Can Time Be Saved From Physics?

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

Actually, I am amazed by how much is known and yet misinterpreted...I agree that most of current science is ad hoc and highly patched, but it still works very well...at least to 0.26 ppb/yr.

You are very correct in your cynicism of quantum and gravity equations. They both were simply adopted by science because they worked and gravity still does not work with quantum, but so what else is new?

Classical hard particles are, as you know, really not possible and there must be soft edges to all particles. Quantum gives soft edges to all particles, but the cost is superposition and entanglement, which complicate our lives.

What quantum gravity gives us is a very, very large number of low energy states that current science does not know what to do with. Okay. As soon as science can measure the decay of 0.26 ppb/yr, matter time will be the bee's knees and so we simply wait for more precision...

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.

Among the many,many things that Einstein never said, was that the passage of time is not real.

What he said was that time is relative to where the observer is, and how fast she is tavelling.

Think locality.

1.That there is signal transmission duration is factual. (Affecting 'when' of receipt) 2.That there is change to the configuration of material existence happening is also factual. 1.and 2. are not the same.

1. is relevant to sight and hearing, sonar, radar and radio and television, measurements from observation including astronomy. 2. is relevant to changes to and of atoms, the particles they are composed of, and of materials and objects composed of particles, chemistry and materials science. Relevant to change, including motion, happening unobserved.

Have you seen ' Richard Hammond's Invisible Worlds" - BBC One?

Also-the seen product of vision is not the see-able (visible) source external to the observer.

What is seen is a product of the individual observer's visual sensory system. Having a visual system helps navigation through external materially existent reality, assisting avoidance of predators and location of resources. I expect that for most people relating to the seen image as if it is the external reality is not difficult. Problems with the visual system make it more obvious that the images seen are not independently existing.

'existent existing now:' Cambridge English dictionary

Physics studies our experience of the universe. But the universe is not made of experience. It is made of stuff or substance. The universe is a logical system which means it was created from logic and operates according to logic.

This logical system allows only one type of substance and only one type of cause in order to operate logically. This means that at the most fundamental level, these operations are essentially logical; the very reason mathematics are so efficient.

Now take an unknown and a known. Unknown = time. Known = clock. The clock reacts or 'operates' with Time. For a logical operation to occur between the two, they both must be of the same nature. Conclusion: 1) the clock is made of time, albeit a complex form of it. 2) Time is the unique stuff or substance in its most simple state.

Since it makes everything, it would be impossible to detect directly or 'empirically'. Can infer its existence only from secondary inferences.

You have Dark Matter. We swim in it and are made of it. Only our minds can grasp that...

Finally, we do not perceive (human) Time directly as an experience because it is a substance. The sense of Time is a deduction we make from the experience of change. If any of our sensory organ could detect time, that organ would be saturated because time is everywhere...

Marcel-Marie,

"Finally, we do not perceive (human) Time directly as an experience because it is a substance. The sense of Time is a deduction we make from the experience of change. If any of our sensory organ could detect time, that organ would be saturated because time is everywhere... "

That pretty well summarizes my view from a conference paper and PowerPoint of 2007:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275521377_Time_Change_Self_Organization

Dear all,

My essay "Cusanus - Still Relevant in Physics?" is still unfinished. I nonetheless attach a link to it, and apologize if I will be unable to participate in discussions at least for a few weaks to come.

EckardAttachment #1: Cusanus.docx