Can Time Be Saved From Physics?

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

jrc,

It seems to me the absolute equilibrium of space is implicit in Relativity, as the frame with the fastest clock and longest ruler would be closest to it. So space, without physical properties to quantify it, would have the non-physical qualities of infinity and equilibrium.

The primary physical properties occupying space are energy and mass. Energy expands to infinity, or until it is completely diffused. While mass collapses to equilibrium, or until it is completely dissolved back into the energy radiating back out. A cosmic convection cycle.

Perfect equilibrium may not be physical, but it is the essence of "rigidity." As in un-moved/unmoving.

I would submit space is the absolute and the infinite.

JB MerryMan :-)

I can see where you are coming from, and instinctively we do associate a spatial realism with content. There was a video on a news program this morning that was amusing, entertaining and thought provoking. A small bird, sparrow size, had flown in an open window of what appeared to be a sunroom and was caught on a cell phone video as it landed on the back of a couch near a small child, about 4 years old. The boy turned his upper body to look at the bird and without pause brought his arm arcing around and immediately wrapped his hand around the body of the hapless bird. He looked momentarily at the bird in his hand with an expression of puzzlement, then turned and put his hand out an open window and released the bird which darted off unhurt. (!!!) At only about 4 years of age, we have such a highly developed instinctive reaction to spatial relationships that we don't even think about it, and are even puzzled by it.

So while I agree that the primary physical properties occupying space are energy and mass, I would conjecture that a physicality of Time and Space create energy. And conjecture is really all that can be said, it is not subject to experimental falsification. What can be said that would be subject to quantitative analysis is that realistically, Time Space and Energy go together like a bird in the hand.

It is also instinctive to say that 'energy expands to infinity, or untill it is completely diffused'. Sounds okay, but intuitively it leaves 'completely diffused' an open question. You will recall that Eckard, especially among others , has critiqued both Maxwell and Lorentz. And one of the unsolved problems of the Classical Era comes from Maxwell treating the Magnetic and Electrostatic fields in terms of *intensity*, which would need a specifically tailored emperical rationalization to correlate with *energy* either in quantity or density. What Maxwell can term as intensity falling off to infinity is physically a falling off to an infinitesimal difference of field strengths.

Without doing some math yourself, please trust that the math does show that even though energy density can be protracted as falling off either factorially as a harmonic series (2.0) or exponential series (2.7182818...) the correlated expansion of volume requires a progressively greater quantity of energy to constitute lesser density. Without theoretically establishing a minimum density bound, realistically, energy expanding infinitely to ever lower density would 'use up all the energy'. There would be no 'Mass'. Best wishes jrc

jrc,

Then where would the mass originate, if the energy didn't eventually coalesce into form? I realize it doesn't actually go to infinity, but the general direction. Just as mass doesn't go to pure equilibrium, but to the edge of the eye of the cosmic storms, that are the black holes at the center. I think once we add up all the energy radiated out and then shot out the poles, nothing is left to actually fall into some other dimension. The combination being a cosmic convection cycle. Feedback between the processes and patterns generated.

My issue with time is posted further up the thread; That we codify the narrative past to future perception of change, turning future to past, by treating it as measures of duration, without acknowledging what is measured, action, is more elemental than the measure, duration. Duration is this physical state, as the events come and go, future to past. Potential, actual, residual.

There is a further issue I have with Big Bang Cosmology, in that I suspect the redshift is an optical effect and we are sampling a multi-spectrum wave front, not individual photons traveling billions of lightyears, so that cosmic background radiation is the light of ever more distant sources, shifted off the visible spectrum. The solution to Olber's paradox. Waiting on the James Webb to see what the observations show.

https://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristov_WaveMotion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf

Joe,

As Emerson put it; "We are but thickened light."

What each of us perceives in that light is different.

JB Merryman,

Pardon my posting in this manner, I'll limit my usage as its a bit indulgent. It's simply that I had to get a new cheap laptop that is so overloaded by the Win10 OS that I don't use it if it requires 'creating an account', so if I can spout off in the "read article" box then I'm okay. And really, if my two cents were going to make me rich, I wouldn't be here anyway. So I'm fair game.

There have been a number of well formed comments in this topic, I liked Lorraine's concise observations and agree that however incomplete, our scientific achievements indicate that we are doing something right. Your own, Georgina's and Eckard's questioning conventional wisdom on the Cosmic Background Radiation and the limitations of observability of the universe have merit. But honestly, I am not sufficiently well versed in either the cross disciplinary theories and advanced mathematics, to weigh in.

What I'd kind of like to know is if you have given much thought to how in the cyclic equilibrium you perceive, that any physical relationships naturally exist which would limit energy coalescing into a finite range of mass accumulation in the general gravitational reference? And if so, how limited by comparison? cordially, jrc

Fair enough JB,

the only thing heretical about you is that you don't do math, and as short as I am on math I'm in no position to chastise. But given the premise that an energy abundant universe compels Condensed Matter Physics, with its cookbook of Classical, Quantum and Relativistic recipes in application to materials and process engineering, experimentation and protocol criteria as well as the search theoretically for a Grand Unified Theory ---

... why is the coalescence of energy confined to such a small range of quantity assuming so few specific and apparently optimal size material particles, and only very tiny ones at that? Any thoughts? :) jrc

jrc,

Math has to be taken in context. Epicycles really were brilliant math and likely contributed significantly to geometry, but the crystalline spheres, as a one to one physical correspondence, were lousy physics and that one to one correspondence is back in vogue today. Spacetime is assumed to be a one to one physical correspondence with the math of Relativity. Math is mapping and modeling, yet some(many) buy into the notion it is somehow "reading the mind of God," as the basis of reality, not a mapping of our perceptions of it.

Your question really has two parts; Why is there anything? And; Why is there what there is?

I can make some conceptual observations about the first, such as it is feedback between processes and the pattern arising from these processes. For example, life is a process, individual organisms are the patterns arising. Process goes past to future, while the particular patterns go future to past.

The second question requires far more examination of these processes and patterns and that requires a lifetime of dedication and in the company of others.

I don't claim to be a scientist. I just think the science ought to be able to answer basic questions, such as whether time is truly a dimension, aka "duration," along which the events exist and our position is subjective, or is it the dynamic of these events rising and falling?

Or how can one argue that "space" expands, when both the evidence and the logic assume this expansion is still relative to a static speed of light? REDSHIFT!!! Hello? That makes the speed the denominator!!!

How can you build complex conceptual structures on such logical mush and expect the result not to be more complex mush. GIGO.

I give credit, where credit is due.

As for the predictiveness of these theories, epicycles were extremely effective in predicting celestial configurations, such as eclipses years in advance.

Callender calls atomic time the time of physics and he callsmemory decay time subjective psychological time. I agree that time does indeed have these two dimensions. There is an objective atomic time in the ticks of the Cs-133 atom resonance at 9.2 GHz and a subjective memory decay time that ticks at the mind's lowest EEG delta frequency of ~1.6 Hz.

We call the decay between precursor and outcome memories subjective time because memory decay is unique to each person and our memories and therefore time can change with circumstances. So in a very true sense, there are two dimensions to time and both emerge from discrete event changes. Quantum phase decay is an objective time just as atomic time and these two represent a two dimensional time that appears in many scientific measurements.

Matter and action are the only two true constants in the universe and for every outcome in the universe, there are precursors. Time emerges from the change between a precursor and its outcome. Science assumes that phase decay time necessarily occurs in atomic time ticks, but a pulsed universe gives a universal decay time. Therefore, every precursor in a pulsed universe is subject to this universal decay time that then defines the precursor outcome. It is the action of universal decay between a precursor and outcome that is what we call time and also gravity. This means that atomic time actually evolves in the context of universe decay time and this atomic time evolution between precursor and outcome at the atom scale is charge.

Steve,

Just because everything is connected, doesn't mean all of reality is singular, just networked. Yes, there are more elemental states and to the extent they are composed identically, they function at identical rates. That is the ground, the absolute. It is the relationship between the absolute and the infinite on which the tension between mass and energy functions. Time is an effect of this dynamic. There is't one true time like there isn't one true temperature. There is a temperature of absolute zero, so absolute time would be zero, as well. An inert present. Atomic clocks vary, according to gravitational effects. Action is contextual. A pure action, thus rate of change, without context, would be contradictory.

Nodes and networks. Even when they assume the entire universe is one node, they end up proposing a network of multiverses, because the singular is an entity and an entity needs a process to produce it.

In the context of time dependent decay, and then saying that time emerges from that decay rate, why is it that in this observer preferred manipulation of putting in by hand an earth based time interval, do its proponents always neglect to include radiological decay in the arguments about atomic resonance? It remains, that the only referrnece for time anywhere is somewhere between nil and light velocity. Like it or not, if the reality was that gravity simply dampens atomic resonance (of a cessium atomic clock) then that dampening should also be evident in radiological decay rate of Plutonium 239 powering deep space probes three times longer than their earth based design life expectancy. And if that were true, how could the census estimate of radioisotopes in the aggregate Earth's inventory, have survived the eons of interstellar extremely low gravity to eventually become gravitationally bound in an accretion of building the planet in the first place? And if one's arguments of emergent time depend on how mass decays, then its incumbant on the argument to also quantitatively account for how mass accumulates to be in existance as a state from which to decay. And provide a mathematically consistent rationale of why energy accumulates into such a small range of very small mass quantities. jrc

Prof. Agnew, Steve,

Firstly, my respect for both the heritage and the legacy work at the Hanford Reservation. Few realize that the N Reactor was the only breeder the U.S. ever built that was the same design type as the RBMK 1000 series such as at Chernobyl.

Quite apart from any differences on the subject of the nature of time, could you please clarify nomenclature of 'matter decay'. Not in academic terms, but as you might explain it to educated friends and associates whom though not in physics, know that matter as it is commonly referred to is made up of molecules of elemental isotopes and that atoms are comprised of sub-atomic particles. E=mc^2 is a bounded equality but provides no proportionality constant to differentiate a physical property that could be termed 'matter' as a state, regardless of any specified quantity. What is Matter? In what manner do you characterize it to decay? As a degradation of the physical property itself, or as an exponential decay over distance of intensity or influence of gravitation, magnetic and electrostatic response associated with it? JRC

I keep rereading comments and this article, and recollecting past dialogues, and can't help finding more agreement generally that what first would appear. Everyone uses surprisingly different words and turns of phrase to present remarkably similar if nuanced ideas. Yet historically it seems, humans never agree about Time, it is instinctively too precious and personal to each of us. If Time is physically real, then what we call emergent is really a particular manifestation and perhaps a distinction can be drawn between *emergence* and *transcendence*. Time seems manifest in many ways. I looked up the first post I made to the fqxi forum 6/7/13, topic/969#post_75736 and remember then thinking I was probably way out in left field, but I've learned much since then and much of how others think and how broad the mainstream really is. Whatever Physics and physicists do, I think Time will survive. :-) jrc

Well, Joe,

fortunately for humanity there safety of nuclear waste at Hanford is not entrusted to you.