Can Time Be Saved From Physics?

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.

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.

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.

The same evidence that the universe expands is also, strangely enough, consistent with matter collapse. This is because as mass collapses, that action is the source of force and means that force grows in concert with matter collapse.

Force growth along with matter collapse red shifts galaxy light and shrinks the universe. Of course, this is completely consistent with QM and with quantum gravity as well. The shrinking universe means that a single black hole is the destiny of the universe and the start of a new antiverse expansion of antimatter in antitime. We of course are in the universe collapse of matter in atomic time.

Electric charge is simply a manifestation of quantum phase at the atom scale, Gravity is a manifestion of quantum phase at the cosmic scale...how simple is that?

Steve,

Pardon my posting this way instead of logging in, lot's of reasons including some(thing)body getting my email address and wanting me to buy a new bathroom, meaning its hunting my bank routing number.

We aren't going to agree, of course, but so what? But we have similar conceptual issues. In a sense I agree that matter decay is the source of force, but I treat it as attenuation of density rather than decay. I can get my head around Black Holes being where mass:energy goes to die, and I don't think that *information* is so exclusive that there can't be more of the same to be generated in natural course.

I had read your 2017 FQXI contest essay which is half the length of most entries, so there would be much not addressed in that brief abstract. And Physics in general is one big measurement problem, so I'll let the arguments rest with you about a collapsing universe. I do see something of a similarity with Lorentz' model of an electron which he shelved as a work in progress in the explosive advent of Quantum Mechanics. I have long thought that he had been on the right track for developing a classical model of particulate matter. He found that the greater the value of charge, the smaller its radius of measure. Which of course goes to density. But as with General Relativity, there is no proposed hypothesis for predicting a proportionate upper density bound. And if you go global with that in aggregate of discrete matter:action, it isn't surprising that the resulting math would be a contracting spatial parameter. Over in the "Thermo Demonics" article I proposed a proportional density limit which I've had success with, it's in one of a number of anonymous posts that led up to a brief overview of my pet working model. So I'm am a little curious of what your reasoning was in proposing the c/alpha relationship, as a determinant of charge radius?

I have to be careful with 'phase' it can be two different things. An oscillation, or a state. - jrc

The point is...there is no time or space without matter actions. Am I wrong?

We are not going to agree...but discourse is what it is all about. Well...if you want to explain the universe, the c/alpha is constant has to be. Of course, what I was going for is that c * alpha would be constant, but that did not work out. However, I found that (c*alpha)^2 could still be constant if phase was a parameter.

Quantum phase is certainly not something that we think of often, but is an important part of reality. It is ironic that the decay of the universe is what makes reality work the way that it does. This simply makes sense...

Thanks Steve,

I'm still real fuzzy but its worth trying to understand how others tackle issues. I'm often struck by how little is actually known, and how much progress has been made with ad hoc measures that become a standard operating procedure. The Schrodinger Wave Equation fit with the Bohr model quantum leap, and ever since everyone says "Wow! how did He come up with that? Where do the terms come from?". Pardon my cynicism but maybe they came from Schrodinger hunting around until he found terms and arrangements that would fit. It is a computational tool, it doesn't prove the Bohr assumption.It is quite possible that matter naturally assumes optimal quantities and shapes that emerge from the interaction of elemental isotopic matter quantities. The mass deficit has to be accounted for eventually.

In the frenzy of developments of the spin co-ordinate system, c/alpha made a good computational fit but Spin began with the failure of Newtonian Gravity in a classical model which assumed that the total mass of a nucleus and electron would exist at constant density as 'hard' particles. So there is a lot of room to revisit the many Classical unknowns which have become incorporated into the modern Quantum and Relativistic Standard Model. jrc