On The Flow of Time by George F R Ellis

Andy's question is based on the assumption there is a fundamental dimensional nature to time in which the entire universe potentially exists at the point of "now." Yet is seems time is a measurement issue and the rate of change can be affected. Do events co-exist? Obviously yes. Can it be clarified to a very small margin of error which particular events co-exist? Generally yes. Now the question is whether they can be coordinated to the proverbial moment. I think the question needs to first examine whether time is the fundamental dimension on which activity exists, or whether it is actually a measurement of this motion. In the second case, it's not really a valid question, since a dimensionless point of activity is no activity. 0=0. If on the other hand, time is a fundamental dimension, then we get back to the problem of measuring varied rates of motion and the whole fuzzy nature of relative time. In which case, the question can't be answered.

An objective perspective is an oxymoron, so there is no "bird's eye view," in Tegmark's terminology, of this block time dimension.

Dear Professon Ellis,

Thanks again for looking at my essay, "[link:www.mcanv.com/Now/The Nature of Now[/link/". I am still digesting the wealth of material in the references you provided. The essay, like the block universe, is still evolving.

Best Regards,

JDJ

Dear Professon Ellis,

Thanks again for looking at my essay, "The Nature of Now". I am still digesting the wealth of material in the references you provided. The essay, like the block universe, is still evolving.

Best Regards,

JDJ

Re: EINSTEIN'S ELEMENTARY FOUNDATIONS & SCHRODENGER'S CHARACTERISTIC TRAIT

Hello George,

I am re-reading a lot of the essays and I think yours is definitely one of the best! I agree with a lot of it.

You write, "Physics should be framed with this standpoint at its foundations, rather than being based on the view

that fundamental physics is time reversible." Yes! By weaving change into the fundamental fabric of space-time for the first time in the history of relativity with dx4/dt=ic, MDT provides the fundamental reason for time's irreversibility, time's arrows, and entropy--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions--not shrinking.

Yes! Physics must provide the elementary foundations of relativity, while also accounting for Schrodinger's characteristic trait of quantum mechanics, as well as the flow of time, entropy, and time's asymmetries and arrows on all levels, as Ellis suggests! Moving Dimensions Theory accomplishes all of this!

"A physical theory can be satisfactory only if its structures are composed of elementary foundations. The theory of relativity is ultimately as little satisfactory as, for example, classical thermodynamics was before Boltzmann had interpreted the entropy as probability. -Einstein in a letter to Arnold Sommerfield on January 14th, 1908. CPAE, Vol. 5, Doc. 73:"

"When two systems, of which we know the states by their respective representatives, enter into temporary physical interaction due to known forces between them, and when after a time of mutual influence the systems separate again, then they can no longer be described in the same way as before, viz. by endowing each of them with a representative of its own. I would not call that one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics, the one that enforces its entire departure from classical lines of thought. By the interaction the two representatives [the quantum states] have become entangled." ‐‐Schrödinger Moving Dimensions Theory's simple postulate, physical model, and equation account for both "relativity's elementary foundations," which Einstein stated we yet needed, and Schrödinger's "characteristic trait" of quantum mechanics--entanglement.

"Current theoretical physics suggests the flow of time is an illusion: the entire universe just is, with no special meaning attached to the present time. This paper points out that this view, in essence represented by usual space-time diagrams, is based on time-reversible microphysical laws, which fail to capture essential features of the time-irreversible nature of decoherence and the quantum measurement process, as well as macro-physical behaviour and the development of emergent complex systems, including life, which exist in the real universe." --George Ellis

MDT answers the above three *physical* calls to adventure with a *physical* model.

MDT: The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c, or dx4/dt=ic.

(please see attached paper for furthrr development of this)

In my FQXI essay I agree with you about time's irreversibility--at http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/238, I write: "Time's arrows are time's messengers, manifesters, and definers. Time, as measured by the ticking seconds on a clock, the melting of a snowman, the propagation of an electromagnetic wave, or the dissipation of a drop of food coloring throughout a pool, is an emergent phenomenon, which results because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, carrying energy in the form of matter rotated into the fourth expanding dimension. This principle, which naturally suggests time's radiative and entropic asymmetries, may also account for the preponderance of matter over anti-matter. The vast majority of matter sees the fourth dimension as expanding. While a central point that receives shrinking spherical waves from a spherically-symmetric emitter consisting of numerous point emitters can be imagined, such central points, or positrons, are unstable, and adversely-susceptible to small imperfections, perturbations, and asymmetries in the incoming waves of the fourth dimension.

The Radiative Arrow of Time: As photons surf the fourth expanding dimension, radiation is fundamentally denoted by expanding spherical wave-fronts, and not shrinking spherical wave-fronts. Two photons originating from a common origin will harbor a vast probability of being found at great distances from one-another one second later-distances far greater than the distance that separates them at their emission. Hence entropy. Entropy--Time's Thermodynamic Arrow: Consider two or more particles in close proximity. The fourth dimension is expanding as a spherical wave-front relative to the three spatial dimensions. Two particles in close initial proximity have a greater chance of moving further apart as opposed to closer together. All particles will have a probability of being caught in the fourth expanding dimension in proportion to their energy, and thus increased energy correlates with increased motion. Hence a drop of food coloring dropped in a swimming pool will dissipate and effectively never converge."

You're right in writing "Thus what is needed is a fundamental change of view: the default state in physics is not a time reversible flow of events with no distinguished present; it is an ongoing time irreversible flow with dramatically distinguished past, present, and future. There are some conditions where this is approximated well by a time reversible flow, where the present is not particularly different from the past and the future, but this is not the fundamental underlying situation, it is an emergent approximation that is only sometimes valid."

Yes--time is irreversible on all levels, but perhaps at the Planck length/Planck time, due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle--in my essay I write: http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/238 : "The Quantum Arrow of Time: The Copenhagen interpretation sees quantum evolution to be governed both by the Schrödinger equation, which is time-symmetric, and by the time-irreversible collapse of the wave function. Up until now, the mechanism of wave function collapse was philosophically obscure, but the current theory proposes that the wave function collapses as momenergy is removed from the fourth expanding dimension and localized, as when a photon is measured or localized as a blackened grain on a photographic plate. At quantum, microscopic distances, and as t approaches zero, there is still a probability that an emitted photon can yet be found at its origin--that it has not moved--and thus entropy's thermodynamic arrow is not as apparent, and time symmetry can appear intact in the quantum world in the realm of Planck times and distances. But as the fourth dimension expands at the rate of c, as t grows, so does entropy, thusly dominating time's arrows and our concept of time in the macroscopic world. Time travel to any significant degree is impossible because the fourth dimension never reaches deeper than Planck's length. One could only go back in time by Planck's time."

Moving Dimensions Theory also resolves Godel's problems with time, while also providing a model for QM's nonlocality, and entanglement--Schrodenger's "characteristic trait of QM"--and thus the EPR Paradox. "Conclusion & Moving Away From Godel's Block Universe:

In 1949 Godel published a paper showing that within the theory of relativity, time as we understand it does not exist. Einstein recognized Godel's paper as "an important contribution to the general theory of relativity." Since then, physicists have not been able to find any logical shortcomings in Godel's work, and nobody has quite been able to account for the existence of time, nor divorce relativity from a block universe. The current model accounts for time in both GR and QM by showing that it is not the fourth dimension, but that it is an emergent property of the underlying dimension's intrinsic relative movement. While we lose the eternal recurrence of a frozen past and future, we gain our free will, as well as a physical model that supports both GR and QM, as well as the time we perceive in this universe we inhabit. And so it is that "there is an inseparable connection" between time and light, as time naturally emerges from the physical expansion of the fourth dimension relative to the three spatial dimensions, and light, by which we measure time and distance, is but matter caught in the fourth expanding dimension."

In your conclusion you write, "The view proposed here is that spacetime is extending to the future as events develop along each world line in a way determined by the complex of causal interactions; these shape the future, including the very structure of spacetime itself, in a locally determined (pointwise) way. Spacetime is an Evolving Block Universe that continues evolving along every world line until it reaches its final state as an unchanging Final Block Universe."

I, and Moving Dimensions Theory, would argue that the past no longer exists in any physical manner--there is no block universe behind us. If there were a block universe behind us, then relativity would imply that it also had to exist ahead of us in certain frames, as relativity shows that ahead and behind are relative concepts.

In the final epoch of his life, Albert Einstein learned of the death of his old physicist friend Michele Besso. "He has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me," Einstein wrote, "That means nothing. For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubborn illusion." But we do not live in a block universe, as in his 1912 Manuscript Einstein stated that the fourth dimension x4 is not time, but it is ict--please see my FQXI essay. The past no longer exists.

In January 2009, Lee Smolin wrote "There is also no past. The past only lives as part of the present, to the extent that it gives us evidence of past events. And the future is not yet real, which means that it is open and full of possibilities, only a small set of which will be realized. Nor, on this view, is there any possibility of other universes. All that exists must be part of this universe, which we find ourselves in, at this moment."

--http://www.edge.org/q2009/q09_9.html

In January, 2007, I wrote, "Neither the future nor the past exists. Motion is inherent in the underlying four-dimensional space-time geometry, as the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Einstein noted that all objects are moving through space-time at the velocity c. This never changes. An object stationary in the three spatial dimensions is translating through the fourth dimension at the rate of c. An object stationary in the fourth dimension-a photon-is translating through the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c. Hence it is obvious that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. " --http://www.groupsrv.com/science/about204630.html

Hope all is well!

Best Regards from California,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)Attachment #1: physics66.pdfAttachment #2: ja_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken.jpg

Hello McGucken,

Thank you for explaining why Einstein denied the distinction between past and future and why people like you and Smolin are denying the past:

"If there were a block universe behind us, then relativity would imply that it also had to exist ahead of us in certain frames, as relativity shows that ahead and behind are relative concepts."

Obviously Einstein's theory of relativity does not relate to reality but to what he believed to an abstract structure 'deeply' behind it.

Shouldn't we at least humbly admit that even for tiny as well as for huge objects reality obviously differs from this believed abstract structure, no matter for what reasons it does so? Why should we be allowed to consider for instance a particle in reality being identical with its physical description? Einstein imagined probability equal to one. Is such notion of reality realistic?

Eckard

Well I'm late to the game, but just read your essay and found your take on time

very interesting. You say blocktime unfolds:"The future is uncertain and

indeterminate until local determinations of what occurs have taken place at the

space-time event `here and now'... thereafter this event is in the past, having

become fixed and immutable." I have a different take - I think time is a global

('block') continuum through which the radiant energy present unfolds as it

expands: singularityshuttle.com

Dear Dr....,

In your opinion, discovery of a planet is more exciting. Or, as I've presented in the attached article,

whether observing 'A very tiniest mass in the space, having completed its life, have been turning

into energy' would be more exciting or not ? It is my belief that, this observation will be the proof

of the General and the Special Theory of Relativity. This observation can be made only by NASA or

ESA. I hope that I will be able to see this consequence while I'm still alive. For further information,

please visit my web site www.timeflow.org . I will be indebted for your interest.

Sincerely

Salih KIRCALAR

Dear Dr...,

Very small free roaming particles lifetime very short.[free photons, free notron, free proton,free

electron ,vs].And their lifetime is its energy Mc2. Protons are observed to be stable and their theoretical minimum half-life is 1x10'36 years.Grand unified theories generally predict. That proton

decay should take place, although experiments so far have only resulted in a lower limit 10'35 years for proton's lifetime. I see that. The earth lifetime is its Mc'2 energy. When this is calculated

the lifetime of earth.

Earth Mass= 5.97x10'24 kg. the lifetime 1 kg of mass in space is 2851927903,26 years.

Earth Lifetime is 1.7x10'34 years. I think that, this is a very interesting result.

Best regarts

Salih Kırcalar

"....Classical micro-physics is time-reversible: detailed predictability to the past and future is in principle possible. It is in this case that `the present' may be claimed to have no particular meaning."

This quote from his essay shows that Ellis does not understand anything, at all.

What is true, is true at all scales. We, are the scale. Remove our perception and size and there is no scale.

The "present" is the perceived assumption that there can be such a thing as a block comprising all elements, matter and space, at the same moment. A universe with a limited speed forbids this.

Sorry! There is not even a "present" between your face and your computer screen! Light still has to take some non nil time to travel from the screen to your eyes, therefore ... not at the same time. If the universe has to take time to do that, then this is how the universe is. Period!

Physics is ill equipped to understand even such a simple thing. This is because physics includes us in the picture at all time. "Physics" is about how we relate

physically with things .... a relationship ... and we are there.

Marcel,

I wonder several things.

I wonder how it is we all share the same present. I do not think the laws of physics specify a single time as the objective PRESENT. A psychologist could well argue that people only sometimes actually share the same present; that we are often in our own internal world, only agreeing on a common present when required by social interaction. But still, it does seem odd that this surface of time moves forward through our universe, sweeping us all along on it.

I wonder if the fact that we experience time as a moving series of 3D surroundings says more about the nature of our consciousness than about the nature of the universe.

I wonder how we can know that the past and future are so different. Many say that the past is determined, and cannot be changed by anything we do, while the future is undetermined, and can be changed by what we do. But is there any experiment that can prove or disprove those statements? It seems to me there are not any such experiments.

CAN THOUGHT REVERSE ITSELF and travel electrically to the ear bones--rattle them around and shoot reverse sound back into the speakers mouth and up into his brain?

Here is the real problem --many physicists are just not good at seeing the entire picture. Part of what makes them so good at focusing on a single math problem is precisely what causes deficiencies in other areas of the brain. Its trees---no forest. This is seen in autism but also occurs in people with tremendous ability in one area of the brain. (I find Ellis to be very well rounded and unlike most in the field). To me this is the only explanation besides Bias--usually these are atheists who must adhere to their world view on freewill, creation, etc

Its takes all of 3 seconds to dismiss the static block universe. You dont take one or 2 pieces of data and equations and favor them over the Real World--over blatantly obvious truth--the flow of our consciousness using freewill, the multitude of evidence that the universe makes casual sense from big bang to now and science would be impossible if without time. You must be smart enough and well rounded enough to see there is a mistake in how you're interpreting your equations. But this is not even about doing that really--as a static block universe is ludicrous The paradox should be investigating how people can come to believe, using no freewill, that they are not even real.

So you're denying things Happen? How did you write your objection?

You say, "What is true, is true at all scales."

Really...is that transcribed on the Atom? Is that where you received that ultimate truth?

Trusting in pen and paper over what is blatantly clear? The world could never come into being in a block universe and a mother crying over her dead child is just a random splatting of paint on the wall that only looks like a mother reacting--when in fact she is just the separated pixels of illusory order?

Just the fact that a Block theorist would look back in TIME for the casual progression of our Universe, which is completely moot in Block, and then touting an opinion with No freewill is a clear demonstration of the pathological reasoning of the current crop of confused speculators.

When a person holds such contradictory ideas and sees no avenue for discussion for alternative positions--what we have here is Cognitive dissonance times the speed of light--which in fact has no speed in the B theory. Time is an illusion-- so lets look back in time to see how the universe developed? What? The illusion is that these people are great *Thinkers and you are now following them. They're number crunchers. My calculator has only data..not ultimate truth. All events are eternal in Block and nothing has ever happened--so why science is looking for what DID happen when nothing has happened is not only ludicrous--its circus clown crazy.

So when saying Ellis doesnt understand "anything at all"---you are really saying you this is not a static block universe because there is simply no way for you to even be a person under such conditions.

When I go back and read these old essays, I see the bits and pieces of truth lying all around like time's hand full of sand, but somehow the whole truth of the sand slips through the fingers of that hand of time.

No mention of McTaggart's A, dynamic, and B, static, times here for some reason...instead, there is an evolving block time. All of these ideas of time have the basic pieces correct in that time is both a ticking frequency like a clock of B time with discrete moments and time is also a decay of that frequency as a clock of A time that runs down in a continuum of moments. These are the two dimensions of time and represent the extremes of atomic time, which shows reversibility, as well as universe decay time, which points the arrow of time.

A two dimensional time takes care of Poincare's reversibility and also takes care of entropy. I don't know why this is so hard to see.