Can Time Be Saved From Physics?

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

jrc,

I certainly admit to my own limits, so I'm not sure of your references. What I would guess is that as this gravitational contraction seems to be the opposite of radiant expansion, we should consider gravity as not so much a property of mass, but mass as an effect and part of this range of contraction. That every interaction, measurement, bound crossing, anything which might be conducive to producing form, is part of this spectrum of contraction, even photons coalescing out of fields. So that the effect attributed to dark matter is not due to some missing mass, as it is the effect of contraction and attraction across the entire spectrum.

Anytime energy coalesces, it takes up less space and anytime the form breaks down and releases energy, it takes up more space. So it can be geometrically described in terms of the space expanding/contracting, especially if one has dismissed space as an artifact of measurement.

Yet because energy that hasn't coalesced into a measurable unit can't be measured, than it is presumed not to exist. Consider Eric Stanley Reiter's entry in the questioning the Foundations contest of 2012;

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1344

Here is an essay I posted on medium a few weeks ago;

https://medium.com/@johnbrodixmerrymanjr/the-confessions-of-a-cosmic-heretic-5cd4c044b8ea?source=friends_link&sk=4a99967885aa68b3a7a14db68e96ed64

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.

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.

Reality is not singular, but reality is discrete and as you say, outcomes connected to precursors. The universe is finite in extent and in divisibility and so there are no infinities or infinitesimals. Matter and action are the two primitive dimensions and so it is action and not energy that make up reality. Time simply emerges from the changes that occur and has no independent existence.

There is a temperature of absolute zero, but it is not possible to ever realize T=0 since there is always action. Both time and temperature are convenient objective metrics of the world that people can agree how to measure. Atomic clocks do vary, but the universe decay time is absolute. Action is not rate of change but rather is the product of matter and time or matter and displacement. In other words, both time and space emerge from matter action, not the other way around.

It is pure action than exists, not time or temperature...and remember, energy is simply matter by Einstein's proportionality and does not have a separate existence. There are actually no singularities in the universe, only at its boundaries where they belong, Black holes are simply a manifestation of matter action and do not exist in space time.

Steve,

It is commendable for any professional to clearly differentiate one's responsibilities in maintaining best practices, from any personal pursuit of purely hypothetical theorizing. So while I might disagree with your primary premise, I recognize your prerogative to attempt rationalization of the QM paradigm. And I would not fault anyone for following their mathematical results even if it conflicts with consistent observation that the universe is not shrinking.

However, it is not true to say or assume that "energy is simply matter by Einstein's proportionality". You may theoretically associate energy with matter, but E=mc^2 doesn't differentiate matter from either energy or mass. Mass is simply a masse of energy until a unit quantity specific to a unit volume is determined which would exhibit the characteristics associated with the physical property of matter.

I do agree that electric charge is a constituent characteristic of matter, but it is not the sole criteria of that property. Charge is one of those Energizer Bunnies that were bred in the classical era under the Newtonian Regime which we still know only by name. Positive and Negative have no physical meaning other than through interactive operation and by original arbitrary assignment. A general definition of Charge is long overdue and regardless of whether any theory holds up in entirety, any theory which produces a viable definition of Charge would be well worth the effort. cordially jrc

The universe decay occurs on the universe scale, nuclear decay occurs on the nuclear scale and atom decay occurs on the atom scale. These are completely consistent decays, just different from space and time. The weak nuclear force is how nuclear forces couple with charge.

Matter decay is in some sense so ubiquitous that we overlook it. The earth spin slows down, the moon's orbit expands due to matter decay, the IPK kg standard decays, pulses all decay, and atomic clocks dephase from each other...all the the same rate of 0.26 ppl/yr.

Stars all decay by radiation, galaxies all decay into black holes, and black holes are the endpoint of all matter. The collapse and decay of matter is all around us and yet science claims that the universe expands and does not decay. The reason is that force or action grows at the same rate as matter collapses and so science has the illusion of deep space and the CMB as expansion when it is actually collapsing.

Matter along with action are primal beliefs about the universe that simply are the way the universe is. Energy is just a different measure of matter and space and time both emerge from matter action.

One of the more interesting intrinsic decays is that of the neutron star pulsar, which not only ticks like an atomic clock but also decays. Pulsar decays include gravity wave radiation, but there is also the intrinsic decay of 0.26 ppl/yr, which is unexplained...except of course for mattertime.

The matter action causal set is so sweet since it unites gravity and charge with photon exchange. Charge is due to single photon exchange at the atom scale while gravity is due to biiphoton exchange at the universe scale.