itself by the signal information and the understanding of that information so that only those who are willing to deny reality will hold onto other viewpoints. Of course there are always many things that we have not yet either been able to get an adequate signal to analyze or we do not have enough background understanding to properly analyze the signal information that we have received in its complete perspective.

P.S. John, I am open to all aspects of knowledge and understanding and am, therefore, willing to talk about those other topics also, but I will restrict them to my paper's comment space so as not to offend others who may not desire such topics on their comments page.

P.S. Chris, I saw your comment to me and will try to respond to it as soon as I can, but I am sending this response about issues that John brought up now to at least get this much out right away. I have been having some computer problems lately to get on line, etc. so I want to quickly get this out while it is still up.

Chris,

Thank you.

You are right that the ability to control the interaction between two protons to the degree that one could always predetermine the outcome will not likely come to this world very soon. This is because it is not only necessary to posses an advanced level of fifth vector structuring technology knowledge, but one must also develop many other technologies to allow one to actually process structures on the individual particle size scale with that level of accuracy. I am currently mainly providing basic fourth vector concepts. I once estimated that it would take man approximately twenty-three to twenty-nine years to obtain the first basic practical results from that technology transfer, but that was when I was first beginning my testing phase and was much more optimistic than I now am. A relatively advanced level of fourth vector technology must first be developed to meet the base structural threshold level to allow fifth vector structuring technology to begin to be developed in any safe and useful

Chris,

My last post got cut off during transfer. The following is the rest of it.

way. There are, of course, many mechanical and information control technologies that must also be developed. The basic concept is that when you cause a matter structure in one fifth vector structural level to transfer to the next lower level by removing sufficient fifth vector velocity, it will appear in that lower level as an entity much smaller than the matter particles in that level. If at that stage it interacts with a matter particle in the lower level, it can gain detailed information about the structural phasing positions, etc. of the particle's fourth and fifth vector motions. This information can either be extracted from the transferred matter structure in the lower level or the structure can be returned back to the higher level for data extraction. The end result is that the particles can be made to interact at the point where given known desired phasing conditions are met so that the interaction outcome can be predetermined. That is about the limit of detail that I will go into in that subject at this time because it would not be beneficial for man to know details at this time that could be used to cause great destruction either inadvertently due to lack of other knowledge or purposely by those who are unstable as many are in this world at present. If you can stick around for two to three hundred years, however, I am sure someone will then be able to describe the process to you in detail.