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

Paul,

Thanks for the offer but in spite of the fact that I don't smoke or eat red meat - two hundred years is pushing it.

CJ

Chris,

Keep in mind that 'tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates' is an observation, not a theory. Are there any other submissions that can make that claim as definitively? I realize I don't draw between the lines enough to be taken seriously, but think the point should be taken into account. The unknown becomes the known. Everyone else seems to be basing their ideas on the assumption time is a dimension along which reality travels from past to future and it gets exponentially complicated. Complexity isn't proof.

Of course, it would be entirely fair if no one votes for me, as I managed to lose my code # and can't vote for anyone.

See you after New Years!

Regards,

John

John,

In the tradition of tomorrow becoming yesterday, the day after tomorrow will eventually become today and this year will become last year. Good luck - and see you on the other side.

CJ

Chris,

I think you deserve a top place within this contest for a couple of reasons:

1) You breakdown the big ideas of relativity and explain them so a layman with no knowledge of physics can get it:

"The first postulate was that Galileo's principle of relativity would be preserved."

"His other postulate states that the velocity of light should be considered constant, regardless of the velocity of the light source."

"This created a paradox because Einstein had already committed the traveler's time to run slower than the rancher's for the entire journey." [They both see the other's time as slower]

"One way is to try to show that something is happening for the traveler during his inertial motion that is not happening for the rancher."

"They would each experience a slowdown from the perspective of the other, so then what happened to the traveler that didn't happen to the rancher? Answer: he accelerated."

"Einstein equates the acceleration that the traveler experiences (as his train slows down and turns around and reaccelerates toward his stationary friend) as being the lower position in a gravitational field."

2) You get the importance of quantum physics and that quantum mechanical laws lead to the nature of time.

"What if, for example, the true mechanism for "time" is something as simple as the playing out of a bunch of fundamental behaviors on the subatomic level?"

"What if time is nothing more than a bunch of electrons, quarks, W particles, gluons, muons and more, engaging in their fundamental behaviors because there exists the energy to do so? And what if these fundamental behaviors play out in part because of the fields that these particles are swimming in. There are fields that go along for the ride, such as electric fields, and there are fields that may not be along for the ride, like the proposed Higgs field. There could also be other fields that we don't know about. What if particles that are increasing velocity through fixed fields and dragging their own fields along are somehow affecting the rate in which their fundamental behaviors can occur?"

Thank you! After reading your paper I hope everyone will start to understand "time" in the proper context.

In regard to your comment on my forum involving relativity I have a much easier answer. Acceleration is the second derivative with respect to time d^2/dt^2 = acceleration. The Schrodinger equation is first order with respect to time, d/dt and therefore a non-relativistic equation. The relativistic Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations are second order with respect to time. My idea is "space" changing and I believe the change in the rate of that changing space would alter the probability for the measured collapse. This means at the very least relativity is not prohibited but encouraged.

Thank you for the essay,

Brian Beverly

Chris,

Although I was foolish enough when I was young that I smoked for awhile, I have now grown out of that, so I agree with you about not smoking, but I must admit that I do still like to eat smoked red meat. You might live longer if only the amounts of each pure nutrient that your body requires is automatically pumped into you, but it's not worth it. The quality of life is also important along with the quantity and the food in this world is one of the better earthly pleasures to enjoy as long as it is done with some moderation, so you can remain in good physical condition. So, if you are ever offered to be the first man to go to Mars and you are told that you will have to live for an extended time on a food pack injection system in order to minimize weight and waste generation or if you are offered a position as a soldier and told that you will have to use a food pack continuous injection system to always keep your physical abilities and mental acuity at the maximum for combat, remember to turn the offer down, especially the second offer as combat can also be hazardous to health and long life. The other option if you can't wait two hundred years is to try to figure it out for yourself. I have given enough information in my paper and elsewhere to give you a good head start, but if you do figure it out, I would not recommend that you try to give it out to others. Not only would it be just a waste of time, it could also result in other undesirable consequences. Everything has its appropriate time. I have found it to be good to know as much as possible about the world that we live in and it is ok to possess knowledge that is out of the current time's allowance as long as you keep it to yourself, but everything that you do externally out of time will not take hold and will only cause you sorrow and possible losses to you and the ones around you. It is a hard lesson to learn though. Most can only accept it through experience.

Brian,

Thanks for not only reading the essay - but taking the time to connect the dots. Regarding your last comment about acceleration - I will say that it is a very interesting part of the relativistic journey. If we view acceleration as dilating time in the exact same way as inertial motion (with the only difference being instantaneous velocity changes along the way thus giving a portion of the journey that has time dilating as its dilation rate is also changing) then the mechanism (or lack thereof) is the same as the one for the inertial part of the trip. This won't undo the symmetry needed to explain the ultimate clock difference upon reunification. And if we consider the acceleration as providing dilation by a different mechanism than inertial velocity (and therefore the same mechanism as gravity via equivalence principle) then that model also falls apart as it is not consistent with specific conditions Einstein established in 1911. So in the end, yes - the time dilation part of relativity is not only encouraged but we can all agree that it is a fact. But Einstein's step by step explanation of how the dilation happens with a mix of inertial and acceleration effects, does not survive detailed analysis.

Good luck and happy new year. I know we are at the voting deadline but I assume the threads will still be active for a while for continued discussion? I hope so.

CJ

You have my vote.

Sherman,

Thanks. I like your concern about charge in your essay. What is the smallest "unit" of charge and why that value? It's a key piece of the puzzle that still has some unanswered questions. I once thought it would be better to change the scale so that each electron would be assigned a (- 3) charge but then I thought of all the poor high school chemistry students trying to solve oxidation states on final exams and figured I better keep my mouth shut.

Thanks again.

CJ

Paul,

You said: "So, if you are ever offered to be the first man to go to Mars and you are told that you will have to live for an extended time on a food pack injection system in order to minimize weight and waste generation or if you are offered a position as a soldier and told that you will have to use a food pack continuous injection system to always keep your physical abilities and mental acuity at the maximum for combat, remember to turn the offer down."

I say: Thanks for the advice. I refuse to be the first person to visit Mars. I will probably wait until there are enough people there to open a restaurant. Can you imagine the reviews the resturant would get? Here's a possible one: Great food - Lousy atmosphere.

CJ

Chris,

I am glad to see that you would turn down the first choice, but I noticed that you didn't say that you would turn down the second choice to become a soldier. Do you have a hidden desire there? I suppose whether the restaurant would have a Lousy atmosphere would depend on whether you are talking about the air (that is my guess) or the scenery, etc. There are some great views at various points around the great canyon that would be good for a restaurant's atmosphere in the other sense, for example. They would have to pump up the air pressure and raise its temperature, etc. to fix the other atmosphere problem I guess.