Real-Time Physics

John, JCN

You both consider the "time" that is the scale of changes or the X axis of any graph representing spontaneous events; object falling, nail rusting etc. This representation is accepted because we trust (implicitely) that we can`t rush time and that time itself is spontaneous. Every clock is based on a spontaneous process. A clock indicates 1) the PRESENCE of time passing and 2) that it does so at a certain RATE 3) it INTEGRATES its passage under the name "duration". (I agree with JCN; There are many concepts associated with "time" and if none is specified, it effectively means nothing (specific).)

Because all our clocks are based on the rate of a spontaneous process, we could say that the local rate of passage of time, as indicated by a clock, is a measure of the local rate of evolution of spontaneous processes. As such, the passage of time is not a silent witness, just conveniently provided for our graphs, but actually the principle cause for spontaneous processes to happen at a certain rate.

The clock indicates time passing only/only because time makes it works. If time stopped, the clock would stop. Still think the passage of time is not real???

Marcel,

The following is quoted from the thread on my essay in the first essay contest on the nature of time.

"Time is a measurement system that actually measures duration elapsing. It`s measurement baseline is the duration that elapses while the planet rotates.

Duration elapsing, is an accurate description of reality. Time passing, is a description of the illusion that people normally hold of reality."

John, JCN,

...and by that I mean that the process of the passage of time and its local rate are real (ontologically). Everythings else we derive from relation with it, like perception, before after, duration, measurements are all relative and subject to relativity. This is the (my) answer to the question.

Marcel,

Jim,

The illusion "thing" is a common mistake. In our reality, the passage of time is real because we have no choice about its perception. This absence of choice is a sign of "truth" and so it is in real in our reality (which includes physics). So, in our reality it is NOT an illusion. If you consider the universe outside the realm of our everyday perception, the "moment" in time, as a plane or volume made of points all at the same moment (no time between them) does not exist.( It would mean instantaneous communication is possible between any two points! )

To call the passage of time an illusion is to take a concept from one realm and apply it indiscriminately onto another one, where it does not belong.

Marcel,

JCN,

A large part of the problem is our mental functioning needs to integrate all the various aspects of reality into a larger whole, in order to integrate our sense of identity, both individually and collectively. A very good example is the calendar. Months no longer correlate to cycles of the moon because we add 2 or 3 days to most of them, in order to match the solar cycle of the year. Otherwise it would make it much more difficult to calculate when holidays would fall and the constant juggling would make them less meaningful. Similarly the year is not exactly 365 days long, so we add a leap day every four years, as well as the occasional leap minutes and seconds. In a way, it's like comparing cesium atoms and pendulums to find some universal measure of time. The reality is just a bunch of things moving around, many with very regular periods.

Marcel,

It is a question as to whether time emerges from the motion, or there is this dimension that keeps everything from happening at once. The question though, is what are the physical attributes of this dimension? Do the past and future exist out there somewhere on that fourth dimension and it's just our subjective perspective which makes this particular moment seem consequential? Or is there only physical existence and as things move about, it changes the configuration, such that past and future do not exist, because the very same energy which would manifest them, is currently manifesting its current configuration?

Does time exist without motion? Just waiting there for some quantum fluctuation to occur, in order to give it duration? Or does the fluctuation define itself by the terms of both duration and level of disturbance, ie. the scalar measure we call temperature? Wouldn't it be equally logical to assume there must be some scale against which we measure the energy generated, or do we only have other actions against which to measure it?

We do have absolute zero, the absence of any activity and it does seem, as we look out across the universe, that there are only definite levels of energy and temperature before the collected heat radiates away and things just can't get any hotter. So could there be a universal thermal scale which regulates how hot things can get, or is it a completely physical function of the properties of mass, as to how hot they can get before the heat simply burns itself away?

Same for time. Is there some universal duration or dimension of time, or is it just a bunch of energy, coalescing into mass and radiating back out again and its only these processes playing themselves out that creates the effect of time?

As I keep pointing out, when we think of time as going past to future, it does seem like a spatial dimension, along which we move from one event to the next. On the other hand, if we consider ourselves as occupants of the present and it's alot of things moving around and changing the scenery, it seems much more like thermal activity, like molecules of water moving around in a jar. There are no past or future copies of that jar strung along a fourth dimension, like pages in a book, because the same water is still there, just in a different configuration. It is the different configurations which come into being and then are replaced, thus moving from being the future to being the past. The earth doesn't need a fourth dimension to get from yesterday to tomorrow, because tomorrow becomes yesterday as a consequence of the rotation of the earth. It is not the present that moves, but the events.

Time is not an illusion. It is an effect. The question boils down to whether it is foundational to motion, or an effect of it.

The following is cut and pasted from my essay, 'Time: Illusion and Reality,' for which I provided a link in a previous post:

"It is important . . . to recognize and, insofar as possible, to 'internalize' the notion that the configuration of the universe does not change as a result of time advancing; rather, time changes (as we say, 'advances') because the configuration of the universe changes. The importance of grasping this subtle, admittedly perhaps counterintuitive, distinction can hardly be overstated in terms of furthering our understanding of time. Failure fully to comprehend and appreciate it has led, I believe, to many unfortunate intellectual detours and cul-de-sacs over the course of history. The evolution of the physical universe is what we perceive as the flow of time."

If the configuration of the universe did not change there would be no flow of time.

jcns

The following is quoted from the thread on Amrit Srecko Sorli`s essay in the second essay contest, date entered on September 10th, 2,009.

"Events do have duration. We have duration and motion in our timeless universe. In our conscious experience of duration, we assume time is passing.

We move at a surface speed in excess of 1,600 kilometers per hour. The constant physical changes that this planetary motion creates, supports the illusion of time passing. Our clocks are in concert, since we use this same motion as the measurement baseline for our time keeping systems.

For most intent and purpose, time exists on a rotating planet for it`s conscious inhabitants. Had we evolved on the moon, it would be easier to see that time passing is an illusion, that it`s really a case of duration elapsing, that there is no such thing or force as time, in reality."

John,

You wrote, ". . . if we consider ourselves as occupants of the present and it's alot of things moving around and changing the scenery, it seems much more like thermal activity, like molecules of water moving around in a jar. There are no past or future copies of that jar strung along a fourth dimension, like pages in a book, because the same water is still there, just in a different configuration. It is the different configurations which come into being and then are replaced, thus moving from being the future to being the past."

Yes, what you've described here is exactly what I believe is a constructive way to view the nature of time.

I know we all have much to read and precious little time in which to do so, but I'd urge you to read (or to re-read, as the case may be) my essay from the second FQXi essay competition, 'On The Impossibility of Time Travel,' which may be found here. In that essay I attempted to spell out as clearly as possible the very same idea you were expressing above. And it is this notion which ultimately precludes the possibility of time travel, aside from the sort of time travel you're doing as you read this.

jcns

I think the basic fallacy which causes all the conceptual problems is thinking of time as going past to future. It seems incredibly obvious and how could any rational person question it, but a thousand years ago, someone questioning the movement of the sun across the sky would likely have their sanity questioned as well.

When we think of it as past to future, then it is the present which moves along this dimension. If we think of it as the changing configuration of what physically exists, it's not even a dimension, but a process. We don't project events out along a narrative timeline, but see it as a constant unfolding of the configurations evolving.

The reality is that both directions are valid, just as we still perceive the sun moving across the sky, even though we recognize it is an effect of the rotation of the earth. It is just that when we are considering a physical explanation, in terms of the changing configuration of what physically exists, it is those events which come and go, not the present which moves.

jcn,

There is a small boogyman there though. When you break apart the spacetime geometry, you will find that all of modern cosmology is built on this idea. So once anyone whose paycheck depends on being part of the physics mainstream thinks it through for more than a minute, they run off with their hands over their ears, yelling something about, "It's all the math! It's all the math!"

I'm afraid we will have to put op with warpedspacetimewormholesblocktimemultiworldsmultiversesinflationdarkenergyetc, until a sufficiently large chunk of verifiable reality falls on it. Like finding evidence of galaxies further than 13.7 billion lightyears. Although considering all the other evidence, falsified predictions, anomalous data, etc. that has been ignored, or patched over with even more fanciful theories, I suspect some concoction will be proffered up. Probably something along the lines of it being due to the warping of space, we are just seeing reflections of closer galaxies, bounced off the edge of the universe. The possibilities are only limited by imagination.

John,

You might have a point here, but I'm the eternal optimist. I believe that although it may not happen as quickly as we'd like (or perhaps even during our lifetimes), better ideas typically win out over the long run. I'm especially encouraged in this case, because no less of an eminence than Lee Smolin himself (didn't we see his name mentioned somewhere up near the top of this blog?) appears to be not only receptive to hearing new ideas about time, but is actively seeking them out.

In his book 'The Trouble With Physics,' Smolin wrote, "More and more, I have the feeling that quantum theory and general relativity are both deeply wrong about the nature of time. It is not enough to combine them. There is a deeper problem, perhaps going back to the origin of physics." (p. 256) This is precisely the point I have made explicitly in my essay 'Time: Illusion and Reality,' and I have explained there how I suspect the problem arose.

Until we get this sorted out I expect that a variety of intractable conundrums will continue to gum up the works in physics. I also recognize, however, that "getting it sorted out" is no trivial matter. Unfortunately, this task exceeds my own capabilities or I would have sorted it out long ago. After all, a Nobel might add a much-needed bit of luster to my resume.

In the meantime, John, let's keep trying to kick this can down the road as best we can until someone with more clout decides to pick it up and run with it. When that day arrives it will be fun to stand on the sidelines and watch and cheer, knowing that we perhaps had some small role in promoting the idea before doing so was considered cool.

Regards,

jcns

Perhaps you two would be interested in this from Joy Christian:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0610049

which discusses that SR does not necessarily imply a block universe, but rather is compatible with a everchanging Present (the work of Stein in the references). Dr. Christian then creates his own variation of SR from which a Present is organically created.

This sentence might of interest to John:

"From the perspective of physics, the choice of a

becoming universe must then necessitate a theory of space and time that not

only distinguishes the future events from the past ones intrinsically, but also

thereby accounts for the continual passage of the fleeting present, from a nonexisting future into the unalterable past, as a bona fide structural attribute

of the world."

JCN,

The universe evolves spontaneously? No one is pushing it? Then, the relation between the spontaneously evolving universe and a spontaneously evolving local process is what we call the passage of time. The passage of time is everywhere in the universe.

But the actual local rate/rate of passage of time depends on many things e.g. like the presence of a mass that would slow it down. How does mass slow down local time ....? By logical substitution....Read my essays..

Marcel,

Andy,

As simple as it is, I think that's the first I've ever heard anyone else make this point. If he can make a clear cut case for it and get it into play, as a seriously considered idea, it would be quite literally, history altering, since the past to future dichotomy is the basis of narrative, history and the whole cause and effect foundation of rational logic. It would open up human logic and consciousness to a truly networked paradigm and not just the elementary linear narrative. Much as math opens up ideas for our reason to follow, we would begin to truly understand where computer connectivity is leading us.

We would be going from the multi millennial movement to a mono-narrative, that is the foundational logic and goal of the various monotheisms and one civilization movements, to the poly-narrative of life and reality.

Any way the FQXi community can get behind this?

The following is quoted from the thread on Amrit Srecko Sorli`s essay in the second essay contest, date entered on May 10th, 2,010.

"While our planet rotates in timeless space, it`s rotational motion has ceaseless affect on our environment! The motion is real, it`s effects are all encompassing. We use this same motion, as the measurement baseline for our time keeping. Given the constant overwhelming affect of rotation on our planet, it`s understandable that conscious inhabitants would elect to assume time is passing, rather than duration is elapsing.

We are permanently in the present. Everything that has ever happened, happened in the present. Remnants of all those happenings are still here with us, in the present. While it seems difficult to disprove time exists, it is possible to prove it`s unnecessary, and not foundational."

Andy,

While I haven't finished Christian's paper, I'll make a few points, while I'm still awake.

He does make a very good argument for time as emerging from a dynamic present. It seems though, that it still has a past to future direction. The basis of this is that he seems to view the past as statically unchanging and thus the present has to move toward the future as the past is constantly being added to.

I think the past is not static. Because it is constantly being added to, that constantly changes our perspective of events, as they fall ever further into the past. Either because they fade from memory(mostly), or new information comes to light. This is the subjective change. The physical change is vastly more dramatic. The past doesn't physically exist and whatever residual forms remain are constantly under bombardment of continuing processes.

So it is not as though the present has to move toward the future, due to pressure from an ever increasing static past, but the past is constantly being pushed further into the past and the residue of it is otherwise recycled.

We have not been able to make a clock that will not lose a second in the lifetime of the earth, but we are getting closer with a stimulated aluminum atomic clock. Is practical time primally embedded in Planck terms? It is the most primal thing we can define a scalar out of isn't it? Is time the most local thing conceived? Time also has non-local aspects and c seems to reside happliy in the middle.....between h and t as we experience it every day. I would like to see ct separated out into a c and a t, for they do seem too cozy together. Then, would t have to be related to a scalar boson yet to be detected. I think that time will always have "tree" characteristics as well as "loop" characteristics. The soccer players are stuck in a partially ordered game.

John,

Have you ever considered the nature of a ever changing present dynamical existence?

Since information primarily arrives to an observer in a continual stream along her past that traces out a past light cone along the ever changing present, perhaps the information that creates the particles that create the observer also arrives via the same past light cones. The indeterminate interaction of the information that creates the particles that create the observer in the ever changing present keeps her from existing in a Newtonian completely deterministic clockwork universe. This dynamical information coming from the past provides a mechanism for the wavelike nature of quantum particles.

The future potentiality is stochastically or willfully determined in the present before fading away to the past while the information of that event is being transmitted to distant observers at c tracing a future light cone from the event along the surface of the ever changing present. Since all observers have a common history, the past information for all observers becomes increasing remote for all of them equally, until it become point-like in the extreme distant past (in comparison to the ever changing present), after which the past information is unrecoverable, except for that information which "falls into" a BH along the future light cone (of the event) traced along the ever changing present.

This information, although thoroughly scrambled, become the building blocks of a completely new cosmic cycle in the extreme distant future and thus is the basis for the information which create the new particles that create the new observers and all of the rest of the new reality. This is just another way of interpreting the cosmological model, which I have described in my essay Does this fit better with your world view? Do you now see the connections between the past, present and future, along with the nature of existence and the connection to the flow of information?

Dan