Can Time Be Saved From Physics?

Georgina,

That would go to time being an effect, like temperature and pressure. Both of which exist in many different ways. Much like binary terms can be applied to many different situations; on/off, good/bad, in/out, etc.

Most specifically, it is a measure of duration, yet as I keep pointing out, duration is this present state, as the defining events coalesce and dissolve. What makes them all different is the energy involved. Be it a clock mechanically ticking, the earth turning on its axis, the emotions involved, when we are bored, versus entertained.

The only problem is when we associate all the masses of dynamics going on around us, to this apparent sequencing of events and try incorporating them into a singular narrative flow, rather than a universe of activities, all with their own dynamics.

Georgina, John,

Only https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolaus_von_Kues provides the essential deatails in 3.7 Naturphilosophy, missing in the en version.

Supersede means replace something oldfashioned. Being just a little bit aware of newfashioned interpretations by Hubble,Gamov, Penzias, and Wilson, I don't exclude that Cusanus was correct when he imagined the universe extending beyond the observable part of it. Creationists are believing in a creator, the word nature means something that was born. When I am questioning Maxwell's medium, I feel reminded of de Guericke's experimentia de spatio vacuuo. Does energy flow really always need a carrier if there are no known carrier of electric and magnetic fields?

John, while "center of our point" sounds silly to me, I largely appreciate your reasoning.

Eckard

Hi Eckard, the observable universe is the output of processing electromagnetic radiation. If you are talking about the observable, what is observable depends on where the observer is located within the material universe. There are therefore potentially vast numbers of different observable universes each pertaining to a differently located observer. Our observable universe does not extend beyond what is for us an event horizon, called the cosmic background radiation.The extent of the material universe existing can not be detected.

Energy does need to have a carrier. I think of all energy as change (or potential for change). So something has to be changing (or have potential for change). Flux has to be within something as there is no difference in nothing.

My prediction is the James Webb will discover the background radiation to be light of ever further sources, shifted off the visible spectrum. Essentially the solution to Olber's Paradox.

Idea holography the time. Perhaps time can be expressed as

[math]$$ t=\frac{Gh}{c^4}\int\frac{dS}{r} $$[/math]

Where S is the entropy of entanglement of an arbitrary closed surface. r is the radius to the surface point. Integration over a closed surface.

This is very similar to the analogy. Time behaves as a potential, and entropy as a charge.

From this formula there are several possible consequences.

1.Bekenstein Hawking entropy for the event horizon. Light cone case

[math]$$ r=ct $$[/math]

[math]$$ S=\frac{c^3}{Gh}r^2$$[/math]

2.Gravitational time dilation. The case if matter inside a closed surface processes information at the quantum level according to the Margolis-Livitin theorem.

[math]$$ dI=\frac{dMc^2 t}{h} $$[/math]

[math]$$ \Delta t=\frac{Gh}{c^4}\int\frac{dI}{r}=t\frac{GM}{c^2r}$$[/math]

3.The formula is invariant under Lorentz transformations.

4.If this definition is substituted instead of time, then the interval acquires a different look, which probably indicates a different approach of the Minkowski pseudometric with a complex plane

[math]$$ s^2=(l^2_{p}\frac{S}{r})^2-r^2 $$[/math]

Where is the squared length of Planck

[math]$$ l^2_{p}=\frac{Gh}{c^3} $$[/math]

Quantum tunneling of noncommutative geometry gives the definition of time in the form of holography, that is, in the form of a closed surface integral.

Ultimately, the holography of time shows the dualism between quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity.

[math]$$ t=\frac{Gh}{c^4}\int\frac{dS}{r} $$[/math]

From here, the definition of time is obtained, as the ratio of the entropy at the boundary of the sphere to its radius. This is the definition of arising time. Where the entropy at the boundary of the sphere should be considered as entropy of entanglement between the boundary of the sphere and the point inside, where the moment of time is determined.In general, the resulting time will be as a closed surface integral. In this form, you can come to the general formula for any closed arbitrary surface.In this formula, time is determined at a certain point, where a closed surface is taken around through the integral of entropy of entanglement on a given surface

https://osf.io/8nzwd/download

https://frenxiv.org/3muny/download

Holography the timeAttachment #1: dualism_1.pdfAttachment #2: Quantum_tunneling_approach_of_noncommutative_geometry.docx

Holography the time. Perhaps time can be expressed as

[math]$$ t=\frac{Gh}{c^4}\int\frac{dS}{r} $$[/math]

Where S is the entropy of entanglement of an arbitrary closed surface. r is the radius to the surface point. Integration over a closed surface.

Quantum tunneling of noncommutative geometry gives the definition of time in the form of holography, that is, in the form of a closed surface integral. Ultimately, the holography of time shows the dualism between quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity.Attachment #1: 2_Quantum_tunneling_approach_of_noncommutative_geometry.docx

Fundamental levels of reality do not have the wherewithal to analyse and recognise large- or small-scale patterns in the world. You need living things, with their ability to algorithmically analyse and collate information, to recognise patterns; and only human beings conceptualise history and large-scale time and space, and only human beings write poetry and prose.

But, in one sense, this history, poetry and prose is only the surface of reality. Using our human ability to manipulate objects, and our ability to algorithmically analyse and collate information, physics studies what underlies our everyday reality. They have found that fundamental levels of reality can seemingly only recognise relatively simple relationship and change: i.e. physics' equations represent relatively simple relationship and change.

The precise concepts and equations of physics, which represent a relatively simple underlying reality, has allowed us to send exploratory vehicles into "space": which indicates that physics is pretty-well correct, though not complete or perfect.

(continued)

Physics debates whether or not, at a fundamental level, a simple time exists in relatively-simple relationship to other simple aspects of reality. They have found that, unless you want to complexify the situation, a simple type of time probably doesn't exist. I.e. a time "dimension" probably doesn't exist as a foundational aspect of reality, and the underlying relatively-simple time must have been derived from other simple aspects of reality.

What is not so debatable is that "recognition of change" exists in the underlying reality: i.e. the equations of physics represent change (of number) with the delta symbol. Clearly, quantum events are a source of number change, but it is not clear that there are any other factors causing number change. It may be that quantum events are the only source of number change in the universe. I.e. it may be that quantum events are the source of a relatively-simple sense of time, a relatively-simple "recognition of change", a relatively-simple aspect of reality that can be represented as a relatively-simple equation.

Eckard,

I'm a little surprised that nobody rose to your bait in debate on the argument of Cusanas, neutral centrality, Maxwell and the always ambiguous 'luminiferous aether'. All good points, especially with the number of unsolved mysteries of the classical age that have been subsumed by Quantum Mechanics.

I dug out an old (falling apart at the seams, actually) book by Isaac Assimov, still one of the most readable of introductory authors; and refreshed on his account of the state of the art in the mid to late 1800"s. The wave theory of light was prevalent but had many problems. While detected effects displayed a transverse wave signature, transverse waves were known to be limited to being conducted through solids or along liquid surfaces, while longitudinal waves could be conducted by materials in any state, whether solid, liquid or gaseous. So for energy to be transfered via a transverse wave required that an 'aether' be an extremely tenuous gaseous substance yet have a rigidity greater than steel. So, in todays' theoretical venue it is quite appropriate to ask if it requires a medium to transfer energy. And if I may make a pun; 'the medium is the message', that is to say that a quantity of inertially bound medium (energy) can be the discrete carrier of energy transfer. Though that itself raises the ontological question of Time and Space, just as does QM.

The problem with Time and Space being emergent from simple change of positions, conveniently ignores that there is no reference of distance traveled by any nondescript particle in that change of position. Yet QM arbitrarily conducts that analysis in a preconditioned co-ordinate system. And simply arguing causality only adds to that contradiction. So by default, the advantage goes to Time and Space being physically, if not materially, real.

Personally, I subscribe to a hypothesis that density varies in direct inverse proportion to velocity, acting progressively upon and from an upper density bound. This argues for a quality of Time being uniform, at least in the confines of a constant density region of an inertially bound quantity of energy. After all, if it is the same moment in time at every point in a constant density region, then there is no problem if that rest mass is truly at rest. But the least movement will require the density to relate to different points within its constant density boundary. Very much like putting a finger on a flake of cigarette ash on a page of paper, and smudging it with a swipe of the finger. We just don't know how fast time is going at one second per second, we can only calibrate it to our own reckoning of 'one second'.

So I have no problem with Time having qualities of both Classical and Relativistic properties. It is we whom complicate what would be simple for nature, by deconstructing it in any attempt to analyse. In reality, nature would not geometerix space into a cube or a sphere, but we can analyse the contrary properties of Space as a cube being the most efficient filler of space, like a Cartesian referrence system; and a sphere being the most efficient encapsulation of space. Nature would be doing both in one fell swoop. So Space would need Time, neither would exist alnoe.

oops, that anon was me, jrc

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.