Revolution in the Understanding of Space-Time: A Project by Buck Field

Buck,

How about a very simple paradigm shift?

Currently time is assumed to be a form of dimension, or projection along which physical reality travels from past events to future ones. If we view it as a consequence of motion, rather than the basis of motion, it goes the other way. As each circumstance is replaced by the next, these events go from future potential to past circumstance. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. Not the earth is traveling along a meta-dimension from yesterday to tomorrow.

Temperature is also a consequence of motion. As an average, it can be represented as a point on a scale, but as units of motion, time cannot be represented as a point, unless the motion has stopped. So any measure of time is necessarily fuzzy, since even initiation and conclusion references cannot be dimensionless points in time.

Dimensions are projection and while they effectively describe direction and distance in space, another measure of space is volume. The same logic which equates time with spatial distance could also be used to argue temperature is another parameter of volume, since the temperature of a given amount of energy can be proportionally affected by changing its volume.

As reality seems to be a fluctuating vacuum, I suppose time and temperature would be descriptions of the fluctuation, while dimensions and volume would be descriptions of the vacuum.

Hello John,

Thanks for your comment, I'm always interested in paradigm shifts.

[It is accepted that physical reality travels from past events to future ones.]

That is the common conception, yes.

[proposal: view time as consequence of motion, temp a consequence of motion.]

I see no internal inconsistencies with that view.

[time cannot be represented as a point, unless the motion has stopped]

True, but I'd like to be sure we clearly distinguish instantaneous time-point snapshots from a moving system. Also, what would you say about an instantaneous measure of position or a rate of change in motion...are they meaningless?

[We might argue temperature is another parameter of volume, since the temperature of a given amount of energy can be proportionally affected by changing its volume.]

This appears possible - although highly speculative since the underlying mechanisms for our perception of a given volume, distance, and time is unknown. Could it be that for us to perceive "volume" requires a particular energy level, frequency, and movement (via that energy fluctuation) combination? I don't think this has been answered. In my essay, I argue (plead?) that we avoid investing piles of money and lifetimes of effort in repairing broken paradigms, and therfore it is absolutely critical to acknowledge observations for what they are, distinguish them from rules, relationships and/or transformations, and document our assumptions. This stuff is of primary concern to managers, policymakers, and administrators, but it is vitally important for researchers and experimentalists to gain understanding basic assessment criteria, which comes from unambiguous definition and communication of a shared, (preferably practical), goal.

For that reason, until there's sufficient justification to consider currently "fundamental units" real, I consider my best contribution will be developing model assessment systems to improve the quality of information available within the research enterprise, focusing on controllable attributes of proposed models and approaches based on criteria for revolutionary models.

BTW - Your essay has a nice lyrical ending on the circle of life that was enjoyable also.

Thanks again for your feedback!

Buck

Buck,

"True, but I'd like to be sure we clearly distinguish instantaneous time-point snapshots from a moving system. Also, what would you say about an instantaneous measure of position or a rate of change in motion...are they meaningless?"

How far down into the system do you freeze those snapshots. A nice Nikon can produce an amazingly clear picture of a person in motion, but what if you go to the sub-atomic level, where everything is mostly empty space, with various energetic fields and point particles that seem composed of further layers of motion? How do you measure it, other than stopping or slowing the momentum? In that case, you've measured its energy content in relation to the measuring device. It's not that they are meaningless, but they are relational. If all the motion ceased and positive and negative energies matched up, there would be nothing. Non-fluctuating vacuum. (The problem with the concept of "meaning" is that it is inherently static and reductionistic. What is left when you distilled away all that is "meaningless." Reality, on the other hand, is dynamic and wholistic. Everything is tied together and in motion.)

"although highly speculative since the underlying mechanisms for our perception of a given volume, distance, and time is unknown. Could it be that for us to perceive "volume" requires a particular energy level, frequency, and movement (via that energy fluctuation) combination? I don't think this has been answered."

All these concepts are relative. They make no sense, except as to how they relate to one another. What would the vacuum be, without fluctuation? What would fluctuation be without a vacuum? How could you have volume without distance? Dimensions without volume? Units of motion(time), without average motion(temperature)?

"In my essay, I argue (plead?) that we avoid investing piles of money and lifetimes of effort in repairing broken paradigms, and therfore it is absolutely critical to acknowledge observations for what they are, distinguish them from rules, relationships and/or transformations, and document our assumptions. This stuff is of primary concern to managers, policymakers, and administrators, but it is vitally important for researchers and experimentalists to gain understanding basic assessment criteria, which comes from unambiguous definition and communication of a shared, (preferably practical), goal."

For that matter, what is money? It's a medium of exchange, currently based on the tax potential of the issuing governments, but historically based on a supply of a given commodity. Which makes it an article of faith in the larger economy that can only be saved by lending to someone else. Since we desire to save more than can be prudently loaned, we either create credit bubbles, or spend it on things of nominal value, large houses, fancy cars, bloated militaries, surplus academia, etc. It is mostly a bubble in the first place, so a little waste in scientific theorizing isn't such a big deal. Of course we could spend it wisely and intelligently, but that's just wishful thinking. The problem with objectivity is that it doesn't exist. The God's eye view of objective perspective is an oxymoron. From the outside, we can see the whole, but not all the connections. From the inside, we can see the complexity of particular detail, but not the whole.

"For that reason, until there's sufficient justification to consider currently "fundamental units" real, I consider my best contribution will be developing model assessment systems to improve the quality of information available within the research enterprise, focusing on controllable attributes of proposed models and approaches based on criteria for revolutionary models."

That is why I like your essay. It does apply lessons learned to the current context. The problem is that the field is dominated by experts, to the exclusion of generalists, so there is little ability and less incentive to really stand back and put the situation in that broader context to which you appeal. As I pointed out, much complex thinking is being put into understanding how to explain a dimension of time that goes from past to future, whether it's Newton's absolute dimension, or Einstein's relative dimension. Those of us on the outside can look at the situation and see classic examples of bubble type thinking, where assumptions are taken to be correct and then projected to absurdity, with little to no effort to step back and see if the initial assumptions are correct. When your paycheck is dependent on running with the bulls, stopping only gets you run over. So everyone runs off the cliff. If I was to graph this against the recent economic bubble, I'd say it's about late 2006, early 2007. The real momentum is past, but only those at the top recognize the system is starting to spin its wheels, while the late comers trying to pile on are keeping it going, to the advantage of those at the top, thus creating a feedback loop. Of course one of the main reasons Ptolomy's epi-cycles lasted 1500 years was because scientific progress went into hibernation for 1000 of them. With all the economic, political, environmental, resource and population issues piling up, I don't think anyone really knows how far down before we bottom out and start back up, so the current physics model might survive out of a lack of critical examination, rather then genuine progress.

I know I sound presumptuous, but think about it; Does reality travel along a meta-dimension from past to future, or does the rotation of the earth turn tomorrow into yesterday? One is theory, the other is observation. Are these people with all the PhD's questioning my logic, or just ignoring it? You are a very logical person, what does that say to you?

Einstein is not a revolution. He only tried as H. Poincaré to put Time again in Empiricim for metaphysical reasons (same for Bergson).

But the Time of Einstein is as much conventional than it was before Einstein in Empiricism. In other words Einstein, Poincaré or Bergson before are not able to understand that Empiricsm INTRODUCED the value of Time (because of the ballistic experiences).

It is the reason why Einstein was disappointed to be treated as the 'Relativity Master': he wanted to be the Master of INFINITY, without understanding that Relativity and Infinity are equivalent. This is why Einstein is driving to the same skepticism than the father of Empiricism R. Descartes.

Hello John,

Thanks for your reply.

[How do we measure the sub-atomic level?]

This is a good question. You answer this by pointing out we measure energy content in relation to the measuring device. I'm unclear on the argument that "meaning is inherently static" - Most of my paper is devoted to changes in meaning, at least for observations and measurements.

You make a good point that meaning is relational - and the relational nature of cognitive frameworks should be better emphasized in my future work - certainly my main source for such frameworks comes from "The Cognitive Structures of Scientific Revolutions", and they do a better job than I did in this essay.

[From the inside, we can see the complexity of particular detail, but not the whole.] This is a real problem! I think we can simply keep making our best guesses at "fundamental" relationships and throw out the less useful one by one.

[Those of us on the outside can look at the situation and see little no effort to step back and see if the initial assumptions are correct.]

True, although we share this weakness.

[Does reality travel along a meta-dimension from past to future, or does the rotation of the earth turn tomorrow into yesterday?] As you say: One is theory, the other is observation; I would say that depending on one's point of view, both could be correct. For me, a more useful question is: what are we trying to accomplish with a theory of a flat/round earth? Stable or roatating? Meta-dimensional/dimensional/illusory time?

[Are these people with all the PhD's questioning my logic, or just ignoring it?] I have to admit: I'm pleasantly surprised whenever anyone reads my material & finds it interesting. I would guess that it is a question of time and priorities - I've got one huge paper to complete and another small one due in less than 2 weeks...so I barely get to read these essays & comments!

Thanks again for your feedback.

Dear Buck.

it was late that i came to see your essay. It is refreshing from a rational view point as to what can be considered a Paradigm shift in Physics and the concept of time in the context of cosmology. However, we are all humans with our biases and it is not easy to arrive at a common agreement about what are the substantial and peripheral issues.

Let me present to you a few points that i consider significant:

1. What one considers archaic may turn out to be revolutionary. Time decides such issues.

2.Nature has put up the universe for us to understand how it is running, the rules of the big game. We can't question 'why' , as the same has been fixed by the logic of the Creator! The known phenomena are required to be understood in a logical way through critical analysis of the observed facts, the overall encompassing of the picture behind apparently different phenomenon. That is our approach should be such as to accommodate explanations indicated elsewhere too. Thus, we can hope to build a harmonious picture that conform rather than contradict explanations required to understand different processes/phenomenon.

3. Time is a variable that comes naturally from the motions of different types that are encountered in nature. There is a wide range frequencies involved, theoretically from 1 upwards. Here 0 has a significance . That is where i see the role of 'consciousness' a non-physical entity to enter in the scientific domain, say provide answer to what existed prior to the Big bang! May be there was a potentially powerful Unified field , with intelligent design for the evolution, as being observed now.

4. the management issues highlighted by you can not direct the trends physics may take in going ahead, including the possible expanding paradigms. finally, all need confirmation through observed data.

To conclude, i enjoyed reading your essay, without taking out a print. It can have some disadvantage by way of my missing some points you raised therein!

Buck,

I posted a longer reply on my thread.

It must be interesting to shine a light into this discussion and try making sense of it from an organizational perspective, with the way in which everyone uses their history to define the topic. It certainly provides a broad cross section of knowledge and its application.

Hello F.,

Thanks for your comments. I agree that Einstein "is not a revolution", but acknowledge that his work is generally acknowledged to be the start of a shift in cognitive frames.

I'm unclear on your points regarding "ballistic experiences" and the claim empiricism "INTRODUCED" the value of time, since empirical references to time antedate Descartes by millennia.

Hello Narendra Nath,

Thank you for reading my essay and sharing your thoughts.

1. While it is true that "what one considers archaic may turn out to be revolutionary", I am not aware of examples, and would appreciate instances where this true, especially if these examples contain elements that can be generalized.

2. You reference "critical analysis of the observed facts". Unfortunately, we can only observe light, heat, pressure, etc. "Facts" are not something we can observe. Remaining faithful to this distinction is why I rely heavily upon the sunrise example, because most people understand that although we see it, it doesn't really exist.

3. While "consciousness" is not physical in the same sense that a neuron is physical, it is a process of physical components like "rotation" or "combustion" are processes of physical components. To avoid error, we use a conservative approach to reality, which requires plausible evidence for any propositions; this precludes consideration of theories involving "Creators" or "Intelligent Designers", which would violate several of the minimum requirements listed in the paper for a model to be regarded as scientific.

4. You bring up the very proper criteria for assessing scientific theory as consistency with observations. I may consider emphasizing this in the future if it remains unclear to readers.

Thanks again for your feedback.

Hello John,

"Physics doesn't make sense, just the equations have to work."

Do you think physicists develop consistent mathematics for some reason other than to make sense of reality?

No. Obviously they are trying to make sense of reality. The problem, as I see it, is that they haven't fully examined the preconceptions on which they base their theories. In the context of my own point about time being an effect of motion and therefore the events going future to past, rather than reality traveling along a meta-dimension from past to future, one of the usual dismissals I get is that modern physics isn't "intuitive." To me, this is ridiculous, since it is the assumption we are traveling along some linear projection from past events to future ones which is the intuitive understanding of time. It's called narrative. History. Beginning to end, Cause and effect. It all seems quite obvious, but as I keep pointing out, macro arrangement of activity creating events is effect, so time is an abstraction, like temperature. Now read through all these essays and consider all the extremely brilliant thinking and lifetimes of effort being put into trying to explain the fundamental processes required to carry us along this "dimension" of time. The block timers of varying degrees of orthodoxy and all those trying to develop dynamic models. They are all trying to make sense of reality. In terms of time going past to future. Can you truly say you can unravel these Gordian Knots of logic? Frankly my daughter is better at math than I am and she is taking AP classes in eighth grade. I have just found that when everyone is trying something and failing, usually there is something basic which is being overlooked. Consider the current credit crisis; Money is saved by lending it to someone else. This means total savings isn't determined by what is reserved from earnings, but by what can be prudently loaned. So to increase saving, we lower loan standards, create imaginary investment vehicles, etc. and run up a credit bubble. They have happened throughout human history. This one has just been magnified by modern technological efficiency. (Borrowers need to be nurtured, not strangled.) Not to get off topic, but people are very good at ignoring the obvious, especially when everyone else is doing it.

So I ask you, which is more logical; That tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates? Or that we travel along a meta-dimension from yesterday to tomorrow?

James Stanfield(http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/366) makes the point as well, but he doesn't emphasize it as the essential cause of confusion.

Hi Buck,

Great Essay. It is my hope to read as many as I can before the voting deadline. You bring up some key phrases that sum up what we face when trying to learn more about the nature of time. Relativity's Linkage of space and time (and the ability or inability to explore a mechanism) is more important than people think. And the logical self-consistency of theories is something that should be taken much more seriously than it is.

I see you have been communicating with John Merryman. Although we have a different approach, I think John and I share an identical or at least almost identicle opinion of what the "nature" of time really is. Here is something I stated to John on my thread:

I think that time is a macro effect of the most fundamental behaviors among particles, forces and fields. I think these behaviors define time and in fact are time. Now, if the most fundamental behaviors can all be accurately described as motion, then - okay by me. But if some behaviors on the quantum level (maybe in a gray area around uncertainty and entanglement) no longer make sense to be described as motion, then it is safer for me to refer to the fundamental activities as "behaviors." In either case, committing to that is different than simply using motion to measure time. Because even if time were something other than what I believe it to be, it would still be possible to use motion to measure time and compare times. In other words, if particles, forces and fields existed "in" time in a more passive sense and their behaviors were just a visible symptom of what "time" they existed in due to their local environment, then we could still measure their motion to tell us the rate at which their time is flowing.

What I do in my essay is explore how my theory of time relates to Einstein's relativity, since that is still the framework where the scientifically acceptable reasons for time dilation exist.

Take care and keep up the good work.

CJ

Hello John,

I apologize for the delay in responding, I've been swamped. Your claim that standard model assumptions have not been adequately analyzed is well-supported. A problem I have understanding "motion giving rise to time" is that without time in which changes of relative position can occur, in other words, I seem trapped in the block time paradigm. As you recognize, a vague hand wave of "modern physics isn't intuitive" is a fallacious defense unless the criticism it addresses is equally vague - as you point out, a severe fallacy is the lack of consistency in asserting this to defend the intuitive block time model. If we have a scientific hypothesis to replace the block time model, its value remains unrecognized for the time being. Imposition of strong scientific assessment criteria for proposed models and methods rules out some well-accepted, foundational principles in physics, such as superposition.

As for your question of "which is more logical?" I think the motion option needs a better description, like "change of macroscopic material spatial relationships" to be more precise and more easily generalized than the more lyrical "earth roatates" example.

What observational change would we expect if time were merely an abstraction rather than a dimension?

Hello CJ,

Thanks you for the kind words. What I understand of the approach you and John share regarding motion is intriguing. I also appreciate your struggle to find the best, safest descriptors by your suggestion of "behaviors". I look forward to reading your essay, after I post a defense of FTL research. This was recently challenged as an unjustifiably fanciful goal.

While doing that and getting to your essay, I would like to pose the same question to you that I did for John: if your theory is correct, how would observations or theory be different than block time and/or other alternatives?

I recently received an offline criticism it may be helpful to share:

____________Criticism Begins___________________

"FTL research would be very unlikely to pass peer review. Faster than light travel is only allowed in principle, to my knowledge, in severely warped spacetimes. Research in such an area is far too speculative to displace other worthy projects of a more conventional nature, for which we can only fund a fraction of proposals. It would be hard to ask reviewers to even consider it. Since NASA funds research in space travel, any scientific proposal would be returned without review on those grounds alone."

_____________Response Begins____________

Using sound logic and evidence from several viewpoints, one cannot argue that the FTL goal is unlikely to even be possible. Calling such research "speculative" is generous to say the least, especially considering the overwhelming successes of the standard model. There is a large lunatic fringe that makes discussing the proposal seriously risky for credible scientists, and discussing it could incur costs regardless of its ultimate merit. Thus, allocating resources to FTL research has no merit on what we regard as a pure scientific basis.

Currently, physics is in "crisis", and "a new Copernican revolution" is regarded as inevitable based on lack of progress and increasing observational anomalies. From project management we know such lack of progress indicates a basic assumption error, and from cognitive science we know that the revolutionary new paradigm will correct the error in a manner where "the basis for category membership" changes. In the Copernican revolution, the natural, sense-based assumption of human stability and centrality was corrected by slow acknowledgement that the simplest mathematical model was superior to natural senses. Risk assessment of the standard model suggests reality of dimensional space and time as we perceive them is a prime candidate for correction: it is a sense-based observation that understandably and naturally assumes observer centrality, from a perspective of many possible manifolds. If our senses in fact detect the fundamental dimensions of reality, I agree severely warping space-time is the only known FTL option.

To test standard model assumption of our unique dimensional status, we must generate alternative models that reject this assumption while conforming to a substantial list of screening and quality control criteria. Lacking mathematical and scientific specifics of alternate models, we can productively focus on reliable methods to manage their creative development and testing, organizing what we currently know about the results we seek. We know the new cosmological model will draw on conceptual relationships between disciplines that do not currently exist, or the importance of these relationships is currently unrecognized. We know that new transdisciplinary efforts are needed, and to align them, we know that an easily communicated and understood strategic goal is most effective.

Because of its inspirational nature, its widespread public understanding and related political support, its unifying potential within the math and science communities, and its suitability for catalyzing the needed cosmological revolution, a dedicated planning effort is justified regardless of whether FTL capable technology is ultimately achievable.

Buck,

Since I'm being somewhat repetitive, I'll go all the way and simply repost this reply to a response from Ken Wharton, who is a strong proponent of block time;

Ken,

Humor me for a moment and reconsider a reality in which change and motion are acceptable. The arrow of time goes from what comes first, to what comes second. For the observer, past events proceed future ones, so we observe time as going from the past to future. On the other hand, these events are first in the future, then in the past, so their arrow goes the opposite direction. Throughout history, in fact the very description of the narrative construct we call history, the understanding of time is of the first arrow. That events proceed along this universal path, whether Newton's absolute time, or Einstein's relative time, from past to future.

Yet the only reality ever experienced is of the present. So lets examine the consequence of viewing reality as a fixed present consisting of energy in motion, thus causing change and as each arrangement described by this energy is replaced by the next, these events go from future potential to past circumstance. Therefore past and future do not physically exist because the energy to manifest all such events is only manifesting one moment at a time.

So rather than a fundamental dimension, time becomes an emergent description and consequence of motion, similar to temperature. Temperature, as a scalar average of motion, doesn't exist if we only consider singular motion, but only emerges when measuring a mass of activity. So time, as a sequencing of units of motion, doesn't effectively exist if we cannot define a progression. It is just quantum fuzziness. The present can't be a dimensionless point either, since it is a description of motion and would only be dimensionless if all motion has stopped, so, like temperature, the measurement becomes fuzzy when examined closely.

Whether time proceeds along some dimension from past to future, or is caused by the progression of events from future to past, might seem semantic, yet consider the consequences; If time is that dimension moving toward the future, we need to explain how it deals with potentialities. Either we go with multi-worlds, in which all potentials are taken, or block time, where the potentials are illusionary and it is fundamentally deterministic. Now if we view it from the other direction, where time is the events moving from future potential to past circumstance, the collapsing wave of probabilities makes sense, since it is only energy in motion and time is simply an emergent description of the process, not some fundamental dimension.

What is primitive is the narrative assumption that time is a linear projection from the past into the future.

Buck,

I read your paper and I agree that it is important to find valid methods to evaluate new concepts for validity. In today's world concepts that are in any way far removed from currently accepted beliefs tend to be either ignored or ridiculed without adequate investigation into their validity.

I would suggest getting away from the old Copernican revolution replacing the Ptolemaic paradigm concept, however. This is because the theory of relativity both destroys the presumed importance of one of those concepts over the other and at the same time establishes both concepts as valid. Both the Copernican and Ptolemaic descriptions of the world are results of observations that choose specific center observation points that differ from one another. The theory of relativity considers all observation points to be equally valid. One can observe all motions from the earth and can when appropriately analyzed come to the same conclusions that one can come to by doing the same thing from an observation point on the sun. For most practical every day applications for the average earth bound person the concept that the sun is seen to go around the earth is an acceptable approximation for use in daily life. That is why we still talk about the sun rising in the morning and setting in the evening. The biggest reason that the change to the sun centered concept occurred was to explain strange back and forth movements of the planets. Most people on earth even today have probably never noticed those back and forth motions, so they do not impact their lives to any degree. It is much like your comments that Newtonian concepts are an acceptable approximation when plotting a course to the moon (even though relativity concepts might generate a somewhat more accurate path and landing point). One does not need to do all the extra math in order to maybe get a slightly more accurate result that is not needed. Moreover the idea of any center oriented theory of the universe seems to be disallowed in current theories because if there is a center of the universe no one has been able to determine where it is and the general consensus seems to be that no real center can exist or that if it does it will not be possible for us to be able to ever determine where it is with our limited local perspective.

[The Einsteinian revolution rejected, among other things, the assumption that time is a characteristic of reality separate from space.] This is true. Time is a concept that is derived from two basic structures that exist in this world. The first is distance, which results in any dimensional system that has at least two identifiable points as the space or separation between two such points. The second is motion which is the change in position (place in space) from one point to another point. All energy and matter entities in this world are composed of motion. Although all energy entities (photons) travel with the same three dimensional composite motion amplitude that is called the speed of light, matter entities can travel in a continuous motion amplitude range from zero motion (at rest) to about the speed of light. Time is the expression of the combination of distance traveled with the specific motion amplitude of the motion that is traveling through that distance or mathematically T= D/R where T= time, D=distance, and R=rate or motion amplitude. At this point the biggest impediment to understanding this concept is that the motion amplitude is traditionally generated in this world in comparison to a standard set of motion amplitudes and their associated distances traveled that all complete their distance simultaneously, rather than just using a specific motion amount through a specific distance as the standard unit of motion amplitude. As an example, let's look at a rate of one mile per day. In this example we are saying that our motion has an amplitude that will cause it to travel one mile while all of the points on or in the earth (with the possible exception of any points at the exact center of rotation) complete one path through their associated distances around the center of rotation of the earth. A point on the surface that is near the equator may travel through a distance of twenty-four thousand miles in one rotation while one that is farther north may only travel twelve thousand miles, but the second point is traveling with a motion amplitude that is half of that of the first point, so they both complete their paths together. We could get the same result by just taking one particular motion amplitude through one particular distance as a unit of motion amplitude and use it in place of the current rate. Let's say we pick some motion amplitude at random as our standard motion amplitude (not necessarily recommended) and pick a distance of one mile as our standard distance for comparison. If a test motion amplitude travels two miles while our standard motion amplitude travels one mile, the test motion has an amplitude of two standard units of motion amplitude. The point is that when we talk about a rate, we are really only talking about the amount of motion that is present in the system being measured. If I replace the R for rate with an A for amplitude to emphasize the point, we get T=D/A and we can then see that it is this relationship D/A between distance and motion amplitude that truly is time. It is not completely that simple because, for instance, distance also becomes a multi-amplitude function when matter particles travel at speeds close to the speed of light, etc., but it is a good approximation for normal every day use. [For example: "time is a fundamental quantity" appears likely to be replaced in a manner similar to the Ptolemaic assumption that "Earth is a fundamental center".]

You are right that time is not a fundamental quantity, but is a derivative of two basic fundamental quantities, which are distance and motion amplitude. ["Why do we observe distance and time the way we do?"] We observe distance and time the way we do because distance is one of the fundamental quantities that time is derived from. [Our new conceptualization of time will include an iterative component or characteristic that explains our perception of time as flowing.] We see time as flowing because it is derived from the basic quantity of motion, which generates that perception (motion flows from one place to another). [A key problem in understanding time sufficiently to predict what kind of quantities these future equations will describe is shared with our problematic understanding of other "fundamental" metrics like space, matter, energy, and force.] It is definitely true that a good understanding of the structure of the dimensional system and its informational entities is important to understanding the nature of the space that it generates and is also important in determining the allowable information structures of motion and the energy and matter entities, etc. that are composed of that motion. [When complete, the time revolution will almost certainly synthesize relativity, quantum mechanics, and gravity - but the manner in which it will do so will be surprise] Fourth and fifth vector structuring concepts go to a level below quantum mechanics and explain the causes of quantum effects. It can also explain the causes of relativity effects. A thorough understanding of gravity requires an in depth understanding of fifth vector structuring that will not be given as soon as some other information. In the long run, an in depth understanding of fourth and fifth vector structuring concepts will lead to technology advancements that will allow detailed observation of matter on the particle level, so that the uncertainty will be done away with.

I cover some basic concepts in my paper. There are also many more difficult concepts I didn't cover.

Hi Buck (and John),

The best way I can convey how my view of time compares to other theories is to show you what I recently wrote to Carlo Rovelli on his thread:

-----------------

You argue that the origin of time variable features are not mechanical, rather - emergent at the thermodynamical level. Do you have any thoughts as to how velocity or gravity affect the time dilation of these thermodynamical activities? It seems to me that despite all of the essays, with so many different opinions of time's true nature - we have only two possible fundamental starting points:

1) That the thermodynamical activity, or motion (or what I refer to as fundamental behaviors in my essay) is used as a measurement of "time" but plays a more passive role because these behaviors exist "in" time and their behaviors are just a visible symptom of what "time" they existed in due to their local environment.

Or

2) What we perceive as time is a macro effect of the most fundamental behaviors among particles, forces and fields. These behaviors define time and in fact are time. Now, if the most fundamental behaviors can all be accurately described as motion, then - okay. But if some behaviors on the quantum level no longer make sense to be described as motion, then it is safer to refer to the fundamental activities as "behaviors."

For those who commit to the first possible starting point, they would not appear to be in conflict with special relativity - namely Galileo's principle. The existence of time would be part of the metric that particles and forces exist "in." There would exist Einstein's inseparable connection between time and light signal velocity. There would be no "mechanism" - instead, the relative nature of time would just be a co effect of velocity and/or changing gravitational position. Time would exist as a mysterious entity (or co entity) and more questions would certainly need to be asked as to how we could get closer to determining its true nature.

For those who commit to the 2nd possible starting point (which is the one I am committed to) that motions or behaviors define time and in fact are time: Let's take a system with all of its fundamental behaviors and increase its velocity. These behaviors slow down. If the behaviors themselves "are" time and then become altered as a consequence of their increased velocity- then we need to revisit special relativity. Something is happening on the physical level that we currently don't have a description for.

----------------

I know it is difficult for many people to imagine not having a "time" somewhere in the mysterious background that particles, forces and fields are expressing their behaviors "in." I am just the opposite. I say: imagine taking away all of the particles, forces and fields along with the behaviors they engage in and tell me what is left to be considered a flow of time. If there is absolutely nothing, then there is nothing to express time.

Also, I posed this question to Julian Barbour (who has written a great essay)in response to a statement he made in his essay:

--------------------

If the universe can tell perfect time and could be considered the perfect clock, how would that assumption be affected if it is determined that there is no absolute age of the universe? If I am living on a far away galaxy accelerating at a much faster velocity than ours - then (assuming I take enough vitamins to live through the whole process) how old do I think the universe is from my perspective? Or, how old is the universe to me if I am near a black hole or better yet - If a very long time ago I watched the big bang from a safe distance (where my gravity and velocity would be very different compared to being "inside" the universe) how old would I think the universe is right now? Who would be correct?

-----------------------

In my opinion, we should try to narrow to the most likely possibilitles that describe the nature of time and build from there.

CJ

Chris,

Those "behaviors" which do not create time coordinates time can be defined as a form of temperature, i.e. an average level of motion.

This is a comment I made in George Ellis' discussion;

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/361

George, Peter, Tom,

The principle by which time consists of discrete units is not exclusive to the microcosmic. Think in terms of geologic earthquakes, political upheaval, or economic collapse. While the surface description is basically static, underlaying tensions are building that are not linear and thus the sudden change isn't completely predictable. Ref. Complexity Theory. So to, two points in time may not be connected in a linear fashion, but could have a hologram of the entire universe between them, but they are still connected, otherwise they would be outside each others light cone and effectively not exist to one another.

The reason block time and multi-worlds are necessary is to explain probability in forward moving time. The future is defined by probabilities and if time is a linear dimension from past to future, the need is to explain how the issue of chance is resolved. Block time is essentially determinism, where the probabilities are an illusion and ultimately time is laid out in a linear dimension. Multi worlds takes the opposing view and argues all possibilities branch out into separate realities. There are varieties of combinations of these two extremes, as evolving block time would be.

The advantage of time as an emergent description/consequence of motion is that since this series of events is being both created and erased by this jumpy/continuous motion, time is the series of events going from being in the future to being in the past. So the issue of probabilities is resolved by the collapse of potential into the actual. It is also efficient in that the same energy manifests all points in time and doesn't require additional dimensions of energy to manifest each and every moment.

P.S.

As the interludes between the transitions are non-linear activity, they are best described in scalar/averaging terms, such as temperature, pressure, etc.

As opposed to time being a vector.