• [deleted]

  • Post #21

The points raised regarding entropy are good ones & very relevant to the quaestions of the "appearance" of time & it's "arrow" & the reality of motion. You quite rightly say that random fluctuations in a Universe in total thermal equilibrium could give no sense of time "progressing" to a "God-like" observer in a way that we would recognise. In fact a maximum entropy state can & according to quantum theory must, randomly decrease or reverse it's entropy at some point in "time" & space, so that to a local observer, time might even appear to run backwards?

This relates to the distinction between different "arrows of time" ie the entropic arrow & the psychological arrow & the corresponding distinction between "time as change" & "duration". Relating this to the idea of time as unique configurations, if an observer experienced the configurations in the reverse order, they may perceive time to be running backwards while still having the same sense of duration "advancing" in time. This assumes the conscious observer's brain processes are not somehow reversed also!

The example of maximum entropy also impacts on whether Barbour's static configurations can be maintained by his "action" principle? The principle would seem to lose the power to "best match" the configurations. It becomes a question then of whether the mechanism he uses to constrain the wave function amplitudes to "coincide" with the "time capsules" can determine random changes, particularly in the case of entropy decreasing changes?

Paul, you seem to be using the argument of causal violation via a sort of two-way "multiplication" of effects as being the reason we can't travel in time . I think that would certainly be a consequence of travel to a past "point" in a consistent causal history. I simply believe we can't access "previous" points or "past" events for similar reasons to Mr Smith, that is, that the particular configuration which defines the event(time) no longer exists. I feel that any object has a "trajectory" relative to all other objects, defined only by it's relative position & relative velocity. These continuous relative trajectories are what create our notions of local time, in the case of similar non-relativistic trajectories, or relative "time" differentials in the case of large velocity and/or vector separations.

Does any of that make sense?!

Mr. Valletta,

In a nutshell, as Mr. Johnstone has said, there simply is no longer any "ago" to which we can go back. All the messy "grandfather" paradoxes (or T-Rex with missing tooth enamel paradoxes) are obviated; history cannot be changed. The notion of the flow of time as evolving configurations of the universe "explains" the psychological arrow of time which is so eloquently captured in the well-known lines from The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam,

"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,

Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit

Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line

Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it."

Mr. Johnstone,

I'm astounded by how closely aligned our thinking is on this topic!

Even in a situation involving a statistical fluctuation in which entropy was randomly decreasing over some region, however, I don't think that an observer would perceive time to reverse. For example, if I were to look out on an interstate highway and see all the vehicles on the highway uniformly traveling backwards, I doubt that my first thought would be that time had somehow reversed; I'd more likely simply wonder why all the vehicles were backing up. If, on the other hand, I were to look up at the sky and see a 747 jetliner flying backward, I would be instantly and deeply confused (to say the least), because that sort of change in the configuration of the universe would violate the laws of aerodynamics (i.e., the laws of physics). Even in that bizarre case, however, I doubt that I would think time had reversed; more likely, I would question whether I was losing my sanity, or whether I were (hopefully) observing some bizarre optical illusion.

Our sensory systems and brains seemingly have been exquisitely programmed by evolutionary processes to observe our surroundings and to quickly and accurately calculate and predict the trajectories of the objects we see around us. This is how we have survived. Thus, while our brains may not fully understand all the abstract laws of physics, they understand well enough their practical consequences. I would strongly suspect that as long as our brains have the wherewithal to function, they will carry out this task to the best of their ability, regardless of how entropy may change. If we were to see the pieces of a broken cup leap up off the floor and reassemble themselves into a cup on top of a table we would question our senses, because that is not what we understand cups to do. Again, I suspect that we would be more likely to perceive it to be a violation of our understanding of the laws of physics than as a reversal of time. But these are mostly my off the cuff gut feelings rather than any carefully considered positions.

Regarding your comments about Barbour's action principle and best match procedures, I agree with you that it is not clear how these notions would fare in a universe at maximum entropy. Certainly food for further thought. Could this lead, for example, to some predictions or tests which would be falsifiable?

Thank you for your insightful observations!

  • [deleted]

  • Post #24

Mr Smith

Firstly, loved the Khayyam quote!

With regard to the reversal of entropy, I actually agree with you that a conscious observer would not perceive time to also reverse, although there have been one or two quite prominent theorists who have more or less considered this as a possibility in relation to cosmological "re-collapse" & a reversal of time's arrow. That was really my reason for including the notion of psychological time. A scrambled egg re-assembing itself would, as you said, certainly indicate a peculiar change in the laws of physics, but we would still observe it as happening in the normal advancing duration in which we sense all change to occur.

Our brain processes are still so little understood, that it is a fuzzy area in which to try to "validate" or build a model of reality upon. That's why I think that Barbour is on very shaky ground when he almost "assumes" that conscious minds can be static brain configurations & still have a "recognition" or "ordering" capability. This capability would seem to imply, to me anyway, that a process on another level is required. In Platonia it would require a "secondary" ordering process to "best match' the already "recorded" best matched configurations. But he could still be right as we know that our brains have evolved to perceive only a certain interpratation of reality that presumably maximises our survival. This all might have implications for free will as well?

Back to the topic proper, we do seem to be closely aligned in the essence of a model of reality as it relates in particular to the "nature of time". I am in fact working on a "shopping list" of what I would call "guiding principles" & relevant facts upon which to build a model. Off the cuff, three of them might be:-

a) Background independance (Obviously required for any "Machian" model),

b) Apparent time only emerges with mass or "measurement" by massive object.

c) Light (photons) really only 2 dimensional, ie Z axis is Lorentz contracted to zero & do not "experience" time.

I will compile a more complete list & hopefully post it here very soon, if you feel it worthwhile?

Cheers for now.

Mr. Johnstone,

By all means, please do post your shopping list of guiding principles & relevant facts upon which to build a model! I'll look forward to it.

Back onto the topic of entropy and time, it must be obvious from my essay that I tend to take a very simple-minded, literal, naive view of the world. When thinking about entropy, I have a favorite "thought experiment environment" in which I imagine myself to be a microscopic being who resides on a molecule in a box of gas. The first order of business in this environment is to fasten one's seatbelt, because we're in for a bumpy ride, not unlike the bumper cars in an amusement park.

When the gas in my little "universe" is at thermal equilibrium, time (defined as configurations of my observable "universe") does change, but the changes are random (and hence "uninteresting"). On some very rare occasions, however, I might be fortunate enough to observe one of the rare, random statistical fluctuations predicted by Ludwig Boltzmann in which all the molecules simultaneously move to one side of the box. Wow! Now that would be exciting! I presumably would observe a temporary "compression" of my micro-universe, followed by a decompression and gradual return to equilibrium and random motion. During the compression and decompression phases, the observed motions of my neighboring molecules would, I believe, appear to be non-random, and hence "time" would briefly have a discernible direction (arrow), i.e., configurations would change in a seemingly non-random manner, but this short-lived "arrow of time" would gradually "peter out" and ultimately vanish after the gas had returned to equilibrium.

I fully agree with your comment regarding brain processes being too poorly understood to serve as *underpinnings* for a model of reality. (Ironically, however, it is these same brain processes upon which we must rely to judge the validity of a model once it has been constructed!)

The questions you raise about how all this stacks up against Mr. Barbour's Platonia are good ones, and I would like to hear how he would respond to them.

Cheers!

  • [deleted]

  • Post #26

Mr Smith

A thought or two on the point you mentioned in brackets regarding brain processes, which I think is an important one. It may be that we are incapable, even in principle, of fully understanding our brain processes because of the nature of those very same processes! Let alone being capable of fully understanding any "external" reality of which our brains give us a biased, "anthopocentric" view.

In relation to the "no motion" idea of Barbour's, presumably a perception of motion can only come with consciousness. If we put all this into the widely accepted "multiverse" model of inflationary cosmology & dare I say the "String Landscape" (it would be interesting to know if Barbour subscribes to either of these?) it becomes a question of whether motion is possible at all in principle. It seems to me that it must be possible as we already have physical laws that explain it, or are they just a product of our "illusory" brain processes? So, if we say motion is possible but just does not exist in our Universe, then in accordance with those theories, motion must occur in some number of Universes! The question then is back to why our Universe only "wants" to give us the impression of motion? (& whether conscious beings can exist in other Universes that do have motion?), & becomes a bit anthropic.

If we say there is only our Universe, then the existence of only "illusory" motion for conscious beings becomes even more anthropically motivated, lumped in with the other seemingly 'fine tuned" coincidences.

If we say motion is not possible, anywhere, then we would need to somehow falsify our current laws that are based upon it & prove that there are no physical laws that can allow it.

Could any of this provide a possible way to "test" or a means to "falsify" the 'no motion" hypothesis?

Must continue reading Barbour's literature & ponder this further but for now, my brain processes are scrambled!!

Cheers

Mr. Johnstone,

The static picture which Barbour tries to convey has been, and remains, a huge stumbling block for me, and, in my view, it is unnecessary. The more I try to try to understand it, the more I fail to do so. Try as I may to make sense of it, the idea always ends up striking me as solipsistic. Since you are re-reading 'The End of Time' anyway, be sure to note Barbour's dialogue with Fay Dowker, which is introduced at the bottom of page 353.

As previously noted, my view continues to be that we can dispense with time as being something real *in and of itself* while not dispensing with motion. In fact, my view is that it is exactly motion which allows us to dispense with the old notion of time as some mysterious, stand-alone feature of reality while still allowing us to preserve our traditional psychological perception of "the flow of time." We simply need to shift mental gears to recognize that the flow of time is nothing more than the physical evolution of the universe, a process which necessarily involves motion and which should be described in a Machian, relativistic manner. This is not unlike the mental shifting of gears needed to move from thinking in terms of a geocentric universe to thinking in terms of a heliocentric universe. Nothing changes except the way we think about it, which, ironically, then changes everything!

Changing direction somewhat, I wanted to mention what I believe is another interesting aspect of thinking about particular times in terms of particular configurations of the universe. Although I have consciously tended, I hope more or less adroitly, to "finesse" the topic in my essays, we might reasonably ask how narrowly and/or precisely we may specify or define individual, particular times. It strikes me that the precision with which we can ever hope to define particular times is limited by two factors, one of which is our fundamental inability ever to have complete knowledge about the configuration of the universe, and the other of which is that even in a narrowly confined portion of the universe we will always be limited by the uncertainty principle from precisely defining a particular configuration/time. Hence, even at best, time at the quantum level will necessarily be "granular." At least food for thought.

Cheers!

  • [deleted]

  • Post #28

Dear Smith.

Nice to see that people has real sense for physics.

Discussions on time travel show that some physicists believe mind more than senses and so have lost contact with physical reality.

Time is information about change in timeless universe we obtain with clocks.

Universe is timeless and sure "time travel" is out of question.

Yours AmritAttachment #1: 1_TIME_IS_INFORMATION_ABOUT_CHANGE_IN_TIMELESS_UNIVERSE.pdf

Amrit,

Thank you for your comments and for sharing your essay, in which you wrote, "Ernst Mach said: "It is utterly beyond our power to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction, at which we arrive by means of the changes of things". Mach is right. Time and clocks are man-made inventions."

I hope it is clear from my essay that I fully concur with this view. There appears to be a growing recognition that this is the case. What remains to be done is to explore thoroughly the practical consequences of this way of thinking. What predictions will it lead to, for example? I spelled out one "prediction" it leads to in reference 4 to my current essay. Unfortunately, Einstein beat me to that prediction by about 100 years, give or take. But I'm sure there are additional, totally new predictions that we can make if we set our minds to it. These are exciting prospects.

Cheers!

Mr. Johnstone,

A further comment regarding Julian Barbour's proposed model of a static universe. I try to remain open-minded toward Barbour's concept, difficult though it is for me to comprehend (this difficulty obviously could as readily reflect a shortcoming of my cognitive processes as any shortcoming of the concept itself). That having been said, however, I couldn't help being amused by a perhaps apropos comment which Einstein allegedly made regarding work done by Herman Weyl while they were trying to develop a unified field theory: "Apart from the [lack of] agreement with reality it is in any case a superb intellectual performance." (Quoted on page 45 of Lee Smolin's 'The Trouble With Physics.') Einstein's brilliance clearly extended well beyond physics to include the world of diplomacy. But that comment also captures my instinctive feeling toward notions of a static universe. Of course, instincts are not always to be trusted either. The proof is in the pudding, as the saying goes. What predictions could we make as a result of believing in a static universe that we can't make otherwise?

Mr. Johnstone,

That previous post was from me . . . sorry I failed to add my name at the top!

jcns

  • [deleted]

  • Post #32

Mr Smith

I will continue my revision of Barbour's literature, then perhaps post a list of questions here for your critical assessment or supplementation, prior to directing them to him. Whilst I think it is time to concentrate on developing our own model of dynamically evolving configurations, his answers may provide valuable input. In the additional notes concluding his book, he does mention three possible ways his theory could be disproved. 1) A mathematical proof that the wave function is not concentrated on time capsules (This is one I will ask him for an update on). 2) String Theory or some other successful quantum gravity theory reintroducing external time. 3) Direct evidence of wave function collapse.

Now, back in "motion land", we agree that all quantities of time should be re-interpreted in terms of spacial displacements. You have clearly stated this in your essay, including the resulting derivation of the mass/energy equivalence obtained in this way. These are precisely the sorts of predictions & proofs we need to start building a model. For instance, you mentioned in your August 14 post, the limiting factor of the uncertainty principle for precisely defining micro configurations. One aspect of this is the time/energy uncertainty, described in terms of the inability to measure wavelength in time. Conservation of energy is defined in terms of a time translation symmetry. What effect might it have on our understanding of nature if these were re-cast in terms of for instance, in the case of energy conservation, a symmetry of the spacial translation of configurations?

Back to your point regarding the limited precision to which we can ever define a particular configuration, I agree that the uncertainty principle limits this in the small scale regime. I also think, as I have previously stated, that on progressively larger scales, relativity must always proportionally distort any attempt to define a definite configuation, particularly where large relative velocities are involved. This is why I feel that your definition of time as stated in your essay, whilst being the correct conceptual basis, needs to be extended to include the effects of relative motion. I believe this would enable the precise definition of a configuration we are looking for, in the "4th" dimension of "velocity space".

This idea has similarities to George Ellis's "Evolving Block Universe" (see his essay in last year's contest), the main difference being that he retains a notion of advancing time along world lines. Whereas in the evolving "velocity space" the "boundaries" of the "block" are the maximal velocity differentials that can be achieved between an inertial frame "A" at or near light speed or, equivalently, at or near say, the critical gravitational horizon of a black hole & a frame "B" relatively at rest. Frame "A" could in principle observe frame "B" whizzing about indefinitely at the evolving "future boundary". This idea I think marries a fairly full application of relativity with your configuration space idea. This could also apply on the small scale if a quantum field was interpreted in the same way.

I realise this is all very sketchy, which is why I think it may be beneficial to list some guiding principles & relevant facts in point form, then perhaps collaboratively expand on each point to flesh out some semblence of a model.

Cheers for now!

Mr. Johnstone,

On the topic of soliciting comments on our ideas from Julian Barbour, I have what I believe will be some encouraging words. When I submitted my essay to FQXi there was a provision in the submission form whereby I was offered the opportunity to name three persons whom I specifically would like to have as reviewers of my essay. (I hope I'm not "speaking out of school" here, as it were, but I do not recall seeing any stipulation that this information should be kept confidential.) So at any rate, the three reviewers I requested were Julian Barbour, Lee Smolin, and George Ellis (I'd noted Ellis's essay in last year's competition, too). Of course, I have no way of knowing whether this will actually happen, but if it does, I suspect the reviewers may well look at whatever posts are appended to the essay. So there is at least some hope that any comments which appear here will come to the reviewers' attention. As the saying goes, time will tell.

Btw, there recently has been a revised procedure whereby authors of essays are requested to log in before composing posts. The "system" supposedly will then automatically add the author's name at the top. This did not happen with one of my earlier posts (authorship was listed as "anonymous"). Perhaps there are still some bugs to be worked out. We shall see what happens this time. Even if it says anonymous, it's me.

I look forward to seeing your list of guiding principles and relevant facts.

Cheers!

jcns

Mr. Johnstone,

By way of addendum to my previous post, I'd like to add that inasmuch as Barbour, Smolin, and Ellis are all members of the FQXi community, and inasmuch as they are all known to have an interest in the broad topic of this essay, it does not take a rocket surgeon to conjecture that they might read the essay. By specifically requesting them as reviewers I was simply trying to improve the odds.

I keep coming back to comments such as the one by Brian Greene which I quoted in footnote 1 in my essay. Smolin has made what I see as a parallel comment: "We have to find a way to unfreeze time -- to represent time without turning it into space. I have no idea how to do this. I can't conceive of a mathematics that doesn't represent a world as if it were frozen in eternity. It's terribly hard to represent time, and that's why there's a good chance that this representation is the missing piece." (page 257, 'The Trouble With Physics')

Perhaps I'm missing some blindingly huge and fundamental point, but it strikes me that viewing "the flow of time" as being nothing more or less than the evolution of the physical universe (a totally accurate view, in my opinion) should be a good starting point for a representation of time which unfreezes it. Yes, of course, as always, the devil will be in the details. Some sort of Machian, relativistic representation will be required, and I unfortunately do not know how to formulate that representation. I'm hoping that some smarter people will know how and that they will take on the job of doing so. I can't help thinking that it might lead to real progress toward sorting out some of the long standing puzzles in physics. That certainly is my hope.

jcns

  • [deleted]

  • Post #35

Mr Smith

There seems no doubt that the vast majority of physicists either openly or, when pressed, will say that we really have no understanding of what we call time, or any definite idea of how it should be treated in a fundamental theory. One consequence of this of course is the "problem of time", where we have two incompatible treatments in QM & GR, one of the barriers to a unified theory. The correct treatment may be revealed when the much sought after "GUT" theory of quantum gravity is finally discovered and I believe it will be, hopefully in our lifetimes!! I think that Lee Smolin himself & others like Fotini Markopolou are doing some promising work in this area by looking at "spacetime" as being "emergent" from more fundamental dynamical entities.

Whatever "emergent" properties a quantum theory of gravity derives, will, I believe, still only leave us with a "locally" valid notion of "time operators" internal to a given system or state which will hopefully for us, be describable as observables in relative configurations! Globally, a model of "time" as configurations may then perhaps be on a better footing to be "built up" from this fundamental description.

I have actually just noticed again your "elephant" analogy in footnote 3 of your essay. This is very descriptive & certainly can apply locally for co-moving observers in an inertial frame, but, as you also mention, observers at large spacial or velocity separations would have very different views of a configuration as it would apply to any notion of a particular time (eg. Einstein's "lack of simultaneity"). In relativity, Lorentz transformations can be used to relate one frame to another with time being one of the coordinates. So I guess we would need something similar that could relate the configurations purely in spacial terms within the spacial & "velocity" boundaries of our evolving configuration space? Whether or not the Universe is spacially finite or the speed of light was shown to vary in some way would impact on this view also.

Although I have not completed my list of guiding principles etc due to time constraints, perhaps now is a good time to state at least a few important ones. So here goes:-

1. Background independence (A weakness of String Theory & a strength of Loop Quantum Gravity type theories?)

2. Only relationships between objects/observables in evolving configurations exist.

3. Apparent "time" is describable only by these configurations, as constrained by relativistic effects.

4. Prior "times"(configurations) as stored in the memory of conscious observers, only exist once & therefore can never be "accessed" again. (Requires a disproof of GR "closed timelike curve" solutions?).

5. Feynman's ideal of redefining all time quantities in spacial terms needs to be incorporated somehow.

I wonder whether Lev Goldfarb's ETS scheme can provide new insights into any of this?

Cheers for now!

Mr. Johnstone,

Just a very quick reply to let you know I've seen your post, and agree fully with the points in your list. I'm departing very shortly on unplanned travel, so may be less able to focus on this topic than usual for a while. Good question about possible insights from Goldfarb's way of looking at things. I currently don't understand it well enough to have a worthwhile opinion.

My quick gut feeling is that it would help at this point to hear from some of the recognized professional "heavyweights" in the field regarding their views on the points we've raised. I suspect that our ideas will only "gain traction," as the saying goes, if they are taken seriously and "championed" by recognized authorities in the field. I fear that I've about reached the limit of how far I can take them without input and support from the professionals in the field. More later.

jcns

Mr. Johnstone,

This is being posted while I'm off traveling. I've been intending to mention one possible avenue we could explore which might prove helpful. In doing so, however, I'm obliged to admit that I've been seriously remiss in not having thoroughly pursued it already. In your post of 17 August you wrote, "Now, back in 'motion land', we agree that all quantities of time should be re-interpreted in terms of spacial displacements. You have clearly stated this in your essay, including the resulting derivation of the mass/energy equivalence obtained in this way. These are precisely the sorts of predictions & proofs we need to start building a model."

The mass/energy equivalence simply "popped out" on my very first experiment with substituting units of displacement for units of time, which I just happened to try with the definition of energy. This was, of course, most encouraging! What I am more than a little embarrassed to admit, however, is that I have not subsequently gone through systematically to apply the same procedure to the many other equations which appear in physics, i.e., doing the same substitution to see what other interesting things might pop out. Possibly other, similar "predictions" might pop out? Possibly even some that Einstein or others have not already made a hundred years ago? That would be exciting.

If you have any interest in pursuing this avenue, please by all means be my guest. And I trust it goes without saying that if you come across any interesting discoveries I'd be delighted to hear about them. Btw, this analytical technique was taught to me by my high school physics instructor, Mr. Carlyle Davidson, a wonderful teacher; he called it "dimensional analysis." Of course, he was not suggesting we replace units of time with units of displacement, but rather suggesting only that we carefully examine and compare units on both sides of our equations to be sure they match. If the units don't match, it's a clue that we'd done something wrong! If you do decide to give this a try, good luck and happy hunting!

Cheers,

jcns

5 days later

Mr. Johnstone,

With sincere apologies for perpetrating this running monologue, I've had some recent thoughts relevant to our topic which I'd like to throw out for your consideration. As background, I'm currently re-reading Smolin's 'Three Roads to Quantum Gravity.' I assume you've probably already read it, but if not, I highly recommend it. I find that in re-reading these books I'm bringing new ideas *to* them, and as a consequence I'm taking new ideas *away* from them. What follows is an example.

In discussing the topic of zero point motion Smolin writes, "According to quantum theory, no particle can sit exactly still for this would violate Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. A particle that remains at rest has a precise position, for it never moves. But for the same reason it has also a precise momentum, namely zero. This also violates the uncertainty principle . . . . " (p. 83, TRTQG)

Now, in a Machian universe (as opposed to a Newtonian universe) we must ask the question, "remain exactly still relative to what?" There is no fixed reference with which to measure "stillness." The stillness, or lack thereof, of a particle in a Machian universe can only be measured relative to all the other particles in the universe. In order for a particle to remain absolutely still in a Machian universe, it would need to remain absolutely still relative to every other particle in the universe. But this could only happen if every other particle in the universe was also absolutely still relative to every other particle in the universe. In other words, it could only happen in a totally frozen universe in which no particle moved relative to any other particle. If this were to be the case, then, clearly, according to our proposed definition of particular times as being equivalent to particular configurations of the universe, time would not change in this frozen universe. All processes would stop, including the cognition of any sentient beings who happened to be so unfortunate as to reside in this dismal universe.

This strikes me as being a more fundamental way to explain why it is not possible for a particle to remain absolutely still than trying to explain it in terms of the uncertainty principle. Which leads me to wonder whether this same rationale might somehow also offer a basis for understanding the uncertainty principle itself? Or is this a variety of the chicken and egg question? I've not come up with an answer to this one yet, but would certainly welcome any thoughts on any or all of the above.

I hope all is well with you. I have just returned from my unplanned travel, and am about to embark on some previously planned travel. Will do my best to stay tuned in while traveling.

Cheers,

jcns

  • [deleted]

  • Post #39

Hello Mr Smith

Please don't apologise for consecutive posts, as I must confess that my own will be rather haphazard due to unrelated work commitments that don't allow me much time to devote to these issues. So any time you have these thoughts, please go ahead & post them!

The point you have raised regarding a "Machian proof" of the necessity of motion is one that I must say I have never thought about in exactly that way, but will now ponder for it's implications, if things are as you say (the alternative would actually be very much like "Platonia"!). Regarding it's connection to the uncertainty principle, on first thought I would say they are not directly related. The Heisenberg principle is a direct result of the quantum nature of energy & so does appear to be fundamental to any description of nature, regardless of your preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics & without any other explanations required.

These issues, to me, do highlight some limitations of General Relativity in that, although Einstein was deeply influenced by Mach's ideas, they weren't fully realised in GR. In GR, the idea of a "stationary" particle can only be in terms of "co-moving" with another particle/s in an inertial frame (as opposed to the Newtonian view). This is the "special case" actually described by his famous (& somewhat abused) equation E=mcsquared, which really only applies to rest energy. So it is formulated on arbitrary co-ordinate frames which cannot be considered in relation to the "rest of the Universe", independant of a "space-time" manifold, as in your Machian picture. So it does in principle, allow a particle/body to be "static " when considered as a sub system. This sits somewhere "between" Newton & Mach I believe, ie no "absolute background" but also not completely "background independant". Then again, the depths of GR are still to be fully mined!

This provides food for thought in the formulation of our type of model, where all objects must retain a momentum/velocity component (motion) relative to all other objects. That is, any co-moving objects in a particular configuration, must still be defined with a motion relative to an evolving "global vector space" representing the evolving Universal configurations("times"). This vector/velocity space would represent our "4th dimensional measure" & could be considered to be orthogonal to the 3D's of ordinary space. Of course, velocity has dimension of time! So again, we need a way to re-define it in terms only of displacements...perhaps angles between vectors? As you said, we need help!!

Not sure how coherent that all is of the cuff?

Cheers

Roy J

  • [deleted]

  • Post #40

Roy and Mr. Smith,

You had some questions regarding the insights the ETS may provide into some of the questions you raised. I cannot really help you, except to mention the following.

Physics, as we know it today, starts and ends with the measurement, and we should not forget that! What I am proposing is to change radically the very concept of measurement: from numeric to structural. And so *all* of physics should change. Of course, eventually we should be able to connect with the existing physics, but at the beginning it is not prudent to do so, since we would be guided by the wrong considerations.

Most of the implications are such that we cannot know them now. The only reasonable thing we can do now, if we adopt the formalism, is to follow the logic of the new forms of 'measurement'. In particular, the concepts of time, mass, space, etc., as we know them, become obviated. What should replace them? Again, we cannot know it now. We need to proceed with the utmost caution, and thus our main difficulty is that we have to start from the *very* beginning, and this is at the time when everyone wants to proceed along well developed roads.