The Times They Are A-Changin'

"We agree past and future do not exist, but then we turn around and try to define the present and it becomes this dimensionless point between past and future,"

It only becomes a dimensionless point between the past and the future if we fail to recognize and understand that particular times are identically equivalent to and are completely defined by, and only by, particular configurations of the universe. The universe always has some configuration, and this configuration changes; it evolves. We, as sentient beings, are able to observe this evolution, and we have given it a special name: "the flow of time."

This word "time" is a human invention, and it is the source of a great deal of mischief and confusion. The existence of this word and the ways in which we use it tend to blind us to the fact that we are simply using the word as a tool to describe the environment in which we find ourselves as it rearranges itself. In our sometimes inelegant and imprecise way of communicating with one another, we have all tacitly agreed to describe various arrangements of the universe which we observe by referring to them as various "particular times." The universe is dynamic; its configuration changes in more or less predictable ways which we strive to understand and which we have dubbed the laws of physics. Unfortunately, our word "time" has become inextricably tangled up with physics in ways which ultimately may not serve it, or us, well. We need to rethink our use of this word and the concept with which it is linked.

I have attempted to offer a more thorough explication of this in the essay which may be found here.

Karl, John,

Let's not forget the partition of the different truth systems. That I can see at the same time both the Sun and the Moon in the sky remains a truth for me, the observer and his truth system. What we talked about and agreed with above is another truth system that belongs to the ontology of the universe. What I am saying is that within a specific truth system the truths do not agree with other truth systems, this is normal and logical. No one is wrong if he specifies to which truth system the absence of choice a.k.a. facts a.k.a. truths it belong to. Many arguments and paradoxes are eliminated by recognizing this partition.

Marcel,

flow of time is flow of numerical order of materal change running in a timeless space

M-M,

Innumerable truth systems are very necessary. Often opposing ones even support each other, like opposite sides of the same coin. What would conservatives and liberals be without the other? Reality is a function of distinction and often these distinctions become immensely complex, to where no one mind can encompass the multitude of perspectives without completely melting down. There is quite literally no God's eye perspective on the entire reality.

That said, often opposing perspectives do clash and one might well prevail over the other, because just as new views are born, old ones can die.

J.C,

I pretty much agree with your description. My main point all along is that since this universal configuration we commonly refer to as the present is more fundamental than the units of time being created, then it is the present which is the constant and the units which move. Thus, on this fundamental level, it isn't the present moving from past to future, but future configurations becoming past configurations, due to the universal change.

It seems counterintuitive from our perspective as individual sentient beings, because by comparing it to space, it seems equivalent to moving from one situation to the next, much like walking along a path. But when we consider that we exist totally within our context and are in no way separate from it, then our motion is part of the larger change and the events of our lives recede into the past, as new ones replace them.

"Thus, on this fundamental level, it isn't the present moving from past to future, but future configurations becoming past configurations, due to the universal change."

The problem with phrasing the issue as you've done here is, in my opinion, that it gives an undeserved (and potentially misleading and confusing) ring of substance and reality to "future configurations." Yes, it's true that we can imagine future configurations, and we can even predict with some varying degree of certainty the rough form which some of them undoubtedly will have. But they are no more "real" than ghosts. They do not "become" or "do" anything.

Perhaps a thought experiment will help explain my thinking on this. Imagine for the sake of argument that the universe is a shoebox containing a few billiard balls. Now, the billiard balls will always have some configuration relative to one another and to the shoebox. But where are the past and future configurations? They are nowhere to be seen. They are not objectively real.

Now, if the shoebox were shaken, for example, the configuration would change, and if we have studied our physics textbooks diligently we might even be able to predict how the configuration of our small universe should evolve. We can infer with some varying degree of precision the likely nature of its evolution. But what we refer to as past or future configurations still are nowhere to be seen.

If we are willing to become somewhat speculative at this point we can add that any sentient creatures such as ourselves who might inhabit this small universe might have a "memory" of once-real but no-longer-existing configurations. Those creatures might think of those configurations as the past. And they might imagine possible configurations which they have never observed and imagine them as the future. But where are these past and future configurations? If we peek into the shoebox we will see only one configuration. That configuration is what our sentient creatures probably would think of as their "present."

Your thoughts on this are invited.

Wow! John, Eckard, and Marcel in particular.

Brilliant perception from the misty gloom! May I attempt a floodlight? but be careful as most are blinded; Some time ago I had a moment of inspiration which I'm fearful to share. But in truth I have no choice but to ask those with vision if they can see it.

Eckard, as usual, it's your Localised Observer, in each and every inertial frame, which as Weinstein said we haven't considered well enough. Now bring in Marcels's 'each EM field as just different dynamic dimensions of time.' and consider how each massive particle (or group) in motion has it's own EM field. With local limits. And every point, as John says, is the centre of it's own 3D co-ordinate system, each being one of the essential 'innumerable truth systems.' This is the same as the "infinitely many 'spaces' in relative motion" which Einstein described, but never did quite find the link to his "all mass is spatially extended" .. but with limits, which brings us back to the EM and other fields around all mass, behaving differently with relative motion through it's 'next field up' background.

Marcel again; "Observers on Earth and Mars were never part of the same moment or 'now'. They are in real and physically different inertial fields and thus will have their own local time, as each of the infinitely many spaces in relative motion' does. And EM waves must change speed at each of these EM field limits to maintain 'c' locally as it moves into the next. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, including 'c'. And here is where we've been blinded.

Light changes speed moving from, say, water into a vacuum, or from air into ice. All we need to prove is that when we move that ice cube, relative to the air, the light within it passes through it at a constant speed wrt the ice cube, i.e. locally, no matter which vector we choose or which way the planet is moving. Then we have a whole new simple physics. Discrete fields in relative motion resolving anomalies. Acceleration changes frames, and conservation is served in balancing frequency with wavelength.

But wait, we have already proved this! We've just been blinded. We even have both quantum and classic processes for the speed change between inertial frames. Ah! But there is no Lorentz/Fitzgerald contraction, and we'd be able to observe gas jets at 6c or more, and 'lensing' delays of years! (that's observing two 'times' at once!) so of course it can't possibly be correct. Are there any not blinded yet?

Very best wishes

Peter

Marcel again; "Observers on Earth and Mars were never part of the same moment or 'now'. They are in real and physically different inertial fields and thus will have their own local time, as each of the infinitely many spaces in relative motion' does. And EM waves must change speed at each of these EM field limits to maintain 'c' locally as it moves into the next. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, including 'c'. And here is where we've been blinded.

..................................

all observations are measured only in space and always in space, time is only numerical order of observation....clocks tick only in space and not in time

yours amrit

Einstein expressed time is numerical order of physical phenomena in a famous sentence: "Time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure it". In 1952, in his book Relativity, in discussing Minkowski's Space World interpretation of his theory of relativity, Einstein writes: "Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence".

Einstein did not interpreted time as a fourth dimension of space-time. This was and still is misinterpretation of the most physicists which do not distinguish between physical and psychological time. They "project" their inner psychological time into the physical reality although it is not there.

For Einstein there was no division between past, present and future, there is rather a single existence. His most descriptive testimony to this faith came when his lifelong friend Besso died. Einstein wrote a letter to Besso's family, saying that although Besso had preceded him in death it was of no consequence: "Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

(out of my comming book)

Anon Peter Jackson,

I see growing consensus with John, J.C. and others: The future is uncertain but the past unchangeable, and this distinction belongs to a real observer. Religion as well as physics have unfortunately been emancipated from this realistic perspective. I doubt that the young Weinstein will have enough courage as to solve the case and separate physics from what is deeply rooted. I rather envision Van Flandern's fellows to succeed.

We all learned to either believe in SR or getting declared stupid. Meanwhile I feel free to rethink the arguments myself. Flandern coined the expression "time desynchronization" by SR. Einstein himself called relativity "seemingly" not agreeable with the constant velocity of light in vacuum. Was he right?

Let's assume four identical clocks, one on earth E, a second one just one second remote on the moon M and a third and fourth on identical shuttles moving towards E and M, respectively. Shouldn't it be reasonable for symmetry reasons that the shuttles can start and arrive simultaneously no matter how fast they move? Wouldn't a synchronization be simply possible in principle by correcting for the time of flight light propagates either from E to M or return? With this one-way method one could make sure that both shuttles will start simultaneously and for symmetry reasons also arrive at the same moment. What time spans the four clocks show is quite a different question. I cannot see any reason for ascribing different times to the same point in space just if there is something moving relative to something at a different point. Be honest, you all do understand it very well: Any light we perceive belongs to the past. It traveled at least one way.

Incidentally, I would like to add a caveat to the thesis that the laws of physics are valid in all coordinate systems: In reality we have to obey the restriction to only positive elapsed time. Negative elapsed time is as unreal as is negative distance.

Those who experienced a blast did first see it and heard it with some delay. Do not infer from this that it happened twice. While I may even respect the many impressive theories that are based on SR and Minkowski's metric, I suggest looking for simpler, honest, and more realistic results from Galilean mathematics and physics too.

Eckard

Eckard

Eckart

numerical order of events does not exist as a past and does not exist not as a future in a physical sense, it exist only inj mathematical sense.

That's why Einstien put i in X4=ict....imaginary coordinate of motion in a timeless space

The fact is that flow of change and flow of numerical order is running in a timeless space. Universe is NOW.

yours amrit

Amrit,

I understand those like you who attribute existence just to the present as follows: Physical existence of something means it is tangible and it can be influenced. Tangible refers to perception, which strictly speaking belongs to the past. The possibility to influence something belongs to the future. The notion presence is an imprecise overlap of past and future which strictly speaking exclude each other. When we say 'now', 'today', or maybe 'in this century', we are usually doing this if the precise time does not matter much.

Every single idealized moment, in particular the very now, corresponds to one measure out of the continuum of uncountably much real numbers. I maintain even if mediocre physicists tend to deny that : Absolutely infinite accuracy is as fictitious as are the notions point, line, infinity, zero, etc.

The expression sign(x) equals to +1 for positive values of x and to -1 for negative ones. At least common sense and practical implication tell us: There is no approachable value 0 for x=0 in between. From this strictly scientific point of view, the notion present in the meaning of a timespan between past and future does not at all fit into physics. Past and future are sufficient.

We cannot expect sound foundations of physics to be based on Hilbert's denial of the arrow of causality. The late Einstein admitted that the now worried him seriously. While he might have felt that his SR is wrong, he hoped for an explanation outside science.

Incidentally, ict was introduced by Minkowski, not by Einstein, admittedly based on Einstein's - as has been shown by Van Flandern - illusory SR.

Eckard, not Eckart

JCN,

I agree the past and future don't exist in the same way as the present exists, but without those memories and concepts, we would have no ability to make sense of the present. For one thing, how would you specifically define the present? If it's just a dimensionless point between past and future, there would be no duration for even light to move, or atomic activity to function, so nothing would exist, but then when we try to include duration, we get back to past and future. The problem is that time is a bit like temperature, in that the closer we look at it, the more it seems to fade as a clear concept, yet is as real to us as a hot stove, so are we illusionary?

Eckard

"Flandern coined the expression "time desynchronization" by SR. Einstein himself called relativity "seemingly" not agreeable with the constant velocity of light in vacuum. Was he right?"

I say yes, but only due to his need to describe the vacuum as nothing for the purposes of EM wave propagation, and that need can now be removed. 'Space withour aether is unthinkable'. (quote. AE 1921).

This says Van Flandern was absolutely spot on, but never quite worked out why. Time is 'desynchronised' at the boundary of every inertial frame, i.e. at the limits of every EM field around every bit of mass in relative motion. Light does 'c' through each local field. When it reaches an observer it changes to the 'c' of the observers field. (Doppler shifting). That is the true and embarrasing simplicity of why it is always observed at 'c'.

Let me test your Clocks E, M, S1 and S2 with the model. From the PoV of an observer at rest in the heliosphere (wrt the sun). Subject to how far each is away the shuttles can be seen to start similtaneously. But, even with the same d and v, being seen to arrive similtaneously from the same point is tricky due to the disparate motions of earth and moon! The observer could however move to a spot equidistant to E and M on S1 S2 arrival to achieve that.

If he (from there at that moment) observes each clock he'll find they all read the same. (apart possibly from some gravitational time dilation!).

It's as simple as jumping on a bus. Light jumping on the back of the moving bus (being converted to 'cn' at the glass) will get there before light that had to use the pavement.

If the 'bus' is going the wrong way (as light going through MACS J1149.5+2223) it may be delayed by a few nanosecs (or a few years! - as we find). Meaning perhaps the mass of the galaxy derived is not anomalous after all.

And yes; The laws of physics are the same in all buses and galaxies. But, as they all move wrt each other, you observe events occurring in different frames at different times from within each.

If you check you may find this matches (explains) all paradoxical observation. Huygens, E-O extinction merely explain the classic/quantum mechanism.

So. as I say. When we have an 'adjustment' to complete SR as a unified field theory with Locality/Reality and a quantum mechanism, we'll write it off as nonsense as we can't get our heads around it and it's not precisely what we think SR says.

Is it obvious I need help!?

Peter

Eckard

Einstein has told: ""Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." This proverb was guiding us searching into real nature of time: going deeply into the subject one can see that physical time as a numerical order of material change has exclusively "mathematical" nature. One could abandon time in physics definitely and propose only existence of mathematical time as a numerical order of change running in a timeless space. This view would in a perfect accordance with physical reality. Today into most physicists mind's idea of time as a physical reality is still prevalent; because of that we consciously keep term "physical time" knowing real nature of physical time is only mathematical succession of material change running into timeless space. Once you understand change do not run in time, time is only a numerical order of change, you easily progress into comprehension that time as numerical order of change has exclusively mathematical character. Because of that fact Einstein has described fourth coordinate of space-time as imaginary coordinate X4 = ict where i is an imaginary number ( i on square is -1) that does not correspond any element or part of physical reality as for example number 1 corresponds one single thing. (one chair, one person). Imaginary coordinate X4 has exclusively mathematical nature and does not correspond to some real distance in the universe. X4 is a mathematical coordinate of description of photon motion into timeless cosmic space.

You take a stone and left it to fall towards the earth. Stone will fall through space in the present moment only, not in the past or in the future. Measurements of all experiments we carry out always only in the present moment. In physics "past" and "future" exist only in a mathematical sense as a numerical order of material changes which run in a timeless space. Eternity is contained in the present moment. This is the fundamental discovery of the third millennium science that will change human society to the very roots.

yours amrit

mathematical succession = mathemetical order

Amrit,

I was teaching fundamentals of EE including complex calculus for forty years. So you might hopefully be ashamed for lecturing me: "i is an imaginary number ( i on square is -1)". Indeed, Minkowski's metric deserves a plausible explanation. Look at Vukelja as to see how Minkowski's spacetime corresponds to Lorentz transformation. Vukelja also shows that the "mathematical procedure by which Albert Einstein derived Lorentz transformation is incorrect". This is of course hard to swallow from the many physicists who are still idolizing Einstein. However, Petr Beckmann, Louis Essen, Tom Van Flandern, Cynthia Whitney, and many others were or are, respectively serious scientists with compelling arguments: Lorentz contraction is based on wrong reasoning.

The reason for me to also take issue was my suspicion that physicists at least since Heisenberg left the solid ground of using complex calculus just as a tool. This suspicion has been fully confirmed in all details so far.

I agree with you in that "change do not run in time". Nonetheless I consider elapsed time as a most foundational immediate measures while the usual notion of time is restricted to the level of abstraction. In this sense I am distinguishing between the unchangeable measure of all past and an abstracted measure that also includes all future.

Let me add to the question of the notion present that point-like events belong to abstract models. In practice, all events are processes of some duration. This does however not justify the use of the notion present in physics.

Eckard

JM,

You asked how I would specifically define the present. I'd define it the same way I'd define any particular time: a particular time is identically equivalent to and is completely defined by, and only by, a particular configuration of the universe. Think of our shoebox and billiard balls. What has "duration" there, i.e., what endures? The billiard balls endure. The way they're arranged relative to one another does not endure; it changes. It's always the present in our shoebox. The present configuration may include information which tells us something about configurations which preceded it. It never includes information about configurations that we infer will be subsequent to it, because these latter configurations have never been objectively real.

I like your analogy comparing time with temperature. Both are what may be thought of as "emergent" concepts, and I explicitly pointed out this emergent nature of time in the essay to which I've referred elsewhere in this thread. Modern physics has gotten itself into trouble, in my opinion, because it has failed to recognize this subtle fact. Physicists treat time as though it were real, in and of itself, separate and independent of the broader notion of configurations of the universe from whence it sprang.

This charade has been reinforced by the international system of units, the so-called "MKS" system, which puts time on the same footing with mass and length, It would be like including a separate unit in the MKS system for temperature. Including a unit for temperature is not done because the emergent nature of temperature has been recognized, whereas the emergent nature of time has not been generally recognized.

We have been tricked and victimized by our imprecise use of language. In the second post to this FQXi article I stated that anyone writing articles about "time" should be required to define exactly what he/she means by the word time. I was not being facetious. It is not safe or correct to assume that this term needs no clear and explicit definition. It is our general failure to do so that probably has led to problems such as the disconnect between general relativity and quantum mechanics, in my opinion.

Regarding your question about whether or not we are illusionary, I'll leave that for others to address.

JM,

I should hasten to add to my previous post that yes, I am familiar with the SI unit for temperature, the Kelvin. I would simply comment that this unit, like the unit for time, is derivative rather than fundamental, in my opinion.