Why Time Might Not Be an Illusion

[deleted]

On the side of the ledger for "pixelated", globally discrete quantum spacetime(s), is the the classic rhetorical 'error of omission' in the logic of BlockTime. It is dependent on assuming that the scale of space and time are the same universally, and on not posing the question of what rate of passage of time is the prime referrence when it can only be constrained as theoretically being anywhere between light velocity and nil.

The problem for global pixelation of spacetime, is how to topologically define discrete time fields, that can also meld into global quantum relativistic gravitational domain ranges.

[deleted]

I find this very interesting topic. I am just a amateur enthusiast of cosmology, but I would like to present my thoughts about this question.

I have understood, that general relativity (GR) is basically just a mathematical abstraction, a collection of mathematical formulas, where time is one of coordinates of spacetime. As the other coordinates, time is measuring relative intervals in spacetime. Nothing in those formulas are dictating the direction of time or defines any common simultaneity, and also nothing defines any cosmic zero point of time.

Universe on the other hand is the creator of time and space existing. It dictates time's zero-point, direction and flow observable as a non-reversible cosmic entropy. Common universal time can even be measured using CMBR, at time beeing quite harshly. Cosmic epoch term is used. But in principle it is a measurable time, accuracy just depends of observer's measuring instruments. At very accurate level cosmic time would define the common simultaneity, to which differently ticking speeds of observer's clocks don't have any affect. In universe, there is still many things that GR does not explain.

So, there is still the big question, is it possible to time travel or not? I assume, that in GR, if there is faster speeds than light's, the answer would be yes. Because information of tangled particles and inflation could move faster than light, therefore the GR's answer would really be yes. In real universe, neither of these are leading to earlier state of universe, so the answer of existing universe is no. Therefore, time is not an illusion in universe.

Any comments?

Georgina Woodward

Yes. The estimate of age of the visible universe, and age of stars, other astronomic bodies and galaxies is not just a question of accuracy of measuring instruments but whether the theories of evolution of the universe and the astronomic bodies are correct. (What is seen is a present image recently generated from received EM radiation of aged origin. Signal transmission times makes the observation product a spacetime image rather than what exists simultaneously in space)

The Greatest Cosmic Puzzle: Astronomers Find Stars That Appear Older Than The Universe (Forbes)

Jorma Seppaenen

Dear Georgina,

I think you are perfectly right about the estimate of age of the visible universe etc. To clarify a bit better what I meant I'd like to present following gedankenexperiment. It's based on the idea is homogeneity of CMBR and cosmological principle stating the homogeneity and isotropy of universe. The exact unambiguous age of universe wouldn't be necessary.

So, if we and some aliens in faraway space would have mutual EM-connection and instruments which would measure CMBR's mean wavelength so accurate that the difference caused by one second's time could be recognized. If we would have agreed beforehand the precise future mean wavelength of CMBR (thus a exact second) when to uncork our shampagne bottles and celebrate together the mutual cosmic connection, then, wouldn't this really be a simultaneous party-time? Of course, such an instrument should be able to clear up usual local anomalies.

Georgina Woodward

Hi Jorma, some thoughts;

You mention mutual EM connection. I think you mean by that the sending and receiving of signals whereby synchronization of clocks can happen. Problem is they are not non moving relative to each other but moving in and with their own star system; which will have to be taken into account. It will take a long time even with the alien just 1 light year away. 3 years min. for signalling. You mention the homogeneity and isotropy of the CMBR. IT has neither and also seems to show anomalies correlated to the Earth's location at the centre. The alien would have a different observation product formed from received radiation at its location, that location being central to the CMBR image produced. A party could be scheduled taking into account synchronization issues, when each views their own product.

Georgina Woodward

"The motion of the solar system, and the orientation of the plane of the ecliptic are aligned with features of the microwave sky, which on conventional thinking are caused by structure at the edge of the observable universe.[2][3] Specifically, with respect to the ecliptic plane the "top half" of the CMB is slightly cooler than the "bottom half"; furthermore, the quadrupole and octupole axes are only a few degrees apart, and these axes are aligned with the top/bottom divide.[4]" Via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil_(cosmology)

I think its important to remember it is an observation product,affected by how that observation has occurred and not the source itself as it was unobserved.

Jorma Seppaenen

Hi Georgina,

Yes, CMB map is an observation product, it's very essential how accurate it can be. Few lines from the case axis of evil: "For example, a study that includes the Planck mission results shows how masking techniques could introduce errors that when taken into account can render several anomalies, including the Axis of Evil, not statistically significant. A 2016 study compared isotropic and anisotropic cosmological models against WMAP and Planck data and found no evidence for anisotropy."

In general view, maybe only standard cosmology modell is needeed as prerequisite, it would mean that f.e. background temperature on large areas of space is same everywhere. Thus the source of background temperature, power output of CMB, must also be constant everywhere on large areas of space, and decreasing equally by time.

In behalf of instrument technology, adequate accuracy level might be achievable. I made the assumption that the chance of mean wavelenght could be used to measure the change of total power output. The accuracy of LIGO, 10^-4 th the width of a proton, which is about 10^-15 m, giving a gauge resolution of 10^-19 m. Age of the universe is 13.799±0.021 billion (10^9) years, and a year about 31,5*10^6 sec, giving 10^15 seconds. Thus the accuracy level of LIGO detectors could calculate cosmic time at accuracy of millisecs, if my assumption holds.

I think, if aliens have just same kind of instrument, EM is should not be needeed for synchronization of clocks, just to agree the future CMB mean wavelenght indicating the party second.

Georgina Woodward

Are you talking about using the agreed change in observed red shift to synchronize the distant parties?

Jorma Seppaenen

Yes. On technical level, there is challenges but on principal level, if such universal clock machinery is thinkable, it means that universe is producing cosmic time and common simultaneity for all observers, which general relativity does not.

Georgina Woodward

If the CMBR is what it is thought to be, the most ancient relic of the early universe, then unlike any object it is (I think the term is) Lorentz invariant; Meaning it doesn't matter from where or how it is regarded. But if it is due to more local radiation or new physics that might not be so, each of the observer's seeing something different. It is a strange 'clock' relying on intervals that are changing rather than regular as in other clocks.

Jorma Seppaenen

Current clock devices based on cyclic processes are giving regular proper time intervals. They are subject to chances of local spacetime, so they don't give same regular intervals for far observers, like f.e. satellites round earth and farther ones.

Georgina Woodward

Yes because once distance is involved the duration from signal emission to signal receipt and processing needs to be taken into account. That duration is how 'out of current', i.e. slow, the time shown by the observation product.

Pavel Poluian

Could you please share your ideas on the paradox:

if the past is realized, why it is not real.

When we say that the truth is that it was so and so then:

1) If truth means something real, then the past is real.

2) But, the past is already in the past, so it is unreal.

How can we solve these issues in a way, probably,

you must know.

Steve Dufourny

Hi, the past is the past and it does not exist anymore in fact, it is just the past , we can just analyse the present and we are limited at all scales, and the future can be predicted but with limitations also , only the present is real, the past does not exist anymore and the future does not exist still and also we have an irreversible entropical Arrow of tinme ,

regards

Eckard Blumschein

Steve,

Can we specify the temporal extent of "the present"? No. Common sense logic grasps better that notions like this morning, today, this year, etc. are fuzzy and may refer to parts of the past, the future, or both. Shannon's and Popper's criterion for the distinction between the unchangeable past and the future that is open to influences does merely contradict to believers like Einstein and their abstruse theories. In reality, the past cannot be predicted, while the future cannot be analyzed.

So called present state does strictly speaking not exist. It is just pragmatic to calculate as if it did so and ignore logic and causality.

Eckard Blumschein

Incidentally, do you agree with Klingman?

Steve Dufourny

Hi Dear Eckard,

Thanks for shaing your ideas , it is very interesting, I don t know well Popper works, I will learn more about his works. I know a Little bit better Shannon ideas about the entropy, the informations and this time.

I am not a specialist of this time, but for me I see it like a pure universal duration correlated with a pure entropical irreversible Arrow of time. I beleive strongly that it is like an universal general Clock of evolution. I don t beleive that we can check it really , we cannot for me travel in time because respecting the evolution and encodings of informations, we could have a problem os mass equivalence if we travel in the past or the future. But we know that with the relativity we can decrease our internal Clocks in travelling at c, so we can go in a kind of future but the problem is that we cannot return at our present. An other thing about this time respecting this general relativity is that we see our past more we observe far in the space, for example we see our sun 8M20sec in late, it is a good tool to observe the universe and its evolution, we can better understand the evolution of this universe. But I consider it purely irreversible and it cannot be checked for me, but of course it is just my opinion.

For Edwin Eugene Klingman, I liked a lot his essay and I respect his ideas and works, I see a Little bit differently about this consciousness for example but I like how he Thinks and extrapolates, he is general.

Friendly

Eckard Blumschein

Klingman explains why SR is on one hand overwhelmingly supported by confirmed predictions but nonetheless based on logical flaws. He revealed a key mistake: While Lorentz gamma does correctly describe effects on mass, and we may therefore calculate as if SR was correct, we should be careful, retain c and modify the definition of particle velocity instead of time and space.

Eckard Blumschein

Steve Dufourny

That can be relevant indeed to analyse deeper this key mistake if his reasoning is correct. Maybe we must consider this GR like just a piece of puzzle due to photons and about observations but we have a deeper logic superimposed tat we don t know well still. For me this GR is correct but it considers only these photons like the primordial essence of our universe and so it considers just a relativistic photonic spacetime, and so that this mass curves this spacetime for our observations but if we superimpose a deeper logic for the space and this Dark matter also, we have so new roads of analysis. This GR is a kind of prison for me for the majority of thinkers, we need to analyse deeper the universal logic.I doubt that this universe has only created photons and that they oscillate with these strings to create our physicality. Interesting in all case the fact to retain c and modify the definition of particle velocity instead of time and space.

Eckard Blumschein

Is presentism the intuitive or common sense view of time? No. While it is in so far appealing as it is subjective, it ignores a most fundamental insight: causality, the distinction between what cannot be influenced anymore and what maybe influenced in principle. Zeno style constructed paradoxes do not hinder animals to do what is reasonable.

Instead of getting unnecessarily worried by notions like existence, creation, etc., we should check whether or not Klingman's compelling argument is correct an important, I claim the same unbiased attitude towards my revelation that Fourier transform is redundant and also towards Kadin's prediction.

Eckard Blumschein

Steve Dufourny

This time seems to be perceived in function of our observations and Tools utilised, if we consider our observations in our limited Environment at our velocities , it is like a simple Clock of duration and evolution. If we consider this GR , so we utilise this time at high velocities and it is a tool to rank the evolution, we see our past more we go far in space simply due to this SR and GR. The same can be probably made with a dark matter spacetime at different velocities, probably less quick due to this cold DM. The predictions seem relevant indeed and Fourier transforms but it is Always in function of our domains of studies I beleive, is it really important to focus on time? maybe, is it better than to focus about our foundamental objects and the origin philosophical of our universe, I don t Think, it is a choice after all simply, wesearch answers to our unknowns. What is really these causalities at all scales , why we have this time , these matters, these fields, this evolution, this consciousness appearing, the real questions are there and this time is just this time, the block universe and the past and present tell us many things ontologically speaking and about this consciousness, generally an important point is this evolution and the fact that this consciousness generally evolves too.

Steve Dufourny

maybe it is important to consider this general principle about the motions, positionsand time.

Heisenberg would tell us that indeterminacies and uncertainties are like limitations due to our lack of fundamental knowledge on several scales involving non-computability, undecidability and unpredictability, Hilbert would agree on the subject of quantum movements and their positions. Although Borh and Einstein discussed it with a deep philosophical analysis, it is obvious that these limitations are to be taken into account in general.

The most important thing is to see why there is no operator commutativity, the geometric Lie algebras are relevant like the exceptional group E8 but the problem is that many consider the tensors and operators purely linked with a field or string origin or geometrodynamics with points, the coded particles seem the solution and the particle wave duality is also respected, the fundamental problem is really philosophical about mainly the origin of this universe creating topologies, geometries, materials and fields and fundamental objects.

Observations, operators, commutativity and time, energy, matter? the goal is to find the real harmonic universal partition, and the logical redundancies.

Regards

Pavel Poluian

This is a very solid point about the time in general. In our work we look at the time from the point of set theory. It is interesting to find some correlations here in your work the the set interpretation.

Thank you for your professional approach and work been done.

Best Regards,

Pavel Poluyan and Dmitry Lichargin,

polyan2002@mail.ru

Steve Dufourny

Hello,

could you tell us more about your works with this time and the set theory?

regards

« Previous Page Next Page »