The Nature of Time

P.S.

Computers use electricity and integrated circuits on silicon chips to represent zeroes and ones and represent Boolean AND/OR/NOT logic.

In quantum computers, quantum states are used to represent the quantum version of zeroes and ones; and special quantum logic gates/circuits are used to represent a special, looser, quantum logic, which provides the correct solutions with only a calculatable probability.

We use these quantum states to represent a code, so that we can do certain types of mathematical calculations.

But these quantum states are not actually a code. So, notions like the "computational capacity of the universe" [1] are completely misguided.

1. "Computational capacity of the universe" by Seth Lloyd, October 2001, https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0110141

Hello Lorraine,

You are welcome,I like read your ideas and thoughts.

Best Regards :)

Dear Eckard,

I don't believe the analogy of pressure waves in air have much bearing on electromagnetic propagation in a medium.

I include below an interesting quote I just found, the link follows.

"However, there is another indisputable source of gravitational waves that we know about exceedingly well. This source is an electromagnetic wave. The argument is very simple: where there is an electromagnetic wave, there is an energy-momentum tensor. By the field equations of general relativity, wherever there is an energy-momentum tensor, there is a non-vanishing Ricci tensor, hence a non-vanishing Riemann tensor which invariantly characterizes the presence of spacetime curvature. This field of spacetime curvature is necessarily localized within the region of the energy-momentum tensor (one cannot boost from the speed c) and it flows with speed c. So we draw the following conclusion: electromagnetic waves have an intrinsic duality: they are necessarily also gravitational waves. Thus the detection of gravitational waves is the routine of our everyday existence as we detect electromagnetic waves.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5852e579be659442a01f27b8/t/586c1b8d893fc03b140b25c7/1483479950312/Cooperstock_2015.pdf

I do not recall which reference the Fizeau quote came from.

I lived in Huntsville when I worked at NASA, I left to pursue microprocessor design and moved to Silicon Valley. I've been on the California Coastside for almost 40 years. I agree that it would be wonderful to meet and discuss things face-to-face, but it won't happen.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin,

Let me go on preferring to trust in what you ascribed to HH on your page 20: "Michelson's experiment(s)is taken to imply that there is no ether. ... One paradox is (already) too much."

Your Cooperstock paper deters me by using various tensors and the notion spacetime.

While I am not at all interested in em propagation in a medium, AE is ascribed also on p. 20 to state: "Fizeaus's experiments and stellar aberration were the phenomena upon which I most strongly based my theory".

What about your correct attribution of gamma to energy, i.e. v_squared, not to v. I found in the four annus mirabilis papers:

Photonic effect

Brownian motion

Special Relativity

Mass-energy equivalence

nothing that justified SR. On the contrary, the first page of SR indicated to me that AE was aware of the issue v vs. v_squared.

We should deal with more issues in which we agree.

My best regards,

Eckard Blumschein

In reply to Eric's original query; there is a precise match!

You appear to be talking about theories of Quantum Gravity or Geometrization, Eric. There is some resemblance with the conditional application of direction in CDT (Causal Dynamical Triangulations), where adjoining geometric segments must have the same time direction. But I see a pretty precise match with a recent paper by Paola Zizzi, which talks about a specific configuration of gates constructing spacetime in the early universe, in the context of a Quantum Growing Network.

Entangled Space-Time is found at arXiv:1807.06433

I hope the paper above is relevant to this discussion. I only discovered this thread today, but I recently submitted a paper for publication on the origin of time. So I think I might have something worthwhile to say. But I will wait until I've looked through the many interesting comments above. I intend to rejoin this conversation in earnest, when I have a little more time to spare.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Hi Jonathan,

Happy to see you again,thanks also for sharing your paper.You are relevant.BestRegards

the only time is NOWAttachment #1: 1_How_many_Models_of_Time_do_we_need_in_Physics_-_personal_copy.pdf

Dear Edwin,

In order to check whether the Lorentz gamma is actually a time transformation, I looked into en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations and found confirmed that not Einstein but Lorentz dealt with Fitzeau and aberration:

"In order to explain the aberration of light and the result of the Fizeau experiment in accordance with Maxwell's equations, Lorentz in 1892 developed a model ("Lorentz ether theory")."

"Similar transformations were introduced ... by Lorentz (1892, 1895) who analyzed Maxwell's equations, they were completed by Larmor (1897, 1900) and Lorentz (1899, 1904), and brought into their modern form by Poincaré (1905) who gave the transformation the name of Lorentz.[13]".

My best regards,

Eckard Blumschein

Information is not objective [1]. Information is the only possible knowledge that components of the universe can carry i.e. incomplete subjective knowledge of their context within the system.

This contextual information is not about relationships between the components of the system; and obviously, information has nothing to do with binary digits, which have no inherent context, and which can only ever symbolically represent information.

Contextual information is about relationships between categories of knowledge, where "lower-level" categories of knowledge are e.g. mass, position, velocity (speed and direction) etc.

But seemingly, time is a primitive "higher-level" category of knowledge, which can only be acquired via algorithmic analysis of "lower-level" information. Living things acquire sophisticated "higher-level" knowledge about their context, which is necessarily built upon analysis and synthesis of "lower-level" information. But one must ask: what is the use of this "higher-level" information if the information is not associated with "higher-level" outcomes i.e. outcomes that can't be provided by law of nature relationships?

1. The Quantum Question of an Objective Reality, by Gabriella Skoff, 21st March 2019: "The researcher's findings suggest ... that in quantum physics there is no objective reality; that reality itself is observer-dependent... this conclusion ...calls the concept of objective fact--the very pursuit of science itself--into question." https://projectqsydney.com/2019/03/21/the-quantum-question-of-an-objective-reality

More correctly, time is a "higher-level" category of information, which can only be acquired via algorithmic analysis of "lower-level" categories of information, where the quantities/numbers applying to these categories have changed. The sense of time is due to the sense of change.

Some people would claim that this number change needs no explanation: that (what we would represent as) number change is just what the universe does, end of story. But this type of defeatist attitude is contrary to the spirit of physics. And in fact when looked at closely, number change is quantum: there is no smooth number change in the universe. This raises the question: should the numerical outcomes of quantum events be seen as "higher-level" outcomes, as opposed to the "lower-level" numerical outcomes that are due to law of nature relationships?

Eric Aspling,

Re "Understanding the Irreversibility of Time":

Algorithmic information IS one-way information.

Dear Lorraine,

Your answer is incomplete. Algorithm is sequence of operations in time. There is other way: analog computing. In this case information is distributed in space and one gets result simultaneously.

Best regards

Ilgaitis

It is good to see so many thoughts about time here. I have been fascinated by the puzzles in physics and started to think they might all be related to the nature of time. For example, to make sense of wave-particle duality, we can assume that time itself has duality. If time is a complex axis which includes two stages (continuous and discrete), then particle and wave are two natural phenomena we can observe as outcome. And it also answers some ancient paradox about motions, e.g. Achilles and the tortoise, flying arrow etc.

I will explain in details if anyone interested and if it fits to this topic.

Ilgaitis,

Re Ilgaitis Prusis replied on Apr. 8, 2019 @ 16:25 GMT:

We represent law of nature relationships (which represent categories like mass, time and position) with equations, symbols and numbers. A law of nature relationship that is written using symbols on a piece of paper, or symbolically represented within a computer, is a "dead" thing with no power over the universe. In comparison, real law of nature relationships are "living" relationships which have real power and effect in the universe.

Laws of nature don't operate "in" time. Law of nature relationships connect natural categories like time, energy, mass and position: in the "living" laws of nature, time is just another category of information. So, laws of nature "sit above" time.

We, and computers, take time to work out the results of equations which are meant to represent "living" laws of nature. To calculate the position of a particle in "the next step in time", will take us, or a computer, many "steps in time" to do the calculation. But "living" law of nature relationships are not performing calculations, they don't operate "in" time, i.e. they don't operate in time steps.

(continued from above)

To symbolically represent time steps in the universe you need to use algorithms, and you need to know what the algorithms are meant to represent. As above, these algorithms represent something "living" that has real power and effect in the universe; and these algorithms represent something that "sits above" time, because time is just another category of information in these algorithms. In addition, these algorithms don't necessarily represent something that is "set-in-stone" like the law of nature relationships are seemingly "set-in-stone".

Lorraine

Are there aspects of the universe that can only be represented algorithmically, and does this relate to the question of Time?

1. Statements like the following represent the type of information that law of nature categories and their associated numbers provide:

Relative speed = 23 (in some system of units)

2. Statements like the following represent higher-level information (this is information about information, where comparisons have been made, and questions asked about more fundamental-level information):

Relative speed > 17 is true

Relative speed = 23 is true

Relative speed has changed

The delta symbol in physics' equations (that represent laws of nature) represents higher-level information.

3. Are there aspects of the universe that can only be represented algorithmically? These algorithms would necessarily couple higher-level information with "higher-level outcomes" i.e. outcomes that cannot be achieved via laws of nature alone, because laws of nature are not affected by higher-level True/False information. Clearly, higher-level information can have no function, or reason to exist, in the universe unless it is coupled with higher-level outcomes.

Statements like the following represent higher-level information coupled with higher-level outcomes (outcomes that cannot be achieved via laws of nature alone):

IF relative speed > 17 is true, THEN make relative position = 41 (in some system of units)

(continued from above)

4. The above statement represents a genuine change of number for the relative position category. Something new has been added to the system: a genuine change of number, as opposed to a change of number that can be fully accounted for by the law of nature relationship structure, without adding any new numbers to the system. So, the above statement, in the context of the laws of nature, contains a higher-level category of information that could potentially be acquired:

IF relative speed > 17 is true, THEN relative position = 41 AND change is true

This can seemingly also be represented as something like the following:

IF relative speed > 17 is true, THEN relative position = 41 AND time = time 1

5. So, Time is a higher-level category of information: it represents whether it is true or not that genuine change of number has occurred in other, lower-level, categories of information.

Here is some thoughts about time and its duality nature, too long and too much diagrams so I have to put it in the attachment. It is actually kind of "Alternative Models of time" to explain reality, hope my poor English doesn't bother your reading :)

abstract: Wave-particle duality is an ongoing conundrum in modern physics. Most physicists accept wave-particle duality as the best explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena; however, it is not without controversy.

Albert Einstein once wrote: It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do.

Since the meaning or interpretation has not been satisfactorily resolved, physicists have various views about the nature of duality, which includes Both-particle-and-wave view/Wave-only view/ Particle-only view/Neither-wave-nor-particle view etc.

If there are two kinds of reality at different times, it is easier to make sense of the duality by understanding the nature of time. Could time itself be composed of two aspects as well?

We will raise this conjecture to the status of a postulate, and also introduce the concept of discrete time domain, in which all wave or energy appears to be particles. The theory to be developed is based on the relationships between discrete time observation and continuous motion process. Quantum experiments such as double-slit experiment, Wheeler's delayed choice experiment and Schrödinger's cat etc. are discussed and explained on this postulate.

the attachmentAttachment #1: 1_To_make_sense_of_wave-particle_duality.pdf

Re Lee Smolin's public lecture webcast "Einstein's Unfinished Revolution", 17 April 2019 [1]:

Theoretical physicist Lee Smolin seems to link people who don't believe in rationality and evidence (is he perhaps referring to climate-change deniers, or Donald Trump?) with physicists he calls "anti-realists":

The theory [Quantum Mechanics] these anti-realists [Bohr and Heisenberg] made was not consistent with realism... Now, does this matter?...among the things that we are concerned about...there seem to be a lot of people out there in the world who are gaining or interested in gaining power who don't believe in rationality, in evidence and so forth... "A simple criterion for science to qualify as postmodern is that it be free from any dependence on the concept of objective truth". Let that sink in (Smolin and audience members laugh)... "By this criterion...the...interpretation of quantum physics due to Niels Bohr and the Copenhagen school is seen as postmodernist."

P.S.

Re Time:

I'm contending (https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3255#post_150460) that Time IS a type of higher-level knowledge.

Re Lee Smolin's public lecture webcast "Einstein's Unfinished Revolution", 17 April 2019 [1]:

Theoretical physicist Lee Smolin says that a theory (e.g. quantum mechanics) that is complete shouldn't depend on our intervention. But he is assuming that he already knows what the world should be like: he is assuming that the world is such that elements (e.g. living things) can't and don't "intervene" and change the world. I.e. he wrongly assumes that the world is such that, when looked at closely, it is nothing but the unfolding of laws of nature that caused plastics to litter the planet.

Smolin also implies that quantum mechanics must be wrong because the people who formulated the theory had "anti-realist" beliefs. But who would think, for example, that a universe with laws of nature and massy-mass that you could kick would appear out nothing and nowhere? Whatever way you look at it, the foundational aspects of the universe are necessarily "anti-realist".

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zri9gS1w5ok

I'm arguing that information doesn't float in some hypothetical ether. I'm arguing that it is things like particles, atoms and living things that carry/ experience information, including Time information. So, this is the information that particles carry:

1) Categories of information, in the form of law of nature information relationships, which we represent with equations.

2) Quantity/ intensity information, which we represent with numbers that apply to the categories.

3) "Quantum mechanical" information. I'm contending that this comprises higher-level information coupled with outcomes, which can be represented as an algorithmic statement:

3.1) Higher-level true/false conditions and number-change (Time) information

is coupled with

3.2) Higher-level number-change outcomes involving "quantum jumps" of number.

The above post was from me.

Time is like a measure of number jumps. Time is a category devoted to number-jump change in the numbers that apply to other categories of information. While other numbers may go "forward" or "backward", Time merely records that change has occurred, so it always goes "forward".

The time category, like the mass and position categories, is an information relationship which we can represent mathematically (or algorithmically in the case of time); and relative masses, positions and times, can be represented by specific numbers. The imaginary set of all possible position numbers is known as "space", and the imaginary set of all possible time numbers is known as "time".

So, you have time as an information category (i.e. a relationship), time as a specific number, and time as an imaginary set of possible numbers.

The question is: does a law of nature relationship (like the mass, position and time categories) exist "in" the time that is the imaginary set of possible numbers? Clearly, it doesn't: the time category is not a number, so it doesn't exist in the set of possible numbers representing time. But specific time numbers, applying to specific things like particles or people, can be imagined as existing in an imaginary set of possible time numbers.

(The above post is a clarification of the posts "Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 14, 2019 @ 00:14 GMT" and "Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 14, 2019 @ 00:15 GMT".)

See post "Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 25, 2019 @ 01:16 GMT", which is a clarification of the above 2 posts.

We would be inclined to assume that time did not exist, as some kind of force or thing, if the Earth did not have it`s rotational motion.

Lorraine, there is a difference between (unmeasured) 'passage of time' and timing, a measurement. Records can be made using timing but 'passage of time' does not require conducting timing measurement in order to occur.

Jim, I agree with a lot you have written here but have two disagreements. I think it is helpful to separate what is happening -Now and what is experienced as the present. Also, even if the Earth did not rotate there would still be other changes happening. Timing does not have to be with a 12 or 24 hr clock. It can be done with a sand or water clock. All that matters is that the change used is regular, not varying in rate. I.e. the duration of the intervals of the chosen timing method are the same as each other.

Here is a new theory of time. It answers a lot of questions.

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

Georgina Woodward thanks for your help on a very very early version of the paper, I will put you in the acknowledgements in a future version.

Georgina,

At a fundamental level, time does not exist. The equations of physics, which represent laws of nature, show that at a fundamental level, time does not exist.

The equations of physics show mathematical relationships between categories of information, where mass and position are examples of categories of information. But the equations of physics show that time cannot be represented in a mathematical relationship between fundamental categories of information.

Instead, time is a category that represents change of number for other categories of information: change of number can only be represented by an algorithm; time is information about information, i.e. time is a higher-level category of information.

Hi Lorraine, you wrote "Instead, time is a category that represents change of number for other categories of information:" I don't think that is spot on. Clock time, t, as used in equations, I.e. shown by numbers is a beable change being used for comparison with other variables that can also be shown by numbers. Clock time,t, is just one type of time.

Georgina,

Mass, position and time are natural categories of contextual information, which have existed since the early universe, and still exist now, underlying everything. Seemingly this information does not float in some abstract ether: the information is carried by things like particles and atoms, which existed well before clocks came on the scene.

However time is different to other categories: other categories are relationships between other similar types of categories; but time is a different type of category which records change of number.

A piece pf matter has a particular mass (unmeasured) because of the arrangement of it's constituent particles. Without imposition of an artificial coordinate frame, position is location within and relative to other particles or masses. I see from your reply you are not talking about clock time. (Foundational) Time is the entire arrangement of existing things. Each different entire pattern a different time. Passage of time encompasses all change. Numbers depict measured or calculated outcomes. The measurement and processing of inputs, or calculation process are an in-between requirement.'Information', what is conveyed by a particular sequence or arrangement implies receipt and processing into knowledge (or other product). Time numbers, mass numbers and position numbers are on the knowledge side of the sensory interface with external nature.

This is a paragraph from my one page essay in the first FQXi essay contest, "The Nature of Time." The essay is titled, "Things Happen". It`s the last entered essay in that contest, entry dated December 4th, 2,008.

"The basis of our shared illusion, is our rotating planet. Our natural state in reality, is to be travelling at a surface speed of 1,600 kilometers per hour. Our time systems are based on this motion. At the root of our deception, we take this motion as our time. As the world turns, we see the real and constant effects of that motion in seamless concert with our clocks. This constant evidence of change validates our clocks, and our clocks mark the passage of time. We live on our clock, it`s motion is our time. The marriage of the physical rotational motion, with our systems of time keeping, sets the stage for the illusion to occur. The ingredient that creates the illusion of time, and binds us to it, is our consciousness."

Hi Georgina,

Perhaps my post above, of today`s date, will answer one of your disagreements?

As to the difference between experiencing "Now", and experiencing the "present", I see no difference.

Hi Jim, re. your "We would be inclined to assume that time did not exist, as some kind of force or thing, if the Earth did not have it`s rotational motion". There are other cycles such as life cycles and natural processes like erosion and sedimentation that take time (if you will allow the moon to orbit, tides too). We would think about time differently with no day night cycle-and if you are including orbit around the sun, no seasons.

It is helpful to have a means of differentiating the material happening of an event and the experience of the event via receipt and processing of sensory information. Transmission of the signals that form the sensory input has a duration. The longer the distance between source and recipient the bigger the transmission delay between happening and experience of it.

Hi Georgina,

re. your "We would think about time differently with no day night cycle".

Imagine if the Earth was like the Moon, wherein the Earth rotated on it`s axis in the same period in which it revolves around the Sun. If it `seemed` to be 2 pm., where you happened to be, it would always `seem` to be 2 pm.. The Sun would stay in the same place in the sky.

"We would be inclined to assume that time did not exist, as some kind of force or thing, if the Earth did not have it`s rotational motion."