Can Time Be Saved From Physics?

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.

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

Steve,

I suspect the low energy states are physically just the residual. The current picture of quantum gravity reminds me of those old Lava Lamps that were all the rage a half century ago, and about as energy inefficient. Those things looked so cute and cuddly, people would get stoned and burn themselves very badly. ;-) jrc

Let's consider Time in a Bottle, otherwise called Quantum Gravity.

For simplicity analysis employs a spherical measure space for a single locality, it gets messy in aggregate. The mathematic properties of a sphere are few and simple. It is the most efficient encapsulation of space because the surface in any direction from zero point center is always the same distance. A uniform change in volume always follows the form of a factor 8 difference in volume corresponding with a factor 2 difference in radius (or diameter) along with a factor 4 difference in surface area. All very conveniently linear functions.

But introduce anything into that space to be encapsulated, and any perterbertive difference of any parameter is a change of the physical properties of a sphere. And linearity is gone.

Distribution methods abound but follow two basic protocols, usually to account for density variation in accord with inverse square law. Tortuous algorithms of sphere packing use progressively smaller spheres to fill in the voids between spheres and some go to regions of overlap like little spherical Zenn diagrams with convoluted edges of shapes said to be dimensions so small they curl up on themselves. The other basic format is to employ the linear 2:8 radius to volume to average density in concentric spheres and sum quantity by integrating over those partial differentials, This, in the first iteration displays a ratio of quantity in density for volume that follows a linear progression... until the last interval where the ratio slope changes. Iterations of each interval of the first to refine energy quantity summation produces yet another pesky slope change in that last interval, and what emerges is the infamous "Wavicle" or wave model of matter. Analysis gives us wave particle duality by treating nonlinear physical space as a linear mathematical space.

There need not be any analytic linearity in the physical properties of a sphere, there is none physically anyway. Just let the change in volume be treated nonlinearly as well. jrc

John,

Isn't the encapsulation an artificial way of regarding 'empty'( of particulate matter) space? And the packing of the chosen shapes more so? It is not as if 'empty' space has a cellular structure. It doesn't have membranes separating parts of it. You said in an earlier post it could just as well be thought of as cubes (words to that effect, as I recall.) So what happens in the spaces between the packing of the largest spheres is academic rather than something physical. When you fill the spaces with smaller and smaller spheres you are introducing scale. But there is no difference between the space in the big spheres and the small. The separation and treatment is all academic rather than pertaining to the physically real.

Georgina,

I think I covered all that pretty clearly in my first paragraph, and you could make the same psychological arguments in the semantics of "enclosing" space. Pure geometry IS artificial. The point of distinguishing analytical from pure geometry was to demonstrate that it is the choice of maths in application which dictate profoundly different outcomes in analytical distribution (of density variation, as stated) from the geometric properties of a single, simple shape. I of course can be faulted for brevity in description of a couple principal methods of distribution, but the point was that methodology is much more limited in geometry than in the abstractions of mathematics at large. There are many whom enjoy extraordinarily complicated math and analytics, and make careers of it, and I'll leave it to them to argue the details.

As to a previous post, I made a point of it being conjecture. ie: that space and time are fundamentally physical and a dynamic of differing and indefinite scales is the origin of energy. And such conjuring can not be elevated to hypothesis because (in my book) a hypothesis must be testable. I'm going to leave the door open a bit for Fred Hoyle, he may have been at least some right. Hope this clarifies, :-) jrc

Since your arguments begin with a sphere volume, your apriori assumption is that space and time exist. Therefore, your arguments get mired in the spacetime tar baby that resists renormalization and therefore quantum gravity.

That is why a matter-action causal set offers nice alternative a priori assumptions from which time and space then emerge. Attached is an example of a Hasse diagram that shows the causal link between precursor CMB and stars to galaxy outcomes.

You can see more at Quantum Action Causal Set

There are lots of measurable decays: pulsar decays, black hole mergers, neutron star mergers, earth spin, earth moon orbit, Andromeda-Milky Way galaxy separation, Allan deviation decay of atomic clocks, IPK mass, and so on. In other words, decay is so common that it hardly matters that there is nothing that really seems constant.Attachment #1: cmbToStarsToGalaxies.JPG

Okay, okay Steve and Georgi,

my a priori conjecture is invalid, your"s is not.

I'll let my argument stand, Quantum Gravity is Time in a Bottle. If linear operations renormalizing (adjusting skew by introducing a time interval so that alignment is re-established with the preconceived initial condition of the normal line [analogous to a plumb line in a local gravitational reference]) protracted measures, were the answer to Quantum Mechanics' long quest to devise a gravitational rationale, one would have to think it would have happened by now. And why putting in that time interval demonstrates that time emerges from anywhere but your own hand, could only be conjecture. A nonlinear approach to unification of the primary forces in a spherical condensate would fit the bill, and it rests on only a conjecture that the primordial condition is a continuous field of energy. Which came first; Time, Space or Energy is moot, a chicken and egg salad sandwich.

Smile! maybe we'll be able to see each other through the fog. :-) jrc

Since time and space have not worked out very well for science, resolution is definitely not clear. What is there to measure?

What we have now is a Higg's field and energy equivalent to mass, but a continuum that cannot be quantized...and yet we know it must be quantized somehow.

That's fair, Steve. Einstein spent the last half of his life trying to conceive a unified field, and since then few have even tried. One has to think that if success were going to come from the equations of GR, it probably would have happened by now.

Stringy and loop quantum are the two big contenders, but neither has a measurable yet. Just watched a great Utube, Jim Baggott's Why Is Space Itself is Quantum In Nature. It was not that technical and he did a really good job on loop quantum, which I don't much like but has a large following of sorts.

What I like about both stringy and loopy theories is they are both different forms of finite aether particles and so theory does seem to be heading back to Newton's aether for gravity...