The Nature of Time

*future* to *present* to *past* A-series

*earlier* times to *later* times B-series

What do people think? My own opinion is that we need *both* series to characterize time.

McTaggart,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_series_and_B_series

'Future' 'present' and 'past' can be used as part of a description of observation, and experience. In that case the future is what I call the 'pre-written future', which is electromagnetic radiation (EM), and other potential sensory inputs, in the environment not yet received. After the signal has been received, it can be known that it was prior to that the pre-written future of that observer. The received sensory input is used in the generation of the observer's experienced present.Later the experienced present may be incorporated into memories or records. When the experience/s have been superseded, it could be said to be past. As observers are at different locations, signals from same material events are received at different times giving non simultaneity of observed events (Think of a thunder storm). Earlier and later pertain to a fixed sequence. That applies to material happenings in the environment external to observers.From which the potential sensory inputs are emitted or reflected.

I think the future is a lot like the stock market. It's hard to predict, especially with all that free will involved.

As for time travel, the laws of physics don't seem to allow for it.

The vacuum is the soup, a dynamic process we call Time.

The Planck h is the total allowed amplitude of time rate variations

Our whole universe lies inside this h amplitude.

Gravity is a measure of the explosive deficit some structure creates.

Two ways: 1) logical substitution or, how much vacuum the stuff of the structure replaces 2) Shadow deficit; the amount of deficit caused by the structure. Imagine a point like source of light at the geometric center of the structure (electron, proton etc. photon,,) and see if it would project a shadow; place the light in the middle of a linear EM wave = no shadow. Place the light at the center of the proton, a ring wave like a lampshade, big shadow. This explains (?) the difference photon and proton masses.

...??? Proton ring wave ?? see poster at below url at item 16.1 (awfully old website..)

[link:www.angelfire.com/ak/mlebel/] [/ item 16.1 ]

Marcel,

What is really this vacuum for you and what are for you the foundamental mathematical and physical objects, because you tell us that you see a points of lights or maybe a string in 1D inside these photons and they oscillate to create our reality ? do you consider that the photons are the only one piece of this universal puzzle also ? do you beleive in a kind of dark photon for this universal equilibrium, that needs more details about your thoughts ....Regards

we need indeed an universal balance for the charges, or protons and electrons or positrons, or matter anti matter or entropy negentropy or cold and heat, personally I consider this DM in the cold and encoded also in our nuclei, what is for you a photon really and what is this DM for you ?

the time is just a duration for me correlated with the motions and probably the rotations in my model, this time seems irreversible respecting the entropical arrow of time, we d have a problem of mass equivalence due to evolution. This time is not a thing that we can check in fact in logic. The vacuum is not really the time but more than this, like the space it is more than this, it is probably made of main codes even and these codes need fuels to create the emergent luminiferous space time, so maybe when the photons and the cold dark matter merge with this coded space withpout motion, they create our geonetries, topologies, matters simply, the time is correlated so with their motions and is relative in function of observations and how we analyse it

of course we know that this time due to GR and SR is a tool when we observe our spacetime and these photons, so we see our past like we see our sun 8,2 min in late , it is just because we have this photonic space time at high velocities and this GR so explaining the gravitation at these high velocities with the curvatures at the difference of Newton at slow velocity interpreting it like a force between all mass, but this time is just a duration probably linked like I told with the rotations and motions, without time, we have no evolution , and without evolution we don t exist, it is also the meaning of my theory of spherisation, this optimisation of the universal sphere or future sphere, this time is not odd and is just a parameter like the others to create our physicality, it is different in the sense that it is not made of particles but it is linked with the rotations of these particles and their duration simply,

the gravitation needs a cause that said, that is why we search this quantum gravitation , this weakest quantum force difficutl to renormalise and quantify , because it is not an emergent electromgamtic force for me, I have reached it in changing just the distances and in respecting the newtonian mechanics, this gravitation seems the main chief orchestra and the others forces are just gravitationally emergent in this line of reasoning, that becomes relevamt so to consider these balances between cold and heat , electromagnetism and gravitation, +, ....and if the senses of rotations of 3D quantum spheres are the answer, we can rank all more easily, the gravitation and the time are very simple generally, the complexity appears in the fractalisations of these tools for our universe

About this quantum gravitation, I have seen a relevant paper with Cristi Stoica , by Stephen D. H. Hsu, he utilise the Hilbert spaces, the MWI and the Planck lenghts more the Born rule, the method is very good to read even if it is quantified.The bloch sphere also is taken into account.

I don't believe in the many world interpretation. There is no empirical evidence for it, and if you think about it, it's ridiculous.

Hi, I beleive the same, I have just spoken about this paper because several general tools are interesting, but I don t agree with the MWI ,regards

.... Well, at the moment of creation, there was this process whereby the value of the Planck toggled in order to make place for more stuff... In other words, when the proto-atom was filled, the Planck slid, under constraint, from a normal distribution to a quantized distribution and to, the next Planck value.

For the new process/new Planck value, the proto-atom appeared empty.

It was filled again and so on, x times. So, I believe there are a number of overlapping universes 'above and below" ours with different Planck values (differnt span/aplitude of time rate)... How many ??? This one is pure hunch; around 240 . Some number in Garrett Lisi's E8 and in cristallography...

Marcel,

Well like you tell, first of all nobody knows what we have like foundamental objects at this planck scale and what is the nain origin of our universe , secondly the model of Lisi is about the E8 and consider the fields and geometrical alg to create the topologies and geonetries with these fields in oscillating points of strings at this planck scale in 1D , it is an assumption not proved , the vaccuum it is the same nobody knows its origin, all what we have like mine are assumptions that we cannot affirm, thirdly the standard seems not complete and we cannot affirm that we have only photons like primoriudal essence and about the begining of this universe, nobody knows what is theis inflation and a before inflation, even the BB is an assumption , to you dear Marcel

I know even a person having developped farer the E8 with 2 E8 and he has created the TGD topological geonetrodynamics and he consider the cosmic strings and his maths are relevant but all this is an assumption but respectable , but it is an assumption because we cannot affirm that the fields are the main origin like if we had only photons and strings inside and oscillations to create our reality, the cosmic strings it is the same it is an assumptions like the 1D towards the 11D

I am in contact on facebook with this team of Klee Irwin working on this E8 , with Lisi and Ray Ascheim and David Chester more others, I have discussed a lot with them, their model is an assumption because we cannot affirm I repeat the foudamental objects and the main primoridal origin of this universe , the other facebook contact of this TGD is the professor Matti Pitkanen he is relevant but his model is an assumption also, but his maths are very interesting,

I have corresponded with Matti Pitkanen for what, 20 years??? It is still calculations ... I proceed by logic applied to the metaphysical requirements of substance and cause.. Say hi to Matti for me..

Marcel,

He is relevant in this E8XE8 he has gone farer than the others for me and I respect him and his works a lot , I will tell him hello from you, he lives here in Finland also like me now I have immigrated and I live with Ulla Mattfolk in the forest in a farm and we produce vegetals, Ulla has very interesting general ideas and is a wonderful person

Dear Marcel, the main problem seems philosophical about this primordial origin, and these foundamental mathematical and physical objects, we have mainly two roads, the fields and oscillations or the particles coded for the main essence and the points,m strings of 3D spheres for the objects, but unfortunally we cannot prove these deep questions due to a lack of knowledges , we cannot see nor these scales nor the philosophical main origin, so all are assumptions simply. But we can try to see the emergent effects and try with maths in correlating the numbers, the fields, the particles, waves and others in a king of probabilistic partition to try to extrapolate the truth but it is so difficult and so beyond our understanding at my humble opinion, we need to know more and utilise the good mathematical tools