Can Time Be Saved From Physics?

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

Just a brief continuationAttachment #1: Cusanus_vs_SR.docx

John R. Cox,

re:quantum gravity

The concept of spacetime is a bridge between the universe and our reality. Space in our reality is time in the universe out there. The concept is necessary for us in order to be able to keep doing physics. The universe does not have this requirement and therefore it has no use for 'space'. I other words, 'space' plays no part in the working of the universe.

Gravity is time evolving at a diferent rate from place to place. Now, let's go quantum.

1) Time and probabilities:

The cloud of probability of a single free particle in a gravitational field does spans over different rates of time. The cloud is therefore skewed vertically because the particle does spend relatively more time at the bottom than at the top of the cloud. Easy for the mind to grasp. Probability is time dependent and time is running at a different rate in gravity which brings different probability of existence a.k.a. motion. The universality of the effect of gravity commes from its effect on anything that 'exists', irrespective of size, mass etc.

O.K, where do I get 'existence' from?

2) From "finding' to 'being' or 'existence':

The probability of finding a particle in A, as successfully described by shroedinger equation, is equal to the probability of existence of that particle in A. Once the equation is proven exact, we may replace the 'finding' by the 'being' or existence of the particle. The particle MUST BE there with the same (relative) probability as that of being found!!

This conversion from a physical to a metaphysical perspective is necessary in order to understand the universe without us being in the way. Very useful if we are careful.

In conclusion, quantum gravity is simple if we assume this metaphysical perspective, and Shroedinger's equation actually tells us what determines the probability of existence of a particle in a place. Look it up, knowing that the rate of time is 1 on T.

The universe is NOT a big thing. The universe is just a BIG picture we create with our perception and conscious minds. WE are the camera that makes the picture. We integrate the light signals like a camera does.

(The Sun 8 minutes away can be seen at the same time as the Moon half a second away. The simultaneity of perception of their light signals does not mean that they exist at the same time i.e. simultaneity of existence. Only integration over time gives this impression).

So, yes! Our universe is a big picture essentially coming from the VISIBLE information.

Other than that, IMO, there is nothing else with eternal surfaces, or eternity, or infinite surfaces, infinite dimensions, or other combinations of same etc.

A video shows George Smoot who got a Nobel prize in 2006. In "Mapping the University and its History" he presented not just a lot of simulations without fully revealing the assumptions behind them but also an interesting to me measured picture of the stars with very high resolution and said just three of the many visible light spots are stars, the many other ones are galaxies because the look like spirals or at least elliptic.

I hope that John Merryman can better explain to me the CMBR event horizon and how it explains the age of the observable universe. I am still a bit familiar with microwave measurement.

Eckard

A clock is as material device that generates events with regular intervals between. It counts or provides the means for the number of generated events to be counted. It thereby enables quantification of endurance of features of material reality, existence, or changes to material reality by comparison of the subject of inquiry and the number of generated clock events. E.g. How many clock events does it take for all of the cookies to be removed from this jar when given to the class. The measured enduring features and changes are of the spatial arrangement of uni-temporal material reality. The clock is also a material thing in uni-temporal space, with changing spatial arrangement of parts enabling 'time keeping' i,e, calibrated event generation,(counted or countable), for comparison.

Very good! A clock makes very regular events and events are things that happen to matter. In other words, time emerges from things that happen and time is not then a separate substance...

Thanks. I didn't make clear that not only is the clock generated event, such as a mechanical tick, a particular change of spatial arrangement of parts, but the intervals between correspond to a particular regular change of the spatial arrangement of the apparatus; Such as the swing of a pendulum or particular motion of a spring driven wheel. 'Interval' sounds temporal but can be appreciated as corresponding to changing spatial configurations of matter, when clocks are being considered.

Re,"A clock is as material device that generates events with regular intervals between. It counts or provides the means for the number of generated events to be counted."GW This simple explanation is further complicated by the fact that it is not usually the clock generated events, e.g. 'ticks', that are counted by an observer (but could be). Instead the clock apparatus is calibrated so that a certain amount of such events corresponds to movement of pointers on a standard 'time' scale or change of digital output showing change corresponding to the 'time' scale. This calibration of the apparatus allows comparison of measurements made with different 'time' pieces, I.e. standardization. The standardization by calibration to a common scale does not fundamentally alter how the clock functions.

So time emerges from the outcomes of a clock and time does not exist without outcomes...

Steve A., What is happening when timing is one series of regular calibrated events is being compared with another sequence of events, either the persistence of something or a sequence of change. The clock and 'timed' i.e. compared, sequences do not exist in isolation but as parts of the changing entirety of existence. Just considering foundational time: each unique entire configuration of simultaneously existing material reality can be considered as a time. The configuration, pattern, arrangement is a spatial distribution of existent things though. Foundational passage of time can be considered the changing configuration, only the youngest version, Uni-temporal Now, existing. That is the only existent 'time', not made of time but a material configuration given a temporal designation.

In Quantum Mechanics, time emerges from measurement rather than time 'being' in the first place. This is due entirely to the methodology which is dependent on the Schrodinger Wave Equation which itself lacks a time parameter. The time span is in practice assigned by the experimenter and is based on the convention of duration as predicated on Earth's rotational observation. Theoretically, time is therefore treated as an emergent phenomenon, however discretionary.

It may be useful to employ the word "timing' for comparison of an event or persisting phenomenon with the calibrated sequence of events generated by a timing device. Expressed as a timing span over which the comparison is made; rather than a time span.

Analogy for measuring a time span: measuring the length of a fuse from the burning end as it burns. Then giving the length of the entire fuse from start to end of burn. (The fuse has burned away and does not have that length.) When the final clock'time' comparison is made preceding 'times' have ceased to be.

Anonymous, do you think the scale used for time on Earth is problematic? Intelligent 'time-telling' life from other star systems would likely use a scale appropriate to their experience. If communication about foundational time was happening between the Earth's human's and extraterrestrials elsewhere then a common scale based on a regular cycle experienced in both habitats would be useful. Overcoming the need for conversion from one scale to another each time. Maybe a cycle based on the chemistry of an abundant element, would suffice.

Dear Georgina,

The only fact the physicists have ever proven am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before any humanly devised time-piece ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface. Please understand that a sundial (which has a real VISIBLE surface) can be placed anywhere on the Earth's real VISIBLE surface. Let us suppose that the sundial am removed and a Swiss made grandfather clock (which has a real VISIBLE surface) replaces it. Years pass, then scientists (all of whom have real VISIBLE surfaces) put an atomic clock (which has a real VISIBLE surface) in the same place the two previous man made timepieces were positioned in. There would be no rational way any finite duration of invisible time could really be recorded. The only thing that would happen would be the scientists would be able to produce an endless record of utterly useless numbers.

Joe Fisher, Sensible Realist

Georgi,

interesting way to pose that conundrum. I would have to go with radiological half-lives as a standardization metric based on the evidence available from direct observation. While the available census does support a constant rate of decay regardless of strength (or perhaps depth would be a more practical characterization) of an isotopes location in a gravitational field, that census also supports the Big Bang interpretation. And of course, QM and GR are at odds. I think the horns of the dilemma grow from an incomplete understanding at inception of both disciplines. GR is incomplete largely due to the choice of maths being a tensor variant of The Calculus which limits at finity, and the lack of a postulated upper and lower density bound. While in the other camp, Planck's Constant remains without rationalization and a Time parameter is lacking in both Bohr's Quantum Leap and the Wave Equation which Schrodinger constructed to fit Bohr's approximation of Bunsen and Kirchoff's observed spectral lines . Both theoretical methods work very well to a large degree, so generally that satisfies most practitioners. But it also highlights that the fact remaining is a lack of observational capability of (1) the event horizon, and (2) the Transition Zone of the reception of an EM (quantity) photon. So while it is evident that half-lives must be fairly constant across the range of gravitational field strengths in the general gravitational reference, or there would not be the estimable census of radiological isotopes surviving in the earth's rocky planet inventory, it cannot be said factually that half-lives do not vary to some small degree dependent on proximity to gravitational influence.

I see very well where you are going with this, and would concur that in the context of both SR and GR that it should still be possible to define a particle such that a real absolute velocity value could be theoretically obtained as a covariant function of velocity on the density and shape of a particle in direction of its motion. Observation would none the less, still be a calculable invariant transform from one assigned rest reference towards (or onto) the other relative objective change of position. Best I can do at present, :) jrc

In quantum mechanics, time and space both emerge from measurement rather than time or space 'being' in the first place. This is due entirely to the methodology which is dependent on the discrete Schrödinger wave equation, which itself lacks time and space with pure matter action. The time intervals and spatial lengths are in practice assigned by the experimenter and are based on the convention of radius and duration Earth's rotation period. Theoretically, time and space are therefore emergent phenomena and do not exist independent of matter action.

There is a second dimension to time in the rate of change of the universe. This much slower time affects all matter action and even black holes are subject to universe time. However, atomic time and space have no meaning in black holes.

John, the co-ordination of clock time for distant locations is a different subject to what would be a good common scale for use at different star system locations for comparison with local happening or duration and sharing that locally obtained knowledge with the other star system's intelligent 'time-telling' life forms. That is just like choosing pounds or kilograms, cm.s or inches, Fahrenheit or Celsius. I was thinking lithium is pretty prevalent and oxygen too, so maybe the scale could be based on the lithium flame. Not useful if a rare element is chosen that one of the involved planets might not have