Why Time Might Not Be an Illusion

Dear Juan Ramón González Álvarez,

Finite time am not real. Only humanly devised timepieces are real. Each real humanly devised timepiece, be it a sundial, a Timex wristwatch, or an atomic clock has a finite commencement and can be stopped and restarted AN INFINITE NUMBER OR TIMES.

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a visible surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before Newton and Einstein ever appeared on that surface and began their unrealistic physics guesswork, and before any timepieces were ever manufactured..

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

CALCULATION OF DIMINISHED ENERGY DENSITY OF SPACE IN THE CENTRE OF THE PROTON VORTEXAttachment #1: CALCULATION_OF_DIMINISHED_ENERGY_DENSITY_OF_SPACE_IN_THE_CENTRE_OF_THE_PROTON_VORTEX.pdf

Dear Amrit Srecko Sorli,

Your posting appears to be about humanly devised finite calculation of an imaginary INVISIBLE variable energy that supposedly might affect the density of a finite amount of INVISIBLE space that might exist in the finite center of an INVISIBLE proton vortex.

One single VISIBLE infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated by finite non-surface light contains no INVISIBLE protons, croutons or crayons.

Joe Fisher, Realist

I suggest that the best pixilated space-time QG is that of J. Ambjorn, dynamically triangulated QG. He was able to determine it has a cosmology, but the key problem is to find the StdModel ground state = QC/ED algebraic group representation geometry.

Well, dynamical triangulation of space-time is not at all like dynamical triangles, which have been quite easily demonstrated to replicate QC/ED - AND mass / energy, quite well.

So I'm very confident that this grant will yield a few papers, but nothing useful from a TOE standpoint. Good thing that you've now got Sabine looking for observational methods to disprove this approach to QG. Better to just accept the background independent QG work out of Penn State.

Dear Wayne R Lundberg,

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a visible surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years DEFORE any theoretical physicists WERE EVER BORN.

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.

My essay, REALITY AM NOT ROCKET SCIENCE, which was published online by the Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi.org) on January 10th, 2018 explains natural reality more fully. The essay is located at url: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2992

I applied for a Grant furnished by the Fetzer Franklin Fund to promote natural reality, but my application was denied without any explanation being given for the denial.

Joe Fisher, Realist

IN DEFENCE OF REALITY'S SPACETIME-BOX MODEL:

PART A = A PERSPECTIVE ON THE BLOCK UNIVERSE'S EXISTENCE, PART B = A MECHANISM FOR ITS CONSTRUCTION

PART A - HOW THE VECTORS, TENSOR CALCULUS AND SCALAR OBJECTS OF MATHEMATICS GEOMETRICALLY PRODUCE SPECIAL RELATIVITY'S BLOCK UNIVERSE

Abstract

Present understanding of the Higgs boson and Higgs field is a revolution that began in the 1960's. Understanding of universal expansion from the Big Bang is a revolution that started some 40 years prior to that. However, this short article shows how comprehension of both the Higgs and the Big Bang (as well as universal contraction, or cycling between Bangs and Big Crunches) can be modified by a geometric relationship between the vectors, tensor calculus and scalar objects of mathematics.

Part A

The Big Bad Bang has been stirring things up lately. First was astrophysicist Jeff Hester's article of the same name in Astronomy. (1) Then in "The Real Reality Show: Ancient Cosmology: Part 1" (2), Dave Eicher says the ancients didn't know that the universe began with the Big Bang. I suspect they knew more than modern science. I don't believe in science's creation myth, either - and this is why.

Figure 1 - PARALLELOGRAM WITH DIAGONAL AND CENTRAL SCALAR POINT

A vector is a quantity which possesses both magnitude and direction. Two such quantities acting on a point (represented by the red Scalar Higgs boson) may be represented by two adjoining sides of a parallelogram (e.g. CD and AD), so that the resultant diagonal^ (green line) also represents the vectors. The two sides and diagonal thus illustrate the graviton's spin 2 and the photon's spin 1. The resultant diagonal represents the interaction of the sides/vectors (1Г·2 = the spin ВЅ of every matter particle). Tensor calculus changes the coordinates of the sides and diagonal into the coordinates of a single point (the scalar) on the diagonal. This scalar point is associated with particles of spin 0. If the mass produced previously happens to be 125 GeV/c2, its union with spin 0 produces the Higgs boson - and relates the Higgs boson/field to the supposedly unrelated graviton/gravitational field (together with the latter's constant interaction with the photon/electromagnetic field).

^ The resultant diagonal of those two sides can be pictured as a boat being driven in, say, the vertical direction across a river while simultaneously being pushed horizontally by the river's fast-flowing current.

The parallelogram can be converted into the shape of Earth's elliptical orbit, which means the vector / tensor / scalar relationship applies to this planet. One vector can be the magnitude and direction of the orbiting Earth itself. It and a second vector (Earth months later in its orbit - more about this at the paragraph's end) are represented by two sides of the parallelogram as well as by the resultant diagonal. Being represented by the diagonal, Earth is naturally also represented by the diagonal's central scalar point. Successful conversion of the parallelogram to an ellipse, followed by tensor analysis, means our planet is also a scalar object. This is equivalent to reducing the innumerable spins of particles composing the planet to an aggregate of a boson possessing spin 0. Such particles have no restriction on the number of them that occupy the same state. This state means Earth can possess magnitude occupying a literally infinite and eternal amount of space-time, thus having no need of direction and being capable of possessing the same state as any other material or immaterial body. Since they'd accommodate Earth's infinity, the material bodies would similarly reduce the innumerable spins of particles composing them to an aggregate of a boson possessing spin 0 (they'd only possess magnitude and would be scalar, infinite bodies). Occupying all time, vector-1 Earth must be united with vector-2 Earth (the one existing months later). Of course, accepting these things requires scientists to understand that maths and the mind are superior to our limited, easily deceived bodily senses in matters of science.

This unified field - of all Earths being united with all others, and of everything in the universe being reduced to the equivalent of a spin 0 boson - may compose the "block universe" Einstein believed in: a multi-dimensional block of space-time containing all the past, and the entire future. So although we only see one Earth at one instant in time; it's within the realm of possibility that it, and everything else, is not finite but is infinite and superposed and actually existing in more than one place - even everywhere in spacetime. The condition of everything being infinite, superposed and existing everywhere/everywhen in space-time completely removes the need for any kind of universal contraction or expansion (and removes any need for the Big Bang, Inflation, or cyclic cosmology's oscillations between Big Bangs and Big Crunches). Such a unified field sounds very strange because every object and event anywhere in space or time would be entangled with and capable of affecting any other object/event. However, it might add some common sense to quantum mechanics which has been repeatedly verified by experiment but makes no sense at all if we cling to the notion of finite, separate objects and events.

The greatest support for the big-bang model is the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) in 1964 by American radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. (3) Explanation of why this doesn't support the Big Bang can be summed up by this sentence - The entanglement of microwave photons with all of space-time means the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation fills the entire sky without being produced by the Big Bang as most scientists believe. Supporting the idea of spacetime-pervading entanglement is the following - "Physicists now believe that entanglement between particles exists everywhere, all the time, and have recently found shocking evidence that it affects the wider, 'macroscopic' world that we inhabit." (4) Though the effect is measured for distances in space, the inseparability of space and time means that moments of time can become entangled too. (5)

References to Part A

(1) Hester, Jeff - "The Big Bad Bang" - Astronomy, January 2019

(2) Eicher, David - "The Real Reality Show: Ancient Cosmology: Part 1" - http://www.astronomy.com/videos/the-real-reality-show/2017/11/the-real-reality-show-ancient-cosmology-part-1?utm_source=Yesmail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=News_ASY_190104_00000

(3) Penzias, A. A.; Wilson, R. W. [1965]. "A Measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080 Mc/s". The Astrophysical Journal. 142 [1]: 419-421

(4) "The Weirdest Link": New Scientist, vol. 181, issue 2440-27 March 2004, page 32 - online at http://www.biophysica.com/QUANTUM.HTM

(5) Caslav Brukner, Samuel Taylor, Sancho Cheung, Vlatko Vedral, "Quantum Entanglement in Time", http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0402127

PART B - CREATION OF THE INFINITE, ETERNAL COSMOS USING ELECTRONIC BITS, PI AND IMAGINARY TIME (WITH EVOLUTION, VIRTUAL REALITY, AUGMENTED REALITY)

Abstract

In a science TV program (1), Dr. Graham Phillips reported that "the physicist and writer Paul Davies thinks the universe is indeed fine-tuned for minds like ours. And who fine-tuned it? Not God but minds from the future, perhaps even our distant descendants, that have reached back through time ... and selected the very laws of physics that allow for the existence of minds in the first place. Sounds bizarre, but quantum physics actually allows that kind of thing."

Most scientists don't believe there can be a rational explanation for an infinite, eternal universe. They much prefer ideas like the Big Bang, the multiverse and random quantum fluctuations causing everything to pop into existence from nothing. Our concept of time as something that only goes from past to future makes the thought of creating an infinite, eternal cosmos unacceptable - a paradox which is seemingly absurd. But as 20th-century Danish physicist Niels Bohr said, "How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress."

Part B

Imaginary time - which is as real to physicists and mathematicians as our familiar real time - obtained its name because it was originally a purely mathematical representation of time which appears in some approaches to the special relativity and quantum mechanics theories developed in the early decades of last century. We can picture imaginary time in the following way. One can think of ordinary, real, time as a horizontal line. On the left, there's the past - and on the right, the future. But there's another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time (it's described with imaginary numbers such as i which equals в€љ-1). Professor Paul Davies writes,

'The name has stuck, even though today we accept imaginary numbers are just as real as real numbers.' (2)

In the unification of a quantum gravity universe, the real and imaginary would be connected. Like the surface of the Earth, imaginary time has no boundaries (you can go around the world without falling over any edge) but, also like Earth, it is finite unless pi or another infinite number is incorporated into each and every part - numbers could be encoded into parts using the BITS (BInary digiTS, 1's and 0's) of electronics. Dr. Andrea Alberti of the Institute of Applied Physics of the University of Bonn says, 'Quantum mechanics allows superposition states of large, macroscopic objects. But these states are very fragile, even following (a) football with our eyes is enough to destroy the superposition and (make) it follow a definite trajectory.' (3)

So although we only see one Earth; it's within the realm of possibility that it, and everything else, is not finite but is infinite and superposed and actually existing in more than one place - even everywhere in spacetime. The only way to get from the tiny Big Bang singularity to the infinite universe is - regardless of how space and time are manipulated, regardless of what is visible and what remains undetected - via expansion. And there never was, nor will be, cosmic expansion. So discovering more about pi and imaginary time is a wise pursuit. The condition of everything being infinite, superposed and existing everywhere/everywhen in space-time completely removes the need for any kind of expansion. It sounds very strange because every object and event anywhere in space or time would be entangled with and capable of affecting any other object/event. However, it might add some common sense to quantum mechanics which has been repeatedly verified by experiment but makes no sense at all if we cling to the notion of finite, separate objects and events.

The existence of Earth and everything else in every spot and time is consistent with a never-ending number of Cosmic DVD's extending infinitely in every possible direction, and any object's position not being restricted to any one DVD. This condition would not be accessible to present-day humanity since consciousness is comparable to illumination by the player's laser, and people today have limited concepts of space-time compared to people living centuries from now. The above need not violate Pauli's exclusion principle which says that two similar particles of matter cannot have both the same position and the same velocity. If electrons on different Cosmic DVDs occupy the same position, they must have different velocities. This strange state could give rise to the false idea of a multiverse - other universes with different laws of physics existing alongside ours.

A model of the cosmos might be built that uses pi and imaginary time, and resides in Virtual Reality (an artificial, computer-generated simulation or recreation of a real-life environment or situation). If all times co-exist, so do our perceived reality and the future virtual model. Entanglement in the simulation is unable to remain separate from the quantum-mechanical and macroscopic entanglement existing in our perceived reality because imaginary time removes all boundaries between the two universes. They naturally merge, influencing each other and becoming one Augmented Reality (a technology that layers computer-generated enhancements atop an existing reality in order to make it more meaningful through the ability to interact with it). The poorly-named imaginary time of physics and mathematics unites with pi (both are necessary to generate an infinite universe - alone, unbounded imaginary time is finite).

As suggested by Elon Musk (founder of a number of high-profile companies, such as Tesla and Space X) -

"If you assume any rate of improvement at all, then the games will become indistinguishable from reality, even if that rate of advancement drops by a thousand from what it is now. Then you just say, okay, let's imagine it's 10,000 years in the future, which is nothing on the evolutionary^ scale.

So given that we're clearly on a trajectory to have games that are indistinguishable from reality, and those games could be played on any set-top box or on a PC or whatever, and there would probably be billions of such computers or set-top boxes, it would seem to follow that the odds that we're in base (non-simulated) reality is one in billions." (4)

^ Evolution (not only of the universe, but also of biology) doesn't 100% compute with this article. Evolution would always exist in the forms of adaptation and of modifications to anatomy/physiology, but it would not explain origins. Consider the future revolution of time travel combined with the unimaginable biotechnology and genetic engineering of centuries to come. Isn't it conceivable that plants, animals and even humans are the product of entirely natural intelligent design by humanity of the distant future? Making production a two-way process is the fact that humans of the distant future rely on the reproductive instincts of past and present men and women for their existence.

Professor Stephen Hawking says that boundaries and singularities exist in real time but don't exist in imaginary time. (5) There really are boundaries in real time and it must hypothetically be possible to step outside the universe if only real time exists. But when so-called imaginary time also exists, it is not possible to step outside the universe because the boundaries simply aren't there and the universe has no end or start (neither in space nor in time). Only one universe can then exist, and there is no multiverse.

References to Part B

(1) "Custom Universe - Finetuned For Us?", Australian Broadcasting Corporation's "Catalyst" TV program, August 29 2013)

(2) Paul Davies, 'The real gleam in the imaginary i' (20 Feb. 2017), https://cosmosmagazine.com/mathematics/the-gleam-in-the-i

(3) University of Bonn, 'Atoms can be in two places at the same time', January 20, 2015, https://m.phys.org/news/2015-01-atoms.html

(4) "Elon Musk says we're probably living in a computer simulation - here's the science": The Conversation - June 23, 2016 (https://theconversation.com/elon-musk-says-were-probably-living-in-a-computer-simulation-heres-the-science-60821)

(5) Stephen Hawking, 1988, 'A Brief History of Time', p. 139 - Bantam Press

Time has merely the mathematical existence.Attachment #1: How_many_Models_of_Time_do_we_need_in_Physics_-_personal_copy.pdf

You mentioned a paper "Zeh 2010". I cannot find it in the references you gave.

By the way, I wonder why didn't you mention elapsed time alias age. Didn't you read FQXi essays of mine?

EB

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.

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?

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)

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.