Real-Time Physics

John (Cox),

Let's be careful in thinking rather than in the choice of marginal words. You were musing about the question whether time "was like a river carrying us along with it, or was it like a static state which we move through". Admittedly, I don't consider such metaphors. When I was teaching EE students for more than four decades, I used the notion of time as a measure how distant from moment of consideration something will be in the future with the option to arbitrarily shift the point zero of reference. When I dealt with auditory perception, I got aware that only data from the past are available in the moment of consideration. Accordingly I mimicked the auditory function with reference to the (moving relative to the usual scale) "now" because the ear does not know our agreement on Christ's birth midnight in Greenwich. It works based on elapsed time instead.

Let me try and explain why I prefer only one ubiquitous time everywhere instead of a different local time for every inertial system:

Well, I meanwhile distrust the ideas by Lorentz/FitzGerald and fellows because they tried to rescue a guess that was disproved by Michelson. However, there is a compelling reason too:

The measure time is only valuable if it correctly reflects the relationship between earlier and subsequent events, in other words: causality. Any cause precedes its effect. There is no preferred origin in space. Any spatial distance between two locations is positive.

Eckard

John,

I think I get the gist of it.

When I say the "point of the present," it is open to interpretation. I only see the essential reality as energy in space, so if it exists, it is "present." This is difficult to define as a point, because a point in time implies instantaneous and if we were to actually freeze the action, there would be no change and thus no time.

I recall some years ago an experiment done on these large desert ants, where, after locating food, some had their legs clipped and others had tiny extensions glued on. Those with shorter legs stopped before reaching the food and those with longer legs walked past it. The conclusion drawn was that they counted steps as a navigation function.

E.O. Wilson, on the other hand, described the insect brain as a thermostat.

I think both are true, in that the left brain serial function is a form of counter/clock and the right brain parallel processor is a form of thermostat. This allows the individual to both process the larger environment wholistically and to navigate a particular path through it.

The problem now is that our logic function is largely a serial process, ie. narrative and cause and effect, while the scalar side is dismissed as intuition and emotion. Intuition is simply our cumulative experience reacting to current circumstances and we each have different experiences, so intuition is not just some generalized instinct, but built on the entire body of one's knowledge.

Consider that physicists have a body of knowledge that determines how they respond to fresh input and currently it has them seriously off into fantasy land, so we do need to go back and examine where the "junk in" is, that is causing this "junk out."

Often new ideas just "spring out of nowhere," but that is the scalar function. Much as pressure on a balloon will cause it to pop at the weakest point, so to does this process lead us to the nuances of the larger picture.

I have in these discussions tried making the argument that time is much more like temperature than space, as an effect of action. Time is to temperature, what frequency is to amplitude.

Temperature gets dismissed as a statistical average, yet particles are exchanging energy and seeking that entropic medium, incorporating new input in the process. Meanwhile, time, as the sequential basis of narrative and causal logic, is elevated to foundational property.

Sequence is not causal. Yesterday doesn't cause today, anymore than one rung on a ladder causes the next. Energy exchange is causal. The sun shining on a rotating planet creates these events called days. Just as wind on the water causes waves. So measuring from one event to the next is not indicative of some foundational geometry of the universe. Like temperature, it is simply a measure of change caused by action.

Regards,

John

Like temperature is a scalar measure of action, it is simply a measure of change caused by action.

"Time is to temperature, what frequency is to amplitude."

John, I think because I am myself dyslexic, I continue to be fascinated with how you go on creating logically coherent narrative from false premises. That's what Pauli meant, I suppose, by "not even wrong."

Wave frequency and amplitude are independent. Frequency is actually the inverse of time . That is, a time unit is defined by counting a number of wave cycles, oscillations between up and down amplitudes. Amplitude describes the energy content of the wave. We can have high frequency/low energy waves and low frequency/high energy waves.

Yes, I know you'll have some explanation to follow that makes sense to you. It won't make sense to physics, however, because it's very fundamental logic that if "time is to temperature what frequency is to amplitude," the only possible conclusion is that time and temperature are independent.

Tom

We all know what time is until we try to explain it.

Tom,

I really would like to say; Oh wow! I see your point! But I just don't.

When did I ever say frequency and amplitude are not independent? Turn up the volume on your radio and it raises the amplitude, but doesn't affect the frequency.

You also seem to be agreeing that frequency is the basis of how we measure time.

The "energy content of the wave" is a scalar measure of energy. Yes, temperature isn't a single wave, but I'm not saying amplitude is temperature, I'm saying time is to temperature what frequency is to amplitude. Frequency and amplitude are characteristics of wave action, while time and temperature are far more generalized effects. We can certainly have change and thus the effect of time, without there being any regularity to it. In fact, if it was only regular frequency, there would be no "arrow of time," only a metronome.

And one reason I like you is because I know you will never agree with anything I say. If you did, it would likely kill the conversation.

Regards,

John M

John, your assumption is entirely equivalent to assuming 0 = 1. Your argument is disconnected. It's a mystery to me why *you* don't see that.

Best,

Tom

John M and John C, respectively,

Temperature has an absolute point of reference: zero.

CF v. Weizsaecker referred to Aurelius Augustinus when he wrote the sentence you quoted. He argued that there was no time before God created the universe. Mockers added: Before He made the Big Bang, He made the hell for those who are rising insubordinate questions.

I consider only the duration of an already finished process, i.e. the time that has already elapsed, as an unchangeably fixated measure, as something that can be measured, in principle. The usual notion of time has been an abstracted, flipped and arbitrarily shifted measure.

It is certainly tempting and possibly rewarding for theoreticians to conjecture that the measurable duration of oscillatory elementary processes relates to expectation values and the transfer between kinetic and potential energy and return. However, I did not came across to any fertile and provably consistent suggested mechanism. I doubt that we need such speculations at all.

On the other hand I am sure that it is not necessary to integrate from minus infinity to plus infinity as to calculate the frequency spectrum of measured data. Future data are not available in advance. Expected future influences did not yet become real. Nice theories by Descartes and Fourier (who were still on search), Einstein, Hilbert, Minkowski, and many others do not overrule that experience.

Eckard

We've been circling our wagons around measurement of time, rather than the thread from Lee Smolin's book. Is time existential or emergent? "GO!"

Tom,

You don't argue with what I say, but your model of what I say, aka. the strawman argument.

I suppose it is a natural consequence of seeing only the model as real.

Regards,

John M

John C,

I just don't quite know what to make of your seeming request to push the reset button on this discussion. Personally I think I make a very basic and elementary argument that we are too focused on the sequence of time/past to future and incorporate it into elemental theories of nature, rather than the dynamic by which future becomes past. You are certainly entitled to disagree. I'm sure Tom would like the company, but for me to reset, I would simply have to repeat the same points, since you give me no clue as to what you do or do not understand and what you agree or disagree with.

Admittedly I tend not to engage some of the more abstract debates over the nature of time, for the simple reason I feel most of them are efforts to correct flawed initial premises, but I don't think this is an overly complex point, so it really shouldn't be difficult to engage, if one is willing to consider the logic.

Regards,

John M

John M.

I quite agree that we can become too focused on heuristic definition of the transitional aspect of time, and your comments make a good point of departure.

Smolin's book argues for a return to treating time as existential and I very much agree. Too often I read partial quotes out of context to support arguments for one or the other preference for relativistic or quantum interpretation and from that a pronouncement that 'time does not exist'. Shrodingers cat doesn't just say that a quantity can be thought of as either a particle or a wave, it is an affirmation of Heisenberg's principle and that physical phenomenon exist

as both a continuum state and a discrete quantity. I have commented on Evolving the Arrow of Time that the quantum might be found as a break from the continuum rather than a break in continuous change, that is at a point of intersection of a line tangent to a curvature of spacetime.

It is in the choice of axioms in constructing expression mathematically in both quantum mechanics and relativity that we find a mathematic proof of some conclusion or another which then is trotted out to "prove" that time is something other than fundamentally existential. But even in arithmetic the rules for multiplication and division of/by zero are arbitrary simply for the purpose of preserving the associative, commutative, and distributive properties of mathematic operations. In Eddington's 1920 defense of relativity, 'Space, Time and Gravitation' he says quite frankly not to try to find any relationship with the physical in the assignment of a different sign for the fourth term, it is simply by changing that sign that the math can distinguish that term as being 'timelike'.

Quantum mechanics treats time as if it were Newtonian and Relationists point to Einstein saying that the Newtonian paradigm is a 'stubbornly persistent illusion' and both then say 'A Haa! Time is an illusion! when in truth its only in the choice of axiom. That's the very definition of ad hoc-proctor hoc.

As to what 'I' think... if we compare the qualitative properties of how we use space, time, and energy in conventions of units and measure, we find that energy is polymorphic, whereas both time and space do not transmute into something else. Relativisticly, time and space undergo transformation of only the dimensional length. To my mind that argues strongly for space and time being existential and energy being emergent.

Thanks, hope I've made myself reasonable clear. Can somebody tell me how I can expand a recent comment on the Article Page so that I can refer to it without clicking back to "read all comments", when I do that it deletes what I've already written in the Comment box. Thanks, jrc.

John C,

Think how the brain processes information, by taking very small snapshots of perception, much like a movie camera taking a series of still shots, then projecting them by shining a strobe light through each in turn. So the brain has to do something similar, in order to extract information from the flood of sensory input. Otherwise it would quickly melt into white noise. Then it reconstructs a narrative sequence of motion and action from this. The result is the flood of input is turned/filtered into a stream of consciousness. That is why time is so important to our conception of reality.

Now consider how the Copenhagen Interpretation defines reality; As a sequence of measurements of an otherwise statistical fog. Yes, we can only perceive the reality our brain records, but the actual filtering process of the brain does set some of the biases. For one thing, the whole notion that reality is fundamentally information has to be considered in light of the fact the brain is designed to process information. As opposed to the respiratory, digestive and circulatory systems, that process energy. Fact is, energy is what manifests information and information is what defines energy.

As I point out, while we experience time as a series of events, past to future, the underlaying reality is the changing configuration of the energy means it is actually future becoming past, as these events come into being and then fade.

Now consider how Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity treat time; Both as the sequence from past to future. The problem with this is it really does require a Newtonian view. That of time as this universal flow from past into the future. GR essentially pulls this reality out from that single thread of time into a four dimensional geometry, that might best be thought of as a tapestry of relationships, in which duration becomes another vector connecting events according to the speed of light. As it is light which is the actual energy exchange. This is quite a brilliant feat, but when taken literally, rather than just a very effective model of energy relationships, it results in this very bizarre notion that there exists this fourth dimensional "blocktime," in which all of history is suspended out there in the geometry made real. This leads to ideas like time traveling through wormholes and that the present is only an illusion of action. It also provides the conceptual foundation for the idea of an expanding universe and that is a whole story unto itself. One of the points I make against it is; If space is what you measure with a ruler and the expanding universe model still assumes a constant speed of light against which to judge this expansion, how is that that space expands, but the ruler doesn't? The best I get in response is some feeble argument that the light is just being carried along by the expansion, but that completely overlooks the fact you use the constant as the denominator and the variable as the numerator, so trying to say the variable is really the denominator is truly horrible math.

QM does use that external, Newtonian timeline, but then it ends up with superpositions, multiworlds and cats in purgatory. That is because it is trying to model how to go from a decidedly determined past into an inconveniently probabilistic future. Which is the direction that Newtonian flow takes.

On the other hand, if you are not trying to lay all these actions out in some historical narrative and actually just sit back and watch; What happens? Stuff happens. Then it recedes into the "past," as other stuff happens. Probabilities collapse into actualities. Before the race, there are ten potential winners, but after it runs, there is only one actual winner. The multiworlds and the superpostions are always one step in the future, then something happens. The atom decays, the cat dies. Its life energy radiates out into cat heaven.

As for GR and how all those clocks can run at different rates and still be in the same reality? They are simply recording particular actions, not some general "flow." You would think that if time were a flow from past to future, the faster clock would move into the future more rapidly, but the opposite is true. It ages/burns quicker and so falls into the past more rapidly.

Regards,

John M

Ps, As for issues with tech, send a note to the moderators. Sometimes they respond to the comments. Or use the forums email, sidebar on the left.

Otherwise just cut and paste. There doesn't seem to be much concern over posting length.

John M.

I think we're on the same page. As in the George Ellis article *Flow of Time* The crux of the problem is in the time reversibility inherent to modern formulations of physical laws. QM+GR=0.

At the outset of Relativity the proponents of 4D Spacetime decided that to keep it simpler they would just assume the scale of length to be the same for both time and space! Hey! Why not... space ain't time anyway! So now we have a 'block universe' without compasses or clocks.

"...cats in purgatory..." Mary will love that!

John C,

"The crux of the problem is in the time reversibility inherent to modern formulations of physical laws."

That goes to the issue of treating reality as only information. As energy manifesting information, since the energy is both conserved and dynamic, it is constantly creating new information by dissolving the old, ie. "Can't have your cake and eat it too." So reversing time isn't just going the other way on the time vector, but making the energy go in reverse and that goes against the nature of the energy!

" proponents of 4D Spacetime decided that to keep it simpler they would just assume the scale of length to be the same for both time and space!"

Mathematically it's not much different to measure between peaks of a wave/distance, as it is to measure them passing a marker/duration, but space and time are not quite the same. When you measure space, you are measuring space, but when you measure time, you are measuring action.

The idea of space as three dimensional is an outgrowth of the xyz coordinate system and that is a function of defining space in relation to the center point, which is how we perceive reality. Then as this point of reference interacts with its environment, it creates a series of events, thus the narrative effect of time. Consider how lots of these points of reference interact together and it is more of a thermodynamic effect, yet no one thinks of temperature as anything more than an effect of and measure of the thermodynamic activity, but we could use ideal gas laws to create a volumetemperature model, similar to spacetime. Much as the Big Bang theory presumably measures the expansion of the universe in terms of the cooling of background radiation.

By the way, if we consider the entirely logical assumption that cosmic redshift is due to the expansion of lightwaves and thus proportional to distance, then this cosmic background radiation would be the solution to Olber's paradox; The light of ever more distance sources, shifted completely off the visible scale.

I could go on, but I'm starting to wander in different directions and have to go to work. Horses don't take Sundays off.

Thanks for taking this seriously. Hey Tom, John C must be delusional as well.

Regards,

John M

The Ultimate Catastrophe in Physics

Neil Turok: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all."

The catastrophic view is shared by almost all theoretical physicists and philosophers of science (although most of them prefer to remain silent):

Mike Alder: "This, essentially, is the Smolin position. He gives details and examples of the death of Physics, although he, being American, is optimistic that it can be reversed. I am not."

Steve Giddings, theoretical physicist; Professor, Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara: "What really keeps me awake at night (...) is that we face a crisis within the deepest foundations of physics. The only way out seems to involve profound revision of fundamental physical principles."

"Profound revision of fundamental physical principles" implies looking for, identifying and, in the end, abandoning some false principle that has led to the catastrophe. Is there such an activity in physics? Yes there is - campaigns against Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, quite noisy sometimes, start and restart but then never reach their goal (the false postulate remains well and kicking):

Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, p. 226: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy and universality of the speed of light. Could the first postulate be true and the other false? If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only the second postulate."

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

"As propounded by Einstein as an audaciously confident young patent clerk in 1905, relativity declares that the laws of physics, and in particular the speed of light -- 186,000 miles per second -- are the same no matter where you are or how fast you are moving. Generations of students and philosophers have struggled with the paradoxical consequences of Einstein's deceptively simple notion, which underlies all of modern physics and technology, wrestling with clocks that speed up and slow down, yardsticks that contract and expand and bad jokes using the word "relative." (...) "Perhaps relativity is too restrictive for what we need in quantum gravity," Dr. Magueijo said. "We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light."

Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"

Einstein's Theory Of Relativity Must Be Rewritten: "A group of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book, Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same - 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum."

Pentcho Valev

Hi Pentcho,

An interesting compilation.

Regards,

Akinbo

Pentcho,

A well-but approach might be more promising than your attack on c.

Well, Michelson disproved the existence of a light-carrying stationary frame of reference in space; but this did merely preclude the existence of a natural point zero in space not relative distances in space.

Well, if Einstein's second postulate was wrong then this could explain a lot; but shouldn't those who are unhappy e.g. with SR and reversibility of time also try and question the first postulate? Are covariance and invariance justified?

Well, individual perspectives are different from each other; but does this imply that there is no common structure to some extent?

Eckard

Eckard

Pentcho,

If only they and you looked in the right direction for the solution they would find it appearing before their eyes.

If all ions re-scatter light at c, yet they can be in 'systems' which can move relatively, then light speed c is continually spontaneously localised (CSL) to be c with respect to all matter it encounters. The quantum mechanism also includes the LT. Earth's bow shock is the perfect model. The 2-fluid plasma implementing the Baryonic/ECI frame transition.

This model resolves all the problems in existence, producing the 'discrete fields' from the IQbit described in my (community 2nd) essay this year, with the previous (all top 10 finalist but overlooked) precursor essays (and papers) laying the dynamic foundations and deriving other aspects.

2020 Vision

Much Ado About Nothing

The Intelligent Bit

The original error is also identified; I was the assumption that disallowing an 'absolute' background also disallowed relatively moving fluid local background frames. Stokes MHD model was a correct basis, just incomplete. Einstein's postulates are recovered by the DFM, but without the nonsensical interpretations but now allowing the apparent significantly FTL quasar jets now confirmed. Note that all the cited 'wide evidence' for SR supports only the postulates. It's the added 'baggage' which needs to be lost.

The simple proposition is just a new logical way of looking at what we've become too familiar with assuming. It then 'first looks wrong', as Feynman predicted. But it needs kinetic visualisation skills not complex mathematics to comprehend. The maths is simply c' = c, via delta Lambda, and observer dependent (but only for observers made of matter!). The empirical support has proven quite overwhelming.

If you put your great energies into pushing in the precisely correct direction they would stop being counter productive and perhaps get results.

Best wishes

Peter