I always find it fruitful to try to explain the universe in a completely background independent way. How to explain everything without time, space and forces and matter? I think some of the equations from loop quantum gravity may hint about something as they don't take time into account. Time, as almost everything else must somehow be emergent from a very simple ground structure. And time like everything else must be local. Such that I experience my own time, exactly like you, when reading this experience your own. Although the difference is way too small to notice.

I think what we eventually experience as time is a result of a really simple mechanism. If we take a really broad view of what the universe is we can say it is a huge heap of lumps of information that is related to each other. When some relation changes, time ticks. Each change of relation is not completely deterministic - there is always some random element, hence time has a direction. The cause of the change can be thought of as a point of action, something that instigates a change. The total number of these points is by the way the total energy in the system.

These ideas leeds us inevitably to ponder upon if conservation of energy is a fundamental property or if it is a result of a higher order error correction algorithm like, say spacetime. Anyhow it is indeed fortunate for the stability of the universe that we have a maximum speed limit and a swift mechanism for decoherence.

Hi Alex, what exactly did you want to draw our attention to at the fQxi page address mentioned? I've looked at the page but don't know what it is I should be 'seeing'. Could you give a very brief summary of the linked one page document. I don't know you and do not know that the link can be trusted. I am interested if you have a novel way of thinking about time. I'd say time is my primary interest.

    Alex,is there nothing you can say about it? Is this the same as Max Tegmark's bird's eye view of the universe or something different? Is it looking at space-time from the outside or a different kind of time? What assumptions must be made to envision the birds eye view? How is this helpful?

    5 days later

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.1615

    Each instant of time a new Universe

    We present an alternative view of quantum evolution in which each moment of time is viewed as a new "universe" and time evolution is given by correlations between them.

    8 days later

    In the nutshell about nature of time.

    Time per se does not exist. There is only motion. The concept of time allows you to compare motions. All clocks compare motions. Absolute time is the effect of expanding Universe. Time have 3 dimensions. In the direction from past to future active is only present. The past is no longer, but the future is not yet. The present have 2 dimensions in the cosmic scale distances. More in: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329453486_Pioneer_Anomaly_and_Dimensions_of_Time

    Ilgaitis

      To Erick, Georgina and all.

      Now I read your discussion about reversibility of time. You all are right. The problem is that there are several types of motion. The time is only characteristic of motion. So there are several types of time. The time is irreversible in the irreversible motions. For example, accelerating expansion of Universe. It is absolute time, independent from other motions and irreversible. The time is reversible in the reversible motions, for example, different waves. It is local time. More in: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331440555_About_Arrow_of_Time

      IlgaitisAttachment #1: About_Arrow_of_Time.pdfAttachment #2: Pioneer_Anomaly_and_Dimensions_of_Time.pdf

      Hi all,

      Mr Prusis,I have difficulties to accept that time is reversible.It seems odd considering our irreversible entropical Arrow of time.This space time cannot be reversed about time at my humble opinion.The general relativity or our spacetime algebras consider Always this irreversibility.The fact to check time in its pure meaning seems a problem also considering the mass equivalence if we travel in time.Time can be seen like a pure duration irreversible in its generality,it is like an emergent properties of our quantum mechanics probably.Regards

      Re "There is only motion":

      Yes, but what causes this "motion"? The laws of physics are merely relationships. The laws of physics attempt to represent change of number via the delta symbol, but they don't explain why change of number should ever occur. The laws of physics assume change of number, but physics has no explanation for change of number.

      Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

      Let me guess: You are hoping for more attention to your 57 pages paper „Everything's relative, or is it?". Did you therefore refuse discussing just selected details at FQXi ? Can you please guide me to forums that are better suited?

      Being a German, I understand "or is it" in the cautiously doubting naïve sense of "oder etwa nicht". Having read decisive parts of your paper at least twice, I am sure that you definitely meant: Lorentz' local time was a step into the wrong direction. Time as to be used in technology doesn't relate on velocity.

      One has to either follow the mainstream and believe in Einstein's Relativity (I am capitalizing beliefs) including paradoxical length contraction, time dilution, and Relativistic addition of velocities or share Michelson's agnostic opinion and considering Relativity a useless monster.

      Your fictitious AE defends his Relativity of time with two apparently strong arguments:

      - Lorentz' gamma has been proven useful in HEP.

      - While length contraction and time dilution were never directly measured, in particular myon decay can be interpreted in terms of time dilution.

      I consider your counter arguments compelling:

      - Gamma belongs to energy (and frequency) i.e. time squared, not to time.

      - Apparent time dilution can be attributed to Doppler's even stronger apparent effect.

      Strictly distinguish between past and future I see time and energy a conjugated cosine transformation pair. Therefore I don't hide my skepticism concerning "space-time symmetry" and Emilia Noether.

      Being not familiar with Heaviside's analogies, I cannot imagine how gravity may act like a medium. I rather am ready to ascribe physical quantities like e.g. impedance to the fields in space.

      I prefer attributing Sagnac's effect to the existence of a reference point in case of rotation in contrast to the reference-less linear shift.

      With high respect to you as perhaps the first one who comes close to the truth,

      Sincerely Yours,

      Eckard Blumschein

      Dear Lorraine,

      The initial cause of motion is force. The laws of physics are attempts to explain laws of nature. There is no numbers in the nature. The numbers are imagination of human mind. In the nature are merely forcefields and its sources (mass, charge etc). All other arise from mutual action of forces.

      Best regards

      Ilgaitis

        Dear Eckard,

        When I began ~2 years ago I believed special relativity was simple. I no longer believe that. Over a year's effort produced 'Everything's Relative, or is it?' and I hope to soon publish another 6 months follow on effort. I often spend 2 to 3 hours face to face with quite competent physicists (all older) and know how very hard it is to "unlearn" Relativity concepts.

        Einstein embedded his false premise (multiple times) in his definition of inertial reference frame and formulated all of his principles and postulates in terms of inertial reference frames. Thus the game is lost before it begins. One accepts his false premise or one cannot discuss relativity. This leads to length contraction, relativity of simultaneity, etc.

        I claim gamma is an inertial factor, applied to mass, NOT velocity, whether in particle physics or in inertial clocks. This causes real clocks to slow down because their increased inertia resists the restoring force (accel) common to all oscillating systems, and accounts for 'time dilation'.

        The gravitational field has energy and is physically a real 'medium' in which light can propagate. This 'ether' equivalent establishes a preferred frame, canceling Einstein's "no preferred frame" as the basis of "space-time symmetry".

        I wish that you and I could meet face-to-face. It would be enjoyable and far more efficient than these comments. My opinion is that reading the essay four or five times would be necessary to understand well the alternate theory.

        Thank you for suggesting that my theory is correct.

        My very best regards,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        "1) Einstein hid his false premise in the definition of inertial reference frame and then based all axioms on this".

        I rather directly attribute his key mistake to the obvious misuse of Poincarè synchronization based on two reference frames.

        Ilgaitis,

        Re "There is only motion" [1]; "The initial cause of motion is force" [2]:

        Yes, a force is a result of a quantum mechanical particle interaction, involving quantum jumps, that changes the motion of particles. But the motion of things is closely related to the question of time: how would we detect time if we never observed motion?

        The laws of physics don't change, so how does physics represent motion, given a frame of reference? Motion can be thought of as a change in the numbers that apply to some of the variables (e.g. position, velocity, acceleration, energy, momentum) in the equations that comprise the laws of physics [3]. These laws don't ever initiate number change: the laws of physics merely represent number change relationships using the delta symbol. But seemingly all number changes in the universe are initiated by quantum mechanics e.g. the quantum jumps in particle interactions.

        So, our sense of time comes from the number changes initiated by (what we call) quantum mechanics.

        1. Ilgaitis Prusis wrote on Mar. 18, 2019 @ 11:17 GMT

        2. Ilgaitis Prusis wrote on Mar. 20, 2019 @ 10:46 GMT

        3. The laws of physics are assumed to represent laws of nature.

        "The gravitational field has energy". Well, this is common opinion and it applies to other fields too.

        I don't exclude that fields in 3D ARE rather than have energy even if we may imagine them as the sum of particles/quanta. How to unlearn Maxwell's hypothetic medium?

        Dear Lorraine,

        Thank you, now I understand that we are talking about different things. You writing about difficulties of quantum mechanics to interpret the time and movement, but I am talking about movement of celestial bodies. In the my case no problems to observe motion of Sun or Moon. My sense of time is based on motion of Sun. There is no need for quantum mechanics.

        Do you look at everything from a Quantum Field Theory (QFT) perspective?

        QFT, like all mainstream physics, is based on the assumption that space is eternal endless container. It is "free imagination of human mind" (Einstein). This leads to many unsolved conundrums.

        I prefer facts: there is expanding Universe with mass and therefore gravity. All other (space, time, etc.) are consequences of that. As a result, all physics puzzles vanish.

        Best regards

        Ilgaitis

        Ilgaitis,

        I probably essentially agree with part of what you are saying:

        I would say that space and time are not the most fundamental things that structure the universe: space and time information is derived from other types of information, via information relationships (i.e. law of nature relationships).

        Space and time information, and seemingly all other information about the universe, is subjective information, not absolute information. I.e. the categories of information (e.g. "space", "time") seem to be somewhat absolute, but the numbers that apply to the categories are not absolute.

        Lorraine

        Hi, Lorraine

        If I understood correctly you think the information is primary. Everything else (matter, space, time etc) comes from information. If so, there is question: what is information? I have not been able to find the definition of information.

        Ilgaitis

          Hi,you can consider informations like codes sent from the center of our universal sphere,the central biggest BH sending primordial informations implying all.The waves particles duality is correlated.In my model of spherisation,I consider quantum sphères sent from this central cosmological singularity and they are'coded'implying'properties'of'matters'and'waves'energy Inside this space time.Informations can be ranked and of course we must differenciate the primordial informations with others kinds. Regards