Why Time Might Not Be an Illusion

Do we need quantum time, Big Bang, etc.?

"Quantum time is reversible and so past and future are equally probable. What sets quantum time's arrow is not clear since a quantum clock ticks equally in both directions."

I tend to distrust any belief that orients itself on pattern of human experience like "conscious", "made", designed", "created", or "purpose". Accordingly I don't expect progress from someone who is thinking in terms of a model like quantum physics.

It was Weyl who admitted that there is at the time being (1932?) no explanation for the symmetry of time (in QM). Schulman even suspected a hypothetical border between the micro world and the macroscopic one. Did really nobody admit that a model is fundamentally different from reality? Who dealt with even more obvious mistakes of the fathers of QM?

To me, reality is the conjecture of something that is not just subjective but entirely independent from any observer. Being aware of coherence length, I like Steve Agnew's argument:

"how can time decay in time?"

The most appealing to me notion of time is something that doesn't decay in time.

Any spin is at best an approximate measure of the reality called time.

Eckard Blumschein

Time is not reversible; never was. Events in the universe happen spontaneously. Spontaneous events happen from a cause and a cause has only one direction.

Springs, pendulum etc. all appear to go back on their tracks. But they are not doing so, because the whole universe changes constantly. In other words, no motion of the pendulum or of any quantum oscillation is ever the same as the previous one.

The oscillation back and forth of a particle "in a box" may be unfolded in a straight line....and it goes only one way..

The universe, time and spontaneous causality all go one way....

Marcel,

Marcel,

In a sense then it is the first law of thermodynamics which sets the direction of time. Energy is conserved, thus always and only present, so its inertia is the direction of time. The earth turns one direction, not both.

John.

Yes, the cause is unique and the same for thermodynamics and gravity. Both are about spontaneous dispersion into "larger space"

Marcel,

Marcel,

Yet gravity contracts. Consider the most basic features of galaxies are radiation expanding out, as mass and form coalesce in.

Consider that overall space is measured to be flat, that the seeming expansion of the universe is balanced by the overall effect of gravity. Consider the redshift of distant galaxies is the basis of our knowledge of this expansion. What if it is an optical effect?

The most significant flaw I see in Big Bang cosmology is when they realized all those distant galaxies are redshifted proportional to distance, in all directions, it made us appear to be the center of the universe, so the "spacetime" of GR was invoked to say space itself is expanding and every point would appear as the center. Which totally overlooks the central premise of GR, that light is always measured as a Constant. If the light is redshifted because it takes longer to cross between galaxies, it is not Constant to the intergalactic metric. More lightyears between galaxies, not expanded lightyears. So two metrics of space are being derived from the same intergalactic light. One based on its spectrum and one based on its speed. Of course, we are the center of our view of the universe, so an optical effect would make sense.

To get back to the point, say redshift is an optical effect of light having to disperse with distance, to the point it does fall down the spectrum, into radio waves, resulting in the background radiation. Eventually falling so far down the spectrum it starts to coalesce into elemental particles.

The overall result would be a cosmic convection cycle of expanding radiation and coalescing mass.

Thermodynamics.

Galactic black holes being the eye of the storm and all inflating mass radiated and jetted back out.

It has been said that tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth spins. This is equivalent to the notion that the next atomic clock pulse becomes the last atomic clock pulse because of the decay of phase. In other words, it is a statement of the reversibility of quantum time.

While quantum time is reversible, gravity time's direction is set by the determinate paths of particles and so gravity time is not reversible. Gravity time is then completely predictable and determinate while the reversibility of quantum time means that quantum time is not determinate.

The way to explain time is with the parents and progeny of a causal set. Parents have children and from the family history of a causal set emerges what we call time. It takes more time for some progeny to emerge and that extra time is what we call distance in space. Quantum phase decay is then what sets time's arrow, both for quantum charge and quantum gravity and so entropy and temperature seem to have lost their way...

The notions of time and space are extremely useful for predictions of most action, but some predictions of action need the more fundamental notions of a causal set. A causal set orders actions by parentage and progeny and seems to be a more fundamental description of the universe.

However, quantum amplitude and phase superposition seem be an acausal superset whose norm becomes the causal set that we call reality. So it is wrong to say that the universe decays in time. Instead, the progeny of the universe result in fewer not more matter, but with greater force. From that family history emerges time and space...

John,

The rate of time slows down as we move toward the ground. This means longer seconds. In order for c (m/s) to remain constant, longer seconds means longer meters. In other words, an object is falling into larger space.

So, space is not contracting in a gravitational field; it is in fact

expanding. The apparent contraction is an illusion. Falling into larger space is dispersion, the hallmark of thermodynamics....

Marcel,

Dear Eckard Blumschein and Steve Agnew,

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before any atomic clocks were ever situated on the earth's surface.

It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

INFINITE SINGULARITY AM INDIVISABLE AND CANNOT CONTAIN ANY FINITE ELEMENTS OF CAPACITY OR DURATION.

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

Dear Marcel-Marie LeBel and John Brodix Merryman,

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before any atomic clocks were ever situated on the earth's surface.

It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

INFINITE SINGULARITY AM INDIVISABLE AND CANNOT CONTAIN ANY FINITE ELEMENTS OF CAPACITY OR DURATION.

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

Dear Marcel-Marie LeBel,

It am physically impossible for invisible time to do anything. Although a real observer using their real eyes may look at the visible surface of a timepiece, the real observer will also see a seamlessly enmeshed flat varied hued surface of a wrist the timepiece is attached to, or the base and grounds the sundial is on, or the structure of the furniture and walls of the room where the grandfather clock am ticking away.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Marcel,

Isn't it that as "time"/speed of light slows, distance contracts, so that the speed of light remains Constant?

The basic premise is that in the vacuum, the speed of light is the Constant, nothing can go faster. So that in a moving frame, quantum activity has to slow, so the internal activity and external motion don't exceed C. Consequently distance, as measured by physical objects, shrinks, because they shrink. So while the speed of light is constant to that vacuum of space, if you are moving with it, it would still be measured at C, because your sense of space is contracted, relative to how fast your frame is moving. If your frame reaches the speed of light, there is no action possible in that frame, so "time" has stopped. Of course, everything has been converted to light as well.

Now since gravity is equivalent to acceleration, light is slowed by it, but distance is compressed as well. Basically the premise is measurement is foundational and when we measure, we have to measure something, either mass or light, so gravity does compress mass. That's why water pressure is so much higher, the deeper it is. More atoms pushed into smaller spaces. Space contracts.

I think the focus on the measurement ignores what is being measured and the whole process is all backwards, but it is a bit like epicycles. The math worked and was excellent, but the underlaying physics was all messed up, because the earth was only the center of our point of view, not the more universal situation.

I see the vacuum/space as fundamental, as I argued in my contest entry, as well as the relationship f light to it, but time is simply a measure of activity, just like temperature.

So it is asymmetric because action is inertial. Movement is movement. Time is a measure of the change caused by that movement. Future becomes past. Potential, to actual, to residual. Duration is the present, as events come and go.

We have it backward because our point of view is of the sequence of our perceptions drawn from it, so it seems the present is "flowing" past to future, just like it seems the sun and stars rise in the east and set in the west, when it is the earth turing west to east, just as it is future becoming past.

Dear John Brodix Merryman,

Real VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension am always illuminated by real finite non-surface light. Only abstract finite "objects" can be supposed to be in finite motion or at finite rest. Only imaginary abstract light can be supposed to have a finite constant speed.

Joe Fisher, Realist

John,

I was kind of hoping you would try to talk me out of this one. Not sure you succeeded.

Although interesting, your reply did not address the ratio of longer meters to longer seconds for c to remain constant... Could you give it a try??

Thanks,

Marcel,

Dear Marcel-Marie LeBel,

The essay postulates that any human concept of there ever being any finite measure of time could be an illusion. The first sentence in the review reads: "Einstein's (finite) relativity pushes physicists towards a (finite) picture of the (finite) universe as a (finite) block, in which the (finite) past, present, and future all exist on the same (finite) footing; but maybe that shift in (finite) thinking has gone too far

Natural reality am not thoughtful. Whatever you and John may think about anything has NOTHING to do with any reasonable understanding of the real VISIBLE Universe.

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before Einstein's unrealistic (finite) Theory of (finite) Relativity: General and Special was ever published.

It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

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

Marcel,

I see meters as a measure of distance, which is a quantity of space. I see seconds as a measure of action, which is motion in space. Meters grow longer when they are composed of matter that expands. Like water does when it's heated. Seconds are longer if the action being measured slows.

If you heat something up, it expands, but the action speeds up, as well, so longer distance+faster action=C.

Now if you put this matter under enormous pressure, like way down in the planet, it will get hot, but it isn't expanding, because the pressure is putting the same amount of matter and thus energy, in a smaller space, so temperature goes up. Aka ideal gas laws. Basically volume and temperature are correlated. Squeeze the volume and pressure pushes up the temperature. Just like acceleration correlates measures of distance and duration, aka spacetime(actually only one dimension of space), as velocity compresses mass and slows light/action. So the time/duration the light takes to travel the distance is Constant.

Gravity is presumed to be Equivalent to acceleration, thus velocity, aka the Equivalency principle. So its called spacetime, but it is the relationship of action to space. There is no time dimension, like there is a s[ace dimension, as the energy manifesting the action is only present, aka conserved. As in always and only present. Duration is the present, as events coalesce and dissolve, go future to past.

Not sure if this is any more convincing. It's late and my brain is barely turning over.

Dear John Brodix Merryman,

The essay postulates that any HUMAN CONCEPT of there ever being any FINITE measure of time could be an ILLUSION. The first sentence in the review reads: "Einstein's (FINITE) relativity pushes physicists towards a (FINITE) picture of the (FINITE) universe as a (FINITE) block, in which the (FINITE) past, present, and future all exist on the same (FINITE) footing; but maybe that shift in (FINITE) thinking has GONE TOO FAR.

Your "seeing (FINITE) meters as a (FINITE) measure of (FINITE) distance, which is a (FINITE) quantity of (FINITE) space" am clear evidence of you not being quite capable of understanding reality. Please stop mindlessly parroting supposedly FINITE misinformation.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Joe,

To define is to limit and to limit is to define. Unfortunately the function of knowledge is definition and thus limitation.

Which is to say I don't deny the infinite, in fact espouse it, but our ability to communicate is a function of constructing definitions, which are, by definition, finite.

You really should take a chill pill. You are going to bust some important blood vessels, from your apparent rage at not being accorded the respect you think you deserve. It's not going to happen. You want a bigger soap box, you have to kiss the right holes, maybe they'll put you on tv.

John,

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before you appeared on that surface and condescended to reluctantly admit to "espouse infinity."

It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Will my irrefutable contention ever be generally accepted by the scientific community? Probably not. They only believe as you do that incomprehensible finite mathematical misinformation am profitably of use to science.

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