(continued)
So, the existence of information which comes in categories and is "carried" by things like particles, and the existence of algorithmic (i.e. higher-level) categories of information, are the link between particles, atoms and molecules on the one hand, and living things on the other hand.
May we accept the reasoning by Nicholas of Cusa who was born in 1401 in Kusa, nowadays Bernkastel-Kues at the river Mosel, who inferred from the absence of observable limits to the universe that the universe is endless and has therefore no center?
While Oresme, Buridan and a bit later Kopernikus criticized the geocentric model of Ptolemaios, and science replaced it by the heliocentric one, Cusanus concluded that there is no preferred point of reference in his center-less universe. Doesn't this mean that Maxwell's hypothetical light-carrying aether is merely a lazy unjustified analog of a mechanic medium and the negative outcome of Michelson's experiments in Berlin/Potsdam and later in Cleveland was to be expected?
Isn't therefore the historical basis of so far still not yet experimentally confirmed hypotheses by Lorentz up to Einstein's relativity of time shaky if Cusanus was correct?
Eckard Blumschein
Hi Eckard, the lack of limit to observation has been superseded by the so called cosmic background radiation which is an event horizon, from beyond which there are not any discernible signals. That puts a limit on what is observable on or near Earth.The Earth (and near Earth) is the centre of our observations and therefore our observable universe.
I note you just say "universe" and not observable universe. Existing now is not what is generated from processing of received EM radiation. We are 'blind' to what is out there now, making simple estimation from observation insufficient. I think relevant ideas are such as, how the universe has developed over time and how the EM radiation has reached the telescopes, taking into account the effects of gravity on light paths en route and the motion of the Earth and solar system.
Georgina,
Keep in mind that causality doesn't apply to the current cosmological model. when there is a discrepancy between prediction and observation, some enormous patch is applied and everything continues as normal. What if accountants worked like that? Whenever there is a gap in the books, they just add a figure and call it dark money.
The first patch applied was when it was realized this redshift increases with distance at the same rate in every direction, so it was changed from an expansion in space, to an expansion of space, because Spacetime! Presumably then every point would appear as its own center.
Which totally overlooks the premise for spacetime, in the first place, that the speed of light is measured as a constant, in every frame. If it is being redshifted, obviously it's not constant to intergalactic space. Wouldn't the speed have to increase, if the distance is increasing, in order to remain constant?
Two metrics of space are being derived from the same intergalactic light. One based on the spectrum and one based on the speed. Since the expansion is still relative to the speed, as it's based on the redshifting of this light, that means the speed is still the denominator.
We are at the center of our point of view, so an optical effect would be a rational solution. In which case, that background radiation would be light shifted off the visible spectrum.
One solution is that multi spectrum light "packets" do redshift over distance, as the higher spectrums dissipate faster than the lower ones, so then the question is whether individual photons travel billions of lightyears, or we are sampling a wave front.
On light packets; https://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristov_WaveMotion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf
On the quantization of light; https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Reiter_challenge2.pdf
So... John, Georgina and Eckard? Aside from differences of how we attempt to reason what time might be, and how it behaves... is Time existentially real? (I'm in the cheering section for a real physicality of Time.) :) jrc
I have completed my research and experiments on discovery of new medium in Physics--The intangible Time Medium--which only transfer data and information.[https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/invention-natural-encryption-technology-neo-security-isi-siddiqui/]
I presented the the Law of Intangible Time Medium states that " The Universe all living and non-living things existed , being creating will soon be destroyed when a divine encoded message to be received by the all things existed . The encoded divine message which is already released to be transferred to all things via Intangible Time Medium.
Einstein said Time is the FOURTH dimension in Space and Time both are Tandem. My research proved that Time plays the role of intangible medium in transferring data and information.
According to the Law of Intangible Time Medium the encoded message for the destruction of the Universe had been released by Allah. That is when the destruction Message to be received by the galaxy or galaxies or the Universe it will be destroyed.
How the Divine message to be reached to the all material things ? The NET -- a new encryption technology is the answer of this query. Read the research paper on the NET on Link on Linkedin :https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/invention-natural-encryption-technology-neo-security-isi-siddiqui/
mediasword@yahoo.com
arc,
As an effect of physical activity, time is as real as temperature, pressure, color and other such effects. The problem, is that we are assuming the narrative flow, along which the present moves, from past to future. Which physics codifies as measures of duration and then treats as though it is similar to a spatial dimension. Aka, the "fabric of spacetime."
The evident fact is the underlaying physical dynamic, distilling the potential down to the actual, which then recedes into residual. The present doesn't move past to future, rather the events move future to past, as the present is the physical state.
Not that anyone in the field seems willing to consider this, as it is outside the mathematical box.
Joe,
When I was young, my eyes were better than they are now. Is that because they don't see the world as clearly, or is that it the world actually is fuzzier? By your logic, it seems it is that the world has grown fuzzier and that's why I don't see it as clearly.
Hi John, first you have to be clear what you mean by the word 'time'. Many different ideas come under that name. Some kinds of time: Time as seen on a clock, or another timing device ( a time and duration or elapsed time), time obtained from the motion of Earth relative to the sun- day/night and as read from a sundial (time of day), changing seasons too (time of year, also obtainable from a calendar), time as a dimension of a geometric model, passage of time as personally experienced (singular present and passage of time), t used in equations, a configuration of all simultaneously existing things (a time), change of the configuration of all existing things (passage of time), Mc Taggarts A time and B time.Clearly these are different ideas even though they share a name. You also need to be clear what you mean by 'existential'.
Georgina,
That would go to time being an effect, like temperature and pressure. Both of which exist in many different ways. Much like binary terms can be applied to many different situations; on/off, good/bad, in/out, etc.
Most specifically, it is a measure of duration, yet as I keep pointing out, duration is this present state, as the defining events coalesce and dissolve. What makes them all different is the energy involved. Be it a clock mechanically ticking, the earth turning on its axis, the emotions involved, when we are bored, versus entertained.
The only problem is when we associate all the masses of dynamics going on around us, to this apparent sequencing of events and try incorporating them into a singular narrative flow, rather than a universe of activities, all with their own dynamics.
Georgina, John,
Only https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolaus_von_Kues provides the essential deatails in 3.7 Naturphilosophy, missing in the en version.
Supersede means replace something oldfashioned. Being just a little bit aware of newfashioned interpretations by Hubble,Gamov, Penzias, and Wilson, I don't exclude that Cusanus was correct when he imagined the universe extending beyond the observable part of it. Creationists are believing in a creator, the word nature means something that was born. When I am questioning Maxwell's medium, I feel reminded of de Guericke's experimentia de spatio vacuuo. Does energy flow really always need a carrier if there are no known carrier of electric and magnetic fields?
John, while "center of our point" sounds silly to me, I largely appreciate your reasoning.
Eckard
Hi Eckard, the observable universe is the output of processing electromagnetic radiation. If you are talking about the observable, what is observable depends on where the observer is located within the material universe. There are therefore potentially vast numbers of different observable universes each pertaining to a differently located observer. Our observable universe does not extend beyond what is for us an event horizon, called the cosmic background radiation.The extent of the material universe existing can not be detected.
Energy does need to have a carrier. I think of all energy as change (or potential for change). So something has to be changing (or have potential for change). Flux has to be within something as there is no difference in nothing.
My prediction is the James Webb will discover the background radiation to be light of ever further sources, shifted off the visible spectrum. Essentially the solution to Olber's Paradox.
Idea holography the time. Perhaps time can be expressed as
[math]$$ t=\frac{Gh}{c^4}\int\frac{dS}{r} $$[/math]
Where S is the entropy of entanglement of an arbitrary closed surface. r is the radius to the surface point. Integration over a closed surface.
This is very similar to the analogy. Time behaves as a potential, and entropy as a charge.
From this formula there are several possible consequences.
1.Bekenstein Hawking entropy for the event horizon. Light cone case
[math]$$ r=ct $$[/math]
[math]$$ S=\frac{c^3}{Gh}r^2$$[/math]
2.Gravitational time dilation. The case if matter inside a closed surface processes information at the quantum level according to the Margolis-Livitin theorem.
[math]$$ dI=\frac{dMc^2 t}{h} $$[/math]
[math]$$ \Delta t=\frac{Gh}{c^4}\int\frac{dI}{r}=t\frac{GM}{c^2r}$$[/math]
3.The formula is invariant under Lorentz transformations.
4.If this definition is substituted instead of time, then the interval acquires a different look, which probably indicates a different approach of the Minkowski pseudometric with a complex plane
[math]$$ s^2=(l^2_{p}\frac{S}{r})^2-r^2 $$[/math]
Where is the squared length of Planck
[math]$$ l^2_{p}=\frac{Gh}{c^3} $$[/math]
Quantum tunneling of noncommutative geometry gives the definition of time in the form of holography, that is, in the form of a closed surface integral.
Ultimately, the holography of time shows the dualism between quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity.
[math]$$ t=\frac{Gh}{c^4}\int\frac{dS}{r} $$[/math]
From here, the definition of time is obtained, as the ratio of the entropy at the boundary of the sphere to its radius. This is the definition of arising time. Where the entropy at the boundary of the sphere should be considered as entropy of entanglement between the boundary of the sphere and the point inside, where the moment of time is determined.In general, the resulting time will be as a closed surface integral. In this form, you can come to the general formula for any closed arbitrary surface.In this formula, time is determined at a certain point, where a closed surface is taken around through the integral of entropy of entanglement on a given surface
https://osf.io/8nzwd/download
https://frenxiv.org/3muny/download
Holography the time. Perhaps time can be expressed as
[math]$$ t=\frac{Gh}{c^4}\int\frac{dS}{r} $$[/math]
Where S is the entropy of entanglement of an arbitrary closed surface. r is the radius to the surface point. Integration over a closed surface.
Quantum tunneling of noncommutative geometry gives the definition of time in the form of holography, that is, in the form of a closed surface integral. Ultimately, the holography of time shows the dualism between quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity.Attachment #1: 2_Quantum_tunneling_approach_of_noncommutative_geometry.docx
Fundamental levels of reality do not have the wherewithal to analyse and recognise large- or small-scale patterns in the world. You need living things, with their ability to algorithmically analyse and collate information, to recognise patterns; and only human beings conceptualise history and large-scale time and space, and only human beings write poetry and prose.
But, in one sense, this history, poetry and prose is only the surface of reality. Using our human ability to manipulate objects, and our ability to algorithmically analyse and collate information, physics studies what underlies our everyday reality. They have found that fundamental levels of reality can seemingly only recognise relatively simple relationship and change: i.e. physics' equations represent relatively simple relationship and change.
The precise concepts and equations of physics, which represent a relatively simple underlying reality, has allowed us to send exploratory vehicles into "space": which indicates that physics is pretty-well correct, though not complete or perfect.
(continued)
Physics debates whether or not, at a fundamental level, a simple time exists in relatively-simple relationship to other simple aspects of reality. They have found that, unless you want to complexify the situation, a simple type of time probably doesn't exist. I.e. a time "dimension" probably doesn't exist as a foundational aspect of reality, and the underlying relatively-simple time must have been derived from other simple aspects of reality.
What is not so debatable is that "recognition of change" exists in the underlying reality: i.e. the equations of physics represent change (of number) with the delta symbol. Clearly, quantum events are a source of number change, but it is not clear that there are any other factors causing number change. It may be that quantum events are the only source of number change in the universe. I.e. it may be that quantum events are the source of a relatively-simple sense of time, a relatively-simple "recognition of change", a relatively-simple aspect of reality that can be represented as a relatively-simple equation.
Eckard,
I'm a little surprised that nobody rose to your bait in debate on the argument of Cusanas, neutral centrality, Maxwell and the always ambiguous 'luminiferous aether'. All good points, especially with the number of unsolved mysteries of the classical age that have been subsumed by Quantum Mechanics.
I dug out an old (falling apart at the seams, actually) book by Isaac Assimov, still one of the most readable of introductory authors; and refreshed on his account of the state of the art in the mid to late 1800"s. The wave theory of light was prevalent but had many problems. While detected effects displayed a transverse wave signature, transverse waves were known to be limited to being conducted through solids or along liquid surfaces, while longitudinal waves could be conducted by materials in any state, whether solid, liquid or gaseous. So for energy to be transfered via a transverse wave required that an 'aether' be an extremely tenuous gaseous substance yet have a rigidity greater than steel. So, in todays' theoretical venue it is quite appropriate to ask if it requires a medium to transfer energy. And if I may make a pun; 'the medium is the message', that is to say that a quantity of inertially bound medium (energy) can be the discrete carrier of energy transfer. Though that itself raises the ontological question of Time and Space, just as does QM.
The problem with Time and Space being emergent from simple change of positions, conveniently ignores that there is no reference of distance traveled by any nondescript particle in that change of position. Yet QM arbitrarily conducts that analysis in a preconditioned co-ordinate system. And simply arguing causality only adds to that contradiction. So by default, the advantage goes to Time and Space being physically, if not materially, real.
Personally, I subscribe to a hypothesis that density varies in direct inverse proportion to velocity, acting progressively upon and from an upper density bound. This argues for a quality of Time being uniform, at least in the confines of a constant density region of an inertially bound quantity of energy. After all, if it is the same moment in time at every point in a constant density region, then there is no problem if that rest mass is truly at rest. But the least movement will require the density to relate to different points within its constant density boundary. Very much like putting a finger on a flake of cigarette ash on a page of paper, and smudging it with a swipe of the finger. We just don't know how fast time is going at one second per second, we can only calibrate it to our own reckoning of 'one second'.
So I have no problem with Time having qualities of both Classical and Relativistic properties. It is we whom complicate what would be simple for nature, by deconstructing it in any attempt to analyse. In reality, nature would not geometerix space into a cube or a sphere, but we can analyse the contrary properties of Space as a cube being the most efficient filler of space, like a Cartesian referrence system; and a sphere being the most efficient encapsulation of space. Nature would be doing both in one fell swoop. So Space would need Time, neither would exist alnoe.
oops, that anon was me, jrc
