Real-Time Physics

Dear RLO,

I apologize that I haven't read and commented on your ideas over the past couple of years while we were both on FQXi.

I completely overlooked your 2009 FQXi essay, but just reviewed some of your ideas, and realize that you have been working on ideas for the past 30 years that are similar to my ideas from the past year, and Len Malinowski's ideas.

In your 2009 blog thread, Florin said that he thought your three scale numbers were related to the square-root of the gravitational and electromagnetic couplings, and I agree.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

I think Time is only a measure and if you remove it from E=mc^2 , everything became clear, quantum mechanic and entropy joint toghether because everything will be described by surfaces or surfaces differencies. The energy became E=ll/l(vector) , Energy = (lxl)/lvector . The reality is made of vibrating element . If it is possible produce solids by a revolving surface , also a vibrating surface is capable to produce solids . This concept is similar to string but I foud this result in a very easy way, simply removing time by formulas like E=mc^2 and replacing 'c' EMW's speed in void , with Heisenberg' Uncertainty Principle. With very easy passage it is possible to understand what is Mass, Gravity , force and Energy. In the formula E=mc^2 , m is a multiplyer of a base element 'c^2' ( virtual surface) and so on. The source of what we call Time is the chance to vibrate of the base element 'c^2' better 'l^2' mean the path of two EMW axis. I am producing the complete text for peer view, the problem a good translation from Italian language for the moment...

Time and Space

Space is an intrinsic attribute of the existent entities which comprise our reality, time is not. Time should not be reified as if it is another physical dimension of our reality. All existent entities undergo change, and our concept of time is a function of our experience of that change. By putting similar entities in different situations, its value can be altered, but that is a function of the observation process (which we are able to quantify anyway). It is not an inherent characteristic of time, which only has one value. However, utilising time as a measuring tool helps in everyday life and in articulating scientific observations. As always, contemplations about what happens 'beyond' our existence might be fascinating, but are irrelevant metaphysical considerations when developing objective understanding.

© Paul Reed

April 2011

Quantum space is timeless in a sense that inside Planck volume there is no time as numerical order of material change we measure with clocks. Quantum space is a direct information medium by quantum entanglement and gravity.

yours amrit

Is time real or

is it an illusion?

- Lee Smolin

Time is real but only as a mathematical quantity. - Amrit SorliAttachment #1: Description_of_electromagnetic_phenomena_in_3D_space.pdf

Here my very, very, naif science ideas . In attachment my best! About Time and mass , gravity and some other. Another sheet is in progress, but involves only Energy. Who will read the text can complain about the bad English, I understand very well. I ask sincerely apologize.Attachment #1: GiacomoAttachement1.rtf

NTRL,

N*GTSSE MT4 GTRSE. HRD TF SKWU PR 14 UNCZ **

FLB*

KLM-FWL,

If the square root of ((h / 2π Δp) ^ 2) = i ? . I ask help about this chance. If it is possible to know Δx , regard to ΔxΔp ≥ h / 2π then we have non local area with its square (h / 2π Δp) ^ 2 = (Δx)^2 ?

And a final E=((h / 2π Δp) ^ 2) = i . My idea is : Energy is not clear about its own sign ( minus or plus) as 'i' , because 'E' acts on front - back, with 'unknown' frequencies ... Ok may be Energy use 'imaginary' area to acts its function , but It is possible connect imaginary element 'i' with werner Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle ? Or simplier 'E' acts in both side of mass in too much high frequencies ? (Too much naif for the forum ?)

So if my idea is good and Energy acts on both side of virtual surfaces may be Energy also acts on every side in a body . So if Energy produce a type of pressure on bodies , (pushing by many directions because of non-locality): when two bodies are enough close, this pressure is disturbed, giving a resulting force ( attractive) .

Because one can be a shield for the other , a shiled for Energy's pressure.

That is why is important for me understand if vacuum is made of

((h /2π Δp)^2)x(massUnit) = (Δx)^2(massUnit) = lxl(massUnit) = E = i, for dt=1.

When I use dt=1, the is to remove time. Sorry for the excess of questions .

PS The 'x' is not for scalar product .

If l is the smallest linear distance between two bodies, and E = m0 l l = m0 (h / 2π Δp)^2 is a surface that separates those two bodies : the Gravitational Force decrease by this last entity ( m0 l^2 = m0l l )

with separation of bodies !.

When two bodies are separeted we can give them names like m1 and m2 but when they touch toghether there is a new element 'm1 plus m2' to consider and no more those original m1, m2 . Then the Gravitational force continue but we no more see motion .

The force finish and potential begin. So if the local bodies to observe are exactly the smallest in nature (not zero) , two squares , face to face , with distance l and one mass (m1) attracts the other because (m1) is

a kind of schield for the mass (m2) and vice versa.

Then in F=(Gm1m2)/r^2 let me replace r^2 with my m0 l^2 so F=(Gm1m2)/m0l^2 .

This explain why gravitational attractive force is related to the square of the distance . The 'r' is my l

and r^2 is equal to m0l^2 (vacuum). Gravitational attractive force depends on vacuum not distance .

Conclusion: removing time from E=mc^2 is possible find an explaining why r^2 is there into Newton's Gravitational Law.

I have developed the thought posted a couple of days ago.

Time: What It Is and What It Is Not

Existent entities, which comprise our reality, all undergo a process of change. The concept of time (both in terms of a general sense of the progression of events, and a quantifiable rate) results from our experience of the sequence of change in the state of any given entity. So, we do not experience time, but change in the objective attributes of entities. Logically, the number of states which are potentially experienceable in any given sequence of change (which includes the experiences of any life-form capable of effecting a detection), is a function of the maximum frequency with which the medium conveying the experiential information is able to differentiate states.

As all entities change, effectively they are all (including us) a 'clock'. If the medium transmitting the experienceable state has a fixed speed (ie it is not altered by the process of experience), then any sequence of change will inevitably be perceived as one directional, and the rate of change experienced will depend on the relative speeds of those involved. (The transmission process will be affected by other factors, but the current argument revolves around spatial considerations only).

For the most part the experienced sequence of change is self-evident, though an objective understanding of the causes explains how and why it occurred, and highlights any potential issues (eg states out of sequence and/or missing/surplus). Indeed, in more complex situations, the fact that any given sequence must follow a logic enables the sorting of experiences and development of objective explanations. But that is entirely different from imposing a sequence upon a set of experiences. It is not creating our reality. Any resultant theory must be susceptible to change if subsequent understanding justifies it.

A rate of change is a useful measuring tool for ordering and quantifying knowledge, especially if the reference point is accurate and unequivocal within our reality. And it happens that one of the most accurate and fixed (ie not altered by the process of experience) rates of change known in our reality is the speed of light. A coincidence, since it is also one of the mediums (the other being sound) which enables experience of a sequence of change, and the rate thereof, in any given entity. However, the two functions must not be conflated. Whether it be the speed of light or an 'apparently' ludicrous rate of change that is chosen as the reference point for the measuring system, that only impinges upon its useability. The system metrics are arbitrary, in the same way that a metre is an arbitrary reference of distance.

The sequence of change in entities exists, they happen at a rate, and the effect of relative speed on perceptions of a rate of change in any given entity is understood. They prompt the concept of time, and in that sense it is valid. Additionally, experience of our reality is only effected at the individual level. But perceived differences in rates of change can be identified, quantified, and explained, as a function of the factors in the process of experience. They are purely an experiential phenomenon and not a constituent of our reality. Therefore, the concept that 'time' varies with each and every experience is incorrect, as is the consequent assertion that 'time' is therefore an intrinsic spatial dimension of our reality.

© Paul Reed

April 2011

Re Ality (Facebook)

In order to beable to do this our whole ensemble of fundamental ideas about reality will have to evolve. I'm excited to see where Smolin will take this unique solution.

Dan

I have no background to understand, let alone comment on, your essay, but can you please ponder this thought (I posted a view on here Monday at around 20.00 GMT):

There is always a delay factor in any experience based on sight, due to the speed of light. Different relative speeds result in different delays, with very large relative differences amplifying the delay differential. This effect is called 'time'. That is, as in the rate of change (as opposed to the general progression of events which has acquired the term Arrow of Time).

So, in sight experience, the delay factor caused by light speed should (technically) always be accounted for in every experience, ie in order to extrapolate from the individual experience and discern the original state. In that sense, the notion that we live in a 'space-time' world is correct. But that is a measurement issue to allow for variables in the sight experience process. The differential is the function of spatial considerations, ie distance that light travels. Time, or more accurately, the rate of change, is not an intrinsic dimension of our reality.

Paul

jcns

Everything is a 'clock'. As with all measurement systems the reference point chosen is ultimately arbitrary, it is just a matter of useability. Time is our experience of the rate of change in any given entity.

Paul

Somewhere I read a worry expressed about whether quantum mechanics/etc had got it wrong about time. I think they have. Essentially what has happened is that the concept of time has been reified and asserted as an intrinsic dimension of our reality (hence space-time), when it is not. 'Time' (as in rate of change, as opposed to general progression of events) can be explained as a function of the speed of light in the process of experience. So in that sense, the idea of space-time works since delay (relative or otherwise) should always be accounted for. But 'time' is not an intrinsic dimension of our reality. It is an experiential phenomenon and is a function of distance.

On the 'direction' of time. Since the medium tranmitting the experience has a fixed speed, by definition we will experience the rate of change as one dimensional, changing states will be experienced by us in the order they occurred.

Paul

If you have no memory, time does not exist, our memory places the different quanta of time in a row and creates a "history" a movie constituted of images, we have difficulties in explaining the "arrow" of time, because of the fact that the NOW moment is not existing, time becomes in my opinion more comprehensible if we leave the flow of causal deterministic time and create in our minds a totality of ALL moments (quanta) which means a dimension where ALL POSSIBLE pasts , nows and futures ARE SIMULTANEOUSLY PRESENT, that we call the fifth (for example) we enter in this dimension when we pass the planck time, our consciousness is able to "touch" this dimension and creates the time-lines (world-lines) that form our "real" world, so here I think is one of the possibillities to create a line between the quantum world (here we also encounter the wave function as an addition of possible places, that you can compare with the possible time moments of the fifth dimension) and the reality on the human scale, the human observer who creates (like the consciousness that creates the world lines) his Universe.

Was that post a zen koan?

"we have difficulties in explaining the "arrow" of time, because of the fact that the NOW moment is not existing"

What are the difficulties in explaining the arrow of time that are not already explained by entropy?

This moment right now is the only moment you can affect the real world. If you believe the "NOW" moment does not exist then why are you lumping all of time into the present?

By "fifth dimension" do you mean adding another row to the four vector or is the fifth dimension something mystical?

Lastly, do you believe that "consciousness" collapses the wavefunction?

Wilhelmus

Memory just logs the experience If you're lucky & not getting old like me!). Our sense of time stems from the continuous sequence of change that we experience. We do not create it, and indeed do not create any attribute of our reality. The arrow of time is our sense of the general procession of events, whilst 'time' is our appreciation of the rate of change of the sequence of change, which is continuous (or strictly, limited by the frequency of the medium conveying the information). The fact that there are two concepts of 'time' gives the hint that current understanding is flawed. What exists before we experience it is unknown, not part of our reality. They are metaphysical assertions on a par with religious doctrines or 'apparently' ludicrous ideas (ie Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy solution)

Paul

B^2

I can see how the concept of NOW not existing arises, its a consequence of believing that reality exists before we experience it & by experiencing it we create the NOW (ie reality). But this whole theory that it all exists a priori (whether its all possibilities, a range, a random selection, etc) is all wrong and one of the reasons quatum mechanics gets stuck.

Paul

Hi Paul,

Getting old is one of the enigmas that seems to tell us that a lot of time has passed (me too I am retired), but in your mind all the moments that "are" your life are stocked up in your memory in a way that only when you active think of them they form the causal flow of time, but even when you are getting old you still feel young.

What I propose as the "fifth" dimension where all quanta of space/time are simultnaneous present you can compare also with cutting all the characters out of a dictionnarry, and then mixing them up, still all the words are present and can be formed, only you have to form them, all the words present can form all the possible books from the past and the future, you could even say that you only need the alphabeth for this trick, but translating this into a Total Simultaneity is perhaps possible in mathematics,I don't know.

The future is not known to us in this causal deterministic universe, that is true, but all the futures exist already I presume, in this so called total simultaneity (see my essayon the subject Is reality digital or Analog.