Can Time Be Saved From Physics?

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...

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

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