The Nature of Time

John Cox

Hi again Steve,

I think we speak in different tongues but in a general agreement.

Your mention of a 1D cosmic field of GR might sound daft to some but I've found I've had to ponder the same question. Keeping in mind that it took decades for me to stop growling about the lack of what I would come to learn to be 'sufficient degrees of freedom' in SR to rationalize it to the physical. SR is afterall only complete mathematically, and a tool of measurement. And one we can correlate as an invariance transform to a similar invariance Gallean transform in Inverse Square Law. But there is precisely where the 1D cosmic field is measurable but only, and because, both transforms operate along a direct "line of sight", not volumetrically where a general co-variance must be found. And I agree that such a covariance would also entail some universal standard, proportional to light velocity, which would unite DM, DE, Baryonic Matter, and a Photonic and Neutrino Mass.

It took me many years to accept the consequence of SR that both Time and Space are not only physically real but not absolute. And I can recognize that the typical "rubber sheet" illustrations of mass deformation of space is only a child's bad drawing of what is actually a spatial contraction to make room enough for too much energy to fill a space at the minimum density it would seek if there was enough time for it to do so. The speed of time must slow to condense that energy into matter. Space warpage which seems as simplistic as a mirror in a funny house, is typically misunderstood (and too frequently incorrectly illustrated) as liked to tossing a pebble into a still pond. Its just the opposite, it is condensate matter making room for space to try to flatten out!

The 1D spacetime I like to imagine as one of those precoiled bi-metal springs used as thermostatic controls; the more heat it aborbs, the more it wants to uncoil. So in 1D, that spring unrolled cold on the workbench would illustrate the physical stress between a curved line and a straight line. And this we can imagine to correlate with an initial span of duration of time and an unequal initial span of a distance in space which would race towards an equilibrium and reach a self replicating constant difference such as the Golden Mean at light velocity. And Yes! how could we geometrically take that Full D, and how many degrees of freedom must we allow? Jonathan's argument for infinite degrees of freedom starts to make sense, doesn't it?

I could go on, but why discourage readers with a lengthy copy block? Best as always, jrc

Steve Dufourny

Hi John, I don t want to discourage, I just want to give new roads of thoughts. I have remarked that these strings and the GR alone are more than an institution. It seems that the problem is philosophical. Maybe they had not other lines of reasoning and I can understand that it is difficult to change for the thinkers. They have worked hard and are persuaded also. I have nothing agianst these works, I like this GR and SR, I just think that they are not absolute and the only one piece of puzzle. I am a problem with my theory of spherisation, an optimisation evolution of the universe and the foundamental mathematical objects , the 3D spheres. They are not emergent for me from these fields, they are the choice of the universe . I believe that there is a conjecture between these works about the fields and these spheres.

I can understand that I irritate with my spheres and the correlated philosophy, but between us, I could be true and like all I am persuaded, we are inside a community in theoretical physics very vanitious unfortunally and it is difficult to change our thoughts. You know John, When I see the generality of the universe , and our young age in sciences , I believe strongly that we know nothing still and that this GR and these photons alone are not possible to be the primordial essence, there are many philosophical and ontological problems . The real improtant thing that I d like to gove to this community is that they are not emergent from the geonetrical algebras and the fields these spheres, they are the choice foundamental of this universe, from what ? I don t know, I consider an infinite eternal consciousness in 0D having created a kind of super matter energy, the central cosnological sphere and that this thing sends informations coded in these series of 3D spheres. There is like a mechanism of evolution where the cold dark matter , the DE, the photons merge and dance in a partition to create these matters evolving when we consider the consciousness also.

I don t want to discourage, or to irritate me you know, I just share a theory that I beleive is important in all humility and I improve it in adding things . It is not because this theory can unfify all that it is a TOE, a toe is not possible seen the details that we must find. When Garret Lisi has published his paper and I respect him and his work about the E8, I was surprised by the title, a theory of everything lol, it seems odd for me. We must be humble and recognise our limitations, we are far of truths , and I repeat this GR and photons alsone and the strings or points in 1D cannot solve our deepest unknowns. But when I explain them this, they are angry against me, because like I told you , this vanity inside the community is important.Between us John, lol you believe really that this universe has created only photons from an infinite heat and hop after they oscillate and we have extradimensions like in the strings ??? it seems odd for me.

John Cox

lol no, Steve,

I have never said that. What I reiterate is that for there to be a covariance volumetrically where a 1D cosmic field must go global and therefore by necessity, higher dimensionality; there must be found some foundational property which exists as a universal proportionality to light velocity which unites DM, DE, Baryonic matter, and Photonic and Neutrino mass. My own personal favorite is that energy density varies in direct inverse proportion to velocity within the bounded interval of one magnitude of light velocity, but that does not limit compounding magnitudes of existential density gradient. A Photon for instance exhibits a ballistic characteristic of momentum under certain observation systems, and a hyperbolic characteristic of a wave in momentum transfer by a different kind of observing system. Observed as a ballistic (classic photo-electric effect) event the photon energy crashes to a stop and its density value momentarily reaches the minimum density necessary to register as mass, a property of inelastic energy density characteristic of the maximum density achieved to be classified as matter. The universal proportionality is the density proportionate to energy quantity necessary for a gravitationally bound finite quantity to exhibit inertia, I = e(c^2). And to quote AE, "The energy of a closed system is equal to its inertia". Lesser than that density for any localized or global quantity would exist as Dark (undifferentiated) energy, perhaps somewhat like the Higgs Ocean. Dark Matter may be found to exist as that I=ec^2 density relative to the aggregate field as suggested by the flat hat curve of rotational velocity in galaxies. Spherical galaxies are ancient, newer ones are spiral.

I have to mow before it rains. bye now :-) jrc

Steve Dufourny

We don t know in fact all this, nor what are really the dark matter, the dark energy. And the higher dimensionalities are just mathematical plays of strings with the general relativity, it is an assumption. The equation of einstein with the mass and energy is just a part of the puzzle, because we just take the photons encoded in a space vacuum. The ordinary matter is a tjing that we just analyse in surface , and the heat, electronagnetism, photons are the only one things analysed actually and so we conclude. What I try to explain is that the GR and SR are correct but at their level of analysis simply, we have deeper logics to superimpose . The thermodynamics and heat , it is the same, we just take the photons encoded in a matter , but if the cold dark matter and the dark energy also are there and have properties, it is relevant to search the answers. You beleive that the mass becomes a mass like this due to fields and oscillations of the energy of photons ? that has no sense for me , we need a mass, see that if the dark matter is there also , this matter has a mass and if the dark energy possesses the codes and the photons are a fuel massless, so all is explained. We don t need oscillations, vibrations of photons to create the matters , God does not play at guitar for me. We can repeat the actual things known , that will not change that we don t know really the philosophical origin and how is really transformed the energy and how appear the topologies, geometries. Lol don t forget to sing under the rain :) friendly

Steve Dufourny

What I try to tell in fact John is that the energy and the matter are not the same thing. If we take E=mc^2 , it is not that they are the same, it is just that the photons are the energy and the orinary matter has encoded photons , that is why if you take the 3 main series in my model, one serie of 3D spheres for the space vacuum of the DE and the two others are the cold dark matter and the photons, see that they explain the equation but we must add also the two others, that is why I have this eqyuation intuitive E=m(c^2+Xl^2)+Y where in fact the cold dark matter having a mass is there and is distributed activated by the photons and higgs under the codes of the DE , the bosons are just photons encoded in this space vacuum , so no the matter and the energy are not the same at the basis when they are created in the series sent from the central cosm sphere . Hope you understand my reasoning, the energy with cosmic fields and oscillations of photons cannot become a mass like this.

John Cox

No. No. No. Steve,

Please differentiate. What I am saying is that energy density varies with velocity, and that mass quantity is the limiting factor of acceleration to light velocity. A small enough mass will be accelerated to light velocity with little impulse, but at rest it will be near a universal density which would be detectable as mass. An even smaller quantity of energy would have a correspondingly lower rest density and hence would require a greater impulse to effect acceleration. Like the difference between blowing on a ping pong ball and a ball of soap suds. And the smaller the photonic energy quantity, the shorter the wavelength. So at higher frequencies we find higher energy photons. There are two ways to go with this paradigm, variations of a single standing wave or a cyclic positive/negative acceleration event sequence generating the classic wavelength observation with a longitudinal cross-section of a transverve or sinusoidal wave. But this is ONLY for quantities below a sub-luminal threshold.

Baryonic Matter would be too large a bound quantity to be accelerated to light velocity and the determinant would be for your spheroidal form to enclose a quantity which would be distributed across the volume in a gradient where the core density would reach inelastic density. Again, this is consistent with your own argument that shape can change but volume remains constant. If acceleration reduces density then it must also alter shape (because I say so!) and if the density is inelastic due to larger quantity then it would be more resistant to acceleration.

So in this paradigm we have inelastic density being the demarcation line of acceleration, and on either side greater energy must be introduced the farther we get from the DMZ, but for different reasons.

No strings attached. Those might just become the catalogue of radii bending as a mass:energy quantity undulates shape. I'm getting Grossed out. later jrc

Steve Dufourny

Lol , thanks for developping, sorry for the confusion ,ok I see clearer what you told me, you are surprising I must say dear friend John. If the 3 series merge and that these series with their volumes preserve these volumes and can be deformed, so you imagine the infinite combinations possible with the motions, rotations orbitral and spinal, the angles ,the densities,the senses this and that more their oscillations on surface maybe permitting to rank the quasi particles with the hopf fibrations,

Vesuvius Now

Hi all, this is an idea I've been working on:

"Fragmental Presentism and Quantum Mechanics"

https://philpapers.org/rec/MERFPA-2

"Abstract

This paper develops a Fragmentalist theory of Presentism and shows how it can help to develop a interpretation of quantum mechanics. There are several fragmental interpretations of physics. In the interpretation of this paper, each quantum system forms a fragment, and fragment f1 makes a measurement on fragment f2 if and only if f2 makes a corresponding measurement on f1. The main idea is then that each fragment has its own present (or 'now') until a mutual quantum measurement--at which time they come ('become') to share the same 'now'. The theory of time developed here will make use of both McTaggart's A-series (in the form of future-present-past) and B-series (earlier-times to later-times). An example of an application is that a Bell pair of electrons does not take on definite spin values until measurement because the measuring system and the Bell pair do not share the same present ('now') until mutual quantum measurement, i.e. until they 'become' to share the same A-series. Before that point the 'now' of the opposing system is not in the reference system's fragment. Relativistic no-signaling is preserved within each fragment, which will turn out to be sufficient for the general case. Several issues in the foundations of quantum mechanics are canvassed, including Schrodinger's cat, the Born rule, modifications to Minkowski space that accommodate both the A-series and the B-series, and entropy."

It gives a philosophically motivated model of time, and applies that model to quantum mechanics.

Vesuvius Now

I can't seem to get anybody to work on it with me, nor get it 'published' (though it's on the net). I don't know why not, because I still think it's a good interpretation so far as quantum mechanics goes, and a very good idea in the philosophy of time. I do think physicists do not grok the Spectrum Inversion (SI) thought-experiment, from the philosophy of mind. But I see the SI as one of the strengths of the interpretation.

Thoughts?

Thomas Ray

Coming in cold, here. Has anyone mentioned nonlinear time?

Steve Dufourny

Tom, It is an assumption this non linear time where we have no referentials. Maybe the non commutatove time becomes relevant and the works of Alain Connes min considering this non commutativity. But there still we areb limited because even if you take the lie groups and this E8 for example and that you link two E8 , one for the quantum mechanics and one for the GR, and even in playing with groups, subgroups, non commutativity, non associativity, you are still limited even with the best maths of strings or the geometrodynamics of Wheeler. It is due to fact simply that we have these deep philosophical limitations. You can make all what you want with the maths inside this general reasoning in begining at the plancl scale and in 1D and connect the two E8 with all the partitions possiobel and even with the padics analysis, we shall be still limited. Maybe simply the confusions are due to this GR alone and these photons and the correlated philosophy, Regards

If you consider this non linear time like if all is connected in the same referential and that you consider these strings or points at this planck scale, it is an assumption, even if you consider a matrhematical accident for the universe from an infinite heat and after photons oscillating or if you consider an infinite eternal consciousness and that you link the eternity and infinity.

Steve Dufourny

Tom, I believe that the problem comes from really this special relativity , einstein has created this assumption and concept . It is still this philosophical general origin of the universe, so the speeds and the gravity and the time dilations are interpreted without a real sorting of observations and the real nature of this irreversible time on this entropical arrow of evolution. If you consider that this space time of the GR is absolute, so I understand the confusion, but even with the time dilation, it is for OBSERVATIONS. Many confound the real meaning of this time dilation and the real meaning of what is this General relativistic space time that we OBSERVE at high velocities and where the gravitation is a curvature of the spacetime, but that does not contredict newton where the gravitation is a force between mass at slow velocities, because it is for the GR for OBSERVATIONS at high velocities. So I am understanding the confuisons about the time but like I said the problem is philosophical about the origin and main essence of our universe and about also the real understanding of this SR and GR.

Steve Dufourny

If you take Tom the twin paradox, it is just a confusion when we aplly the time dilation equations wich are for observations and that you apply naively them to the reality. There still several thinkers confound the reality with the observations. The twins in fact shall have the same age in the reality, but not for observations relativistic in resume. The same for the non linear time.

We can take like an other example the effects of this SR , we see our sun a little bit more than 8min in late , it is not because we see it in late that it is like we see it at this present. So I insist, the thinkers must really consider the difference between what we observe and the effects of this SR and GR with what is really the reality with a pure newtonian mechanics.

Furthermore I repeat the philosophical main origin is not known and the fact to consider the photons and the GR alone are not sure. The photons at my humble opinions are not absolute and are just a tool for the universe, they permit the heat and the electromagnetism being encoded in something that we don t know still about the ordinary matter baryonic.They are quanta of E massless before the encoding and they permit the SR and GR more the fact to observe because without photons, we cannot observe.

It is mainly all this confusion wich gives us the crisis inside the theoretical physics community to reach the unknowns, they consider only thos GR and photons and try to unify G c and h , thr QM and the GR , but it lacks things to superimpose, like this cold dark matter having a mass before the encodings and the dark energy for the main codes like a vacuum. It is the reason why they cannot renormalise and quantify the quantum gravitation even, because simply the gravitons are not the quanta of gravitational waves , the gravitational waves are just waves of this GR. I like Wilczek, he is very relevant but I don t agree with his papers the noise of gravitons.

So we return at this philosophical and ontological problem about the origin and the foundamental objects. That implies a kind of prison where now the thinkers turn in round inside these strings and photons taken like foundamental and absolute.

John Cox

Good to hear from you, Tom,

I've been worried. I gave up emailing you, maybe an address change. Hope you are well.

Jonathan started the previous thread with links to his paper he presented at the Grossmann Conference, and it was well written and cogently presented. I enjoy it much and there is I think a correlative with non-linear time. Non-linear time to me is raison d'etre for condensate matter, and wholey consistent with gravitational time dilation, given a postulate of energy density varying in direct inverse proportion to velocity within the bounded interval of one magnitude of light velocity, while not limiting compounding of magnitudes in unitary masses and aggregate. The Problem comes in taking a unitary mass:energy quantity global morphing into local gravitational domain ranges and evolving something akin to Mach's Principle.

The hidden variable in classicism is the speed of time. It's right there though unstated in both SR and GR time dilation. best as always. jrc

Steve Dufourny

John we know that the non linearity is a reality in physics and maths, so that implies a non superimposing , but why with this time wich is a scalar like the lenght, charges or mass. If an equation is non linear it is not a reason to consider that the time inside the equation is non linear. I insist on the fact that this GR has created the confusions and the SR also , I insist too about the fact that they are for observations and that they are tools of corrections of errors. The problem actually is so to consider that this parameter the time is a scalar non linear in the differential equations and reccurences. It seems not the case generally thinking. This time in logic cannot be chaotic andc non periodic in its pure meaning for all the equations in physics even if these equations are non linear .

Steve Dufourny

me I want well , we can have our assumptions, but the scalars are what they are , let s resume the scalars existing , the time, the mass, the pressure,the volume, the density, the speed, the energy , temperature....are scalars , the vectors are the acceleration, the force .... so we have the scalars being properties without direction and they are utilised like the reels in maths for the vectors.Som the complex numbers appear for the fields for example. But it is there the confusion about how we consider these fields philosophically and the scalars in the relativity and that is why we cannot solve the deep unknowns. That is why also some thinkers consider non linear scalars and here this time. The fact to tell that the time is non linear is the same than to tell that all the other scalars can be non linear .

Steve Dufourny

In understanding all this , we undwerstand why we have this fashion of fields like origin and the scalar fields and we understand so the problems of dimensions and vectors in the general relativity.We must for me return at this old school and descartes d agreee where we have pure physics logic.

Steve Dufourny

When we generalise for example the geometrical algebras of Lie mainly, let s take for example 2 E8 superimposed in taking points or strings in 1D , one E8 for the GR and one E8 for the quantum mechanics. Let s consider for example the 1D strings at this planck scale and let s consider the 1D strings of the cosmic field connected with a 1D main field of the GR to create the topolgies , geometries. Let s now consider like it is afashion these fields and the scalar fields. Lets consider now the links with the charged particles and spin and let s play with the maths and padics analysis or others , and even with the extradimensions in taking into account the 5D of kaluzaKlein theory and let s rank so the fields with the other maths of strings with the 1D , the 10d, 11d, 26 D with thebranes and the Mtheory.

Let s make groups, subgroups with the commutativity, the non commutativity, the associativity, the non associativity and let s consider all the scalars and vectors possible. The hiigs field has been found like this with points or strings in this spacetime of the GR. But that does not prove that this GR is the secret to unify the QM with the cosmological scale because it lacks this DM and DE and at this quantum scale also. The fields in fact are emergent and the quantum fields don t come from this GR , they are probably due to fact that the space vacuum possessing the main codes encode the photons and the cold dark matter. How can we have a mass appearing only with photons massless ??? Never the scalar etensor theories affirm that the GR is the cause of these quantum fields in resume. So the confusion general is there, even for the other scalars of our standard model and quantum mechanics. It is this origin of the GR and field and photons alone the problem. We arrive at a very oimportant conclusion, the hiigs field and mechanism never is the cause of the mass really, it just activate something that we don t know already and it is this DE for the codes of distribution and this cold dark matter that this higgs fields activate because this higgs field is due to photons encoded, it does not come from the cosmos in fact and this GR. That is why even this quantum gravitation is not renormalised with this reasoning. Because we must respect the newtonian mechanic and that we must simply change the distances , because the force , the QG this weakest quantum force is not an emergent electromagnetic force from this GR, but is the force in logic between this DE farer and the positrons in logic, the positrons and gravitons are due to this cold dark matter encoded possessing a mass , so in fact it is all these 3 systems that we must consider , the photons, the cold dark matter, the dark energy and 3 E8 in replacing the points or strings by these series finite of 3D spheres, there is no extradimensions . We live in a superfluidity due to specific series of spheres and all is in contanct and we have 3 spacetimes superimposed, not only this GR. That is why the scalar fields and the mathematical tools and scalars and vectors are bad utilised and so we don t reach the unknowns.

The standard model possesses fields yes but are not due to oscillations of the GR simply. So the gravitons in resume are not the quanta of gravitational waves because the fields are not the primordial essence but the coded particles and mainly the DE yes, the two others, the photons and cold dark matter are just fuels merging with this DE to create the baryonic ordinary matter.

Steve Dufourny

Small error sorry, I write too quickly without rereading, I would say the higgs have been found like this without the points or strings of the GR. In all case it is always this general philosophy the problem and the GR and photons alone and the plays of maths with the scalrs, vectors, reals and complexs,and the non commutativity and non associativity. I beleive strongly that we must retrun at this old school about what is a particle and its origin, it does not come from the cosmic fields in resume when we really analyse the origin of this mass and other scalar properties.

John Cox

Steve,

How we represent time mathematically is our doing, don't you think? Jonathan makes a strong argument for a top down approach once we assemble enough higher maths. I personally don't see much confusion in SR and GR, though trying to conform reality to a Cartesian measurement space does confuse matters. I can and have modeled in a 3D+T background independent, co-ordinate free hypothetical space, and been able to distribute a finite energy quantity across a continuous gradient of density to qualify as a unitary field particle model. But it is a rudimentary model and useful only to provide parametric values for a higher dimensionality, realistic model.

Going back to the Demonics Topic where I gave the rough rundown on the several exponential variants of proportions which in context of a distribution theorem, can analytically account for energy quantity in density par volume, a 4D is minimum. A 5D allows an active dynamic as non-linearly exponentiated on one pole such that Wheeler's zero boundary condition is met. Energy existing at light velocity would not move in space at all if the treatment of the time parameter is at light velocity at the zero boundary. That zeroing out need not be to zero density, just a zero difference of density with a background minimum energy density. But that my horn tooting, there's lot's of traffic these days. :-) jrc

Steve Dufourny

we are all free John, I just give an other road and food for thoughts and new ideas but the sciences community is very vanitious and I am a problem , they cannot think differently now and beyond the box, I could be true John, and I d like that the persons focus also on these spheres and the maths and these 3 ethers, but the problem is that I irritate with this innob´vate general idea and an opposite philosophy . It is sad because in focusing on these 3D spheres and in thinking beyond this GR and photons and strings, we d reach these deppe unknowns. But it is the life, I relativate lol , take care , be the force with you jedi of the sphere.

Ps the maths are a tool , the physics are the main essence and the philosophy is important, in turning inside a prison, we don t find nothing of new , and that implkies an ocean of confusions even, but it is the life, we are free indeed, vival el freedom so and the humility, unconditional love, universalism , altruism and consciousness,

« Previous Page Next Page »