The Nature of Time

John Cox

Tom,

no sweat, one way measurement of c is as you say, problematic. And any method of recursive or reflected observation is invariably a function of Lorentz Invariance. I think the rationale of 1/2 quanta at equilibrium is valid, and has a rough fit with a partition of Planck's Constant in my early model making. We agree on multi connected measurement space, it comes apart but that's what many want. I call dibs for a title; On the Origin of Energy and the Speed of Time. :-) jrc

Thomas Ray

John,

A multiply connected space is not a measure space. That's the flaw in quantum theory. Adding real spacetime corrects the flaw, but renders the foundations of quantum mechanics -- particularly Bell's theorem -- invalid.

Best,

Tom

John Cox

Tom,

That is a good distinction; multiply connected space would be more like infinite measurement spaceS. Convenient for counting beans but more contrived than conceptual. best jrc

Thomas Ray

John,

I give that a "like". :-)

Vesuvius Now

Heraclitus: temporal becoming is real

Parmenides: the universe is static: the past, present, and future are equally real

I could see how Parmenides' time could be emergent (like space), but not Heraclitus' time.

comments?

Georgina Woodward

Versuvius Now,

I don't think past, present and future, if considering emergence from sensory stimuli , are equally.real'. They are fundamentally different. What we call the past, (former Presents), now exists only in records of various kinds, including memory, existing -Now. The present is being experienced via processing of sensory inputs. The pre-written future is not yet received potential sensory stimuli. With only the potential to be received and processed into part of an observer's Present observation product. In this way past, present, and pre-written future all reside within Unitemporal-Now.

The temporal becoming of a river pertains to material existence not sensory perception. As the actualized river is materially real.

Colin Adams

For me and my relatives, contact with nature and what surrounds us is very important. We try to live in harmony, of course, as much as possible.

---------

https://streamonline.pl/

Vesuvius Now

Yes, responding to both Woodward and Adams, it is interesting to point out that many 'public intellectuals' or maybe 'public physicists' are grappling with the issue of time these days. These physicists include Smolin (time is real--though it might be he's just talking about reviving Heraclitus' idea within the context of modern physics), Rovelli ('becoming' is real at the macro-level but not at the micro-level), and Greene (it's not understood yet). Carroll (the 'present' is not special) (However, he has shown that energy is not necessarily conserved at 'state-vector collapse' which implies, by Noether's theorem, that something odd is going on with time at collapse.) Hawking weighed in, ('time' started at the beginning of the universe), and there is that famous quote by Einstein (the present is an illusion, though it's not at all clear that that was his final word on the subject). Of course, philosophers have much more to say on the subject.

I tend to agree with Woodward.

I've got novel ideas on the subject. Publishing has been a HECK of a problem for me. I've currently got 3 different papers submitted to 3 different journals. Don't hold your breath.

Georgina Woodward

Thank you. Good luck.

Marcel-Marie LeBel

SPACE: the meter stick is the standard; different views...

a) everyone sees the meter all at once.

b) The universe requires time to communicate between the two ends of the meter;

= no part of the meter are at the same moment;= the metaphysician's view.

c) For practical reasons, physics combines a) and b)under the name spacetime.

--------------------------------

a) is our reality = no choice = a truth in the reality system

b) is a fact = no choice = a truth in both science and metaphysics systems

c) is = a practical choice = not a truth, rather a tool.

Marcel, (take care everyone)

Georgina Woodward

Hi Marcel, good observation.

You wrote "a) is our reality= no choice= a truth in the reality system"

I think it is useful to ask 'what is a)?' Importantly a) is not referring to an existing material meter rod. It refers to the seen product of sensory processing. An emergent manifestation, not the independently existing object.

Communication and existence are categorically different. A whole material object can exist at one time. But to communicate its spatial distribution, can mean there is signal transmission time difference between the ends.

Marcel-Marie LeBel

Georgina,

This is exactly my point. A whole material object cannot exist at one time. Otherwise you would admit instantaneity within that object!

And, as the final ultimate judge, the universe says it is not the case.

This is the difference between a contemplatvie view (picture of whole object) and the operational view,where it takes time for the universe to conduct any kind of communication or physical operation between any two parts of this "object".

The concept of object is our own making. Everything is just stuff accross time, something hard to wrap our mind around.

Marcel,

Georgina Woodward

What the universe does or doesn't allow depends on what universe you are talking about. I contend that all that exists exists at the same and only time. Not temporally extended. But existence itself is not visible. I agree it takes time for a disturbance to travel the length of a measuring rod. It does mean the 'communication' had a temporal component. However the measuring rod stays only at one time. Aging all together. So when the impulse reaches the far end, the material origin is as old

Marcel-Marie LeBel

Georgina,

1) Take avery long rod vertical in our gravitational field. The end closer to the ground will age more slowly than the other. So, both ends are not at the same moment and age differently.

2) The universe started from a small point, is now huge and even accelerating. The vacuum is a spontaneous process generating more vacuum. Spontaneous generating = explosive. The vacuum is an explosive process, The big Bang is still happening. It was not not an event but the beginning of a process because of a break beween logic and "geometry". This illogical situation is not consumed or resolved and is the source of spontaneity. This spontaneously exploding vacuum is what we call Time.

So, nothing "exists" per se, everything "happens", vacuum and condensed matter. A dynamic process is the only thing that can logically come out of nothingness (QM helping).

Marcel,

John Cox

Marcei,

I am in general agreement in your brief post. I think it also relevant to the behavior of a material particle in motion without referring to an external field effect. Simplifying... the leading edge of a particle volume dense enough to be inelastic, would not be in/at the same moment in its own volumetric bounds as that of the trailing edge. Any motion could be considered absolute in this respect of self referral because physically the motion would cause the energy at material density to 'smudge, altering its density as a result. Theoretically (as distinct from observationally) we might be able to ascertain a real, absolute value for a particle in motion by predicting a density difference and a real physical contraction both fore and aft along the axis of motion as a coefficient of light velocity; flattening a spherical rest volume to a shape of e prolate spheroid with an attendant expansion laterally perpendicular to the axis of motion.

SR2.0 so to speak. We would still have Lorentz Invariant measurement in any observation, but the causal effect of the reduced density of the particle in motion would be what is observed. Perhaps this could help explain the wave characteristics of EMR which would interact en passant of an external field, while the ballistic characteristic observed in the photo-electric effect would be a capture or collision event which would actually stop the motion of the particulate mass and restore its rest density in the energy exchange. best jrc

John Cox

correction: to above jrc post - should read ...'shape of an oblate spheroid'...

Georgina Woodward

Marcel. I don't agree. There is an underlying assumption to what you say, that existence can be spread over time. Even if the aging process of the wood happens at different rates the rod is still wholly at the same time. Both within the same and only configuration of material reality.

Georgina Woodward

Consider ice cream in hot coffee. They stay together, 'in time', as thermodynamic equilibrium is approached.

Marcel-Marie LeBel

Georgina,

There is no instantaneity along the rod or within the coffee. It is all perception,a picture. Everything is away in time from us. (There is no now) The Sun at 8 minutes, the Moon half a second and so on. Your computer etc. There is no fine print that says the rule stops when we feel uncomfortable about it.

The "material reality" of the rod is that it is made of particles bound by fields, none of it being at the same moment. But, If I am hit with the rod it will hurt, just the same.

Marcel,

Georgina Woodward

Here you are talking about the transmission time of potential sensory stimuli to reach an observer. Before the observation products can be generated by the observer.

When an experiment is conducted, just one parameter should be changed. The one thing being investigated. If that is not so the test is not fair and the results untrustworthy. You would not think it fair if a comparison of duration of an event was conducted using two identical mechanical watches, one immersed in very fine mineral oil- the other in thicker oil. The clocks on planes experiments show a material change has happened not just a signal delay effect that would have the clocks tell the same time when reunited. A material difference indicates exposure to different conditions. Difference in concentration of the base existence at lower and higher altitude could account for the 'GR' component. It is then difference in the material environment being compared; not a comparison of time passage in the same environment.

« Previous Page Next Page »