Real-Time Physics

B^2:

I think the article on the project of Smolin is interesting, trying to merge Quantum Mechanics and GR with the dimension of time ? okay I will read their findings and if they give me good reasons to change my own view I'll be the first to do so, time is money (the grant of FQXi).

The flow of time from past to future (where we introduce the present as an intermediaire) is I repeat causal, the ultimate rithm of a clock is created by placing "intervals" in a row, the ultimate interval is the Planck time, if you place two units of Planck time in a row it becomes already a "flow", when we have two units of Planck time not placed in a row but just apart from each other (the situation in Total Simultaneity) then they have the "possibillity to be placed one after another to form a causal time flow, in our consciuosness we organise these "flows" and so become aware of a physical process this proces we call "real time". Every where where we are in the universe no matter what speed we have (this speed will always be realtive, and speed involves a "flow" of time, so a row of Planck units) the basical unit will always be the same.

I am very poor in maths but there should be a way to explain mathematically the Total Simultaneity that I propose.

keep on thinking

Wilhelmus.

Wilhelmus,

Thank you for the clarification. I am terrible with mathematics as well and I prefer to think in terms of examples, concepts and principles. Once I feel comfortable with an idea I look for the mathematics that I can translate it into. Earlier you wrote:

"What I propose as the 'fifth' dimension where all quanta of space/time are simultaneous present you can compare also with cutting all the characters out of a dictionary, 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 alphabet for this trick"

I hope this does not sound patronizing but this is well studied in a branch of mathematics called combinatorics you may find these links here and here relevant. I should warn you that I have been toiling so long in this subject that I am afraid I may have developed a preferred bias for it.

Wilhelmus

Been away enjoying the sunshine.

2 'admin' points: 1) I don't understand how to do links & blogs, etc so I've dumped my thoughts on a Facebook page, 2) I have no background, or current context, from which to get my thoughts 'out there'. I ended up here via Craig Callender's comments on Hawking's latest book. Any assistance would be welcomed.

I'll comment on your essay via e-mail, rather than clog this thread up, please send an e-mail to Re_ality@hotmail.co.uk so I can respond.

Paul

B^2

Been away in the sunshine. I could elaborate but best if I refer you to that Facebook page. My thought on Time is only 1 page. My thought on reality is only 5 pages. When I find the ref to the article on real time physics I'll read it & comment.

Paul

Wil/B^2

Can you please point out where I can find the article on Real Time Physics that was mentioned please.

Paul

Ah ha, it's piece at the start?? Rather 'out of sight' by the string of comments. Is there an essay/article somewhere else?

B^2 (and Wilhelmus) my comments on the article by Kate Becker (as requested by B^2:

Einstein was wrong, is the simple answer!

It is not time, but change, that is real in our reality. For measuring purposes, including 'time' is correct since there is always a delay (and sometimes a relative delay) in our experience of reality. But that delay (in a sight experience) is a function of light travelling (ie distance), it is not an intrinsic, different, dimension of our reality, purely a function of the way we experience it. This is why one can have a theory that works (in measuring terms-'space-time')) but then seems to give rise to problems (because a concept-'time'-has been reified and deemed to be an inherent attribute of our reality). Additionally, it is why one can have two theories that seem to work-almost-because the speed of light is so fast it only impacts on measurements in more extreme circumstances. Furthermore, it explains 'time' (as in rate of change) as distance travelled by light (different speeds= different distances=different rates of change), and 'time' (as in Arrow of Time) as a sequence of change (each successive change of state in any given entity must be experienced in sequence since the medium (light) conveying the information is fixed).

It is very simple once one escapes the existential conundrum that Einstein created.

Paul

Pauls explanation is for me very acceptable, indeed we "experience" everything later as it "happens", things that happen are transformations from one state to another, what we experience is the "difference" from the two states, so what we do is "compare" two states, for example the wave function and the particle, question rises is the wave function a movement ? No the wave function as I see it is a superposition of states of possibillities. So...we cannot "perceive" the wavefunction, observing it makes it collapse and indicates that there is a particle (moving). However this observation is made by instruments in the human scale, there also is "time" needed to bring the data to our brains (I will not talk about the timelaps needed to become "aware" of the observation)

When we go to the bigger scale of milky ways, we happily see also the past , because of that we are able to study the history of our universe, what we tend to is when we see the universe expand ,apply causal linear logic and comme out with a singulairity, this linear thinking is in my opinion not right, there is no singulairity and no big bang, for exemple :

SR is applicable for objects in space and not for the expansion of space itself.

The standard model of cosmology indicates that galaxies which have a red-shift of 1,5, this means that their wavelength of light equals 150% of the one we measure in the laboratory, move away from us at the speed of light.

Right now we know about 10.000 galaxies with a red-shift greater as 1,5. this objects are moving away from us with a recession speed faster as the speed of light.

The cosmic background radiation has covered a much longer road, its cosmological red shift is about 1100 !!!. So when the hot plasma that radiated the waves that we observe today, it is probable that it moved away from us at a speed of 50 times the speed of light. The emitted photon has his local speed of light, so it looses distance compared with its origin (like someone trying to go up on a fast moving down staircase ) her we meet the Hubble Constant .

The Hubble constant right now is 70Km/sec/Mpc (one Mpc=3.262.000light years).

In this view also the speed of light is variable and without its limit as indicated by Einstein.

keep on thinking

Wilhelmus

Tom,

Peter Lynds thanked not just Paul Halpern and Roger Penrose but among others also Lee Smolin for valuable comments and suggestions regarding the contents of his paper "On a Finite Universe with no Beginning or End". Therefor I doubt that Lee Smolin will be in position and ready to really introduce reality into the so far tense-less physics.

What about the twin paradox, I would like you to help clarifying the matter. When I was unhappy with the explanations given e.g. by Einstein himself and by Bohm, I was not alone. NPA revealed a lot of mutually excluding explanations. Allegedly none of them has proven tenable. For this reason they wrote a petition that asks for clarification in order to end the bewildering situation that textbooks and lessons are teaching mutually inconsistent tenets.

Maybe, you are in position to make this petition redundant. This would however be a surprise to me because the petition is already signed by a huge number of scientists worldwide. Perhaps it will be best if we both admit surrender and decide to sign the petition too.

Eckard

W

The delay in experiencing what was is merely a mechanical point that inevitably arises out of the process whereby we become aware of our reality. We can understand how this process interferes with what was, reverse engineer it, and establish what was (ie our reality). Einstein correctly identified that experience is on an individual level, etc, etc but then conflated the two issues by attributing the problem (and hence the solution) to being an intrinsic dimensional attribute in our reality, rather than a function of the mechanics of experiencing. Reality exists independently of us, we experience it. We do not create it. We interfere with it in various ways when we experience it, but those effects can be identified (even if it involves observing stuff that is moving faster than light). What the 'true' situation might be is a fascinating question, but in the realm of metaphysics. In those circumstances any answer will qualify, because by definition we can never know.

Paul

Paul and Wilhelmus,

I found this video goes into more depth and highlights the differences between emergent and fundamental "real time". I read this article awhile ago and I'm glad he has received some funding from FQXI to pursue this approach.

This video is much shorter than the first. I had heard of the debate between Leibniz and Newton. When everyone breaks their concepts down to simple ideas they seem to view time as Leibniz or Newton did. Succinctly how do you view time?

As for interpretations of the wavefunction I have found the ensemble interpretation the most satisfying.

Paul,

Thank you for the clarification however, at the end of your post I'm not sure if you were describing a falsifiable idea which could be tested or if you were diving into epistemology. I'm a bit dense, my apologies. I believe that time is real and fundamental. The viewpoint that time is an illusion seems to be based on mathemagical tricks that are elevated to eternal truths.

The first question is: has anyone flown a twin around the world at x speed for y years, and if they did how could the supposed change in 'age' (which needs definition) be measured? Flying clocks, which are engineered objects (cesium-beam or otherwise) is different, ie the latter does not prove the former.

The second question is: what characteristic are we concerned with here? And the answer is: the perceived rate of change of any given entity. A sight experience is dependent on light, which has a speed, which is therefore influenced by distance. Different relative speeds create different relative distances which create different perceived rates of change. What we call 'time' is merely rate of change in entities, and differences in 'time' are explainable as a function of the variables in the process whereby we experience reality. It is not an intrinsic, separate, dimension of our reality. The delay factor resulting from light travelling does need to be factored into any given sight experience, but that is an entirely different statement.

We certainly experience a constant, all-pervading, change in the entities which constitute our reality. This invokes the concept of time. What is 'actually' happening is unknowable since we cannot transcend our existence. But there definitely is a sequence, and rate, of change being experienced. So we have morphed this concept into a measuring tool, its metrics are arbitrary, but its application in sorting information is very useful. Problems arise though if that is reified and deemed to be an intrinsic characteristic of our reality. I would postulate that since we can never know what 'it' 'really' is (explaining the sequence of change and its rate for any given entity is a different problem, and achievable), and it is all-pervading, it can probably be discounted for most theories/ calculations, indeed its inclusion is probably confusing them.

The Twin Paradox is a non-existent dilemma because the premise upon which it is based is false, ie the effect we label 'time' is not an intrinsic dimension of our reality.

Paul Reed

B^2

Sorry, didn't spot this comment and assume it refers to my post above it (I've altered the odd word since then-see Facebook page). I like the word "evolve"!! I am very interested to hear what anyone thinks. I have absolutely no background in this (which might help!). The basic ideas about reality were formulated 40 years ago for an MPhil. I left Stephen Hawking's first book on the shelf but got so annoyed by some of the concepts when reading his latest book that I got motivated to think it through.

Paul

B^2

That there is an incessant change in our reality which implies (at least in our minds) there is a 'space' in which these events can occur is indeed very real. But since it is all pervading and we cannot escape it, I suspect we can ignore it. This is analogous to cancelling out an item which occurs on either side of an equation (I did A level maths 43 years ago!). After that we are faced with sequences, and rates, of change in entities, which are real. We do not sit there thinking a tree to grow, mountain to crumble, etc, etc. We invoke a measuring system, but it is not a constituent of reality. I suspect that the concept that 'time' is an illusion arises because the maths purporting to represent reality is based/influenced by the reification of 'time' into an intrinsic spatial dimension. So there comes a point when the theories get 'stuck' and, inevitably, 'time', as incorrectly defined, looks like the problem that it is.

Paul

PS: I must say as I read around the subject, I get increasingly concerned about the amount of statements (mathematical or otherwise) out there that are metaphysical. I thought science was the pursuit of objective knowledge, not a religion. I noticed a comment on The Twin Paradox above (and put my penny's worth in-guess it's a dime in the US!, but this to me looks like another false thought, like the famous cat which I parody in my piece on reality.

Eckard,

I don't know how Peter Lynds entered this discussion. Did I miss something? I wouldn't have anything to say about that paper anyway, since I find it philosophical, and empty of scientific content.

On this petition re the twin paradox (which is not really a paradox)it sounds like an updated version of "100 scientists against Einstein." As much nonsense as it ever was.

In any case, it is quite obvious from the description of the problem that the difference between a state of uniform motion (stay at home twin & special relativity) and accelerated motion (traveling twin & general relativity) is time-asymmetric. Because classical physics is time-symmetric, it is impossible for the twins to age at the same rate from an objective point of view, though from their own inertial frames, each will see the other age more slowly. The traveling twin who reverses trajectory to return home does not instaneously age upon negative acceleration to zero -- and when positively accelerating once more in the direction of his brother, he will witness from this new inertial frame a radical curving of spacetime. Here's why:

Explaining the phenomenon in geometric terms alone (a 2 dimension analogy to a 4 dimension event) -- picture two antipodal points on a circle. Assume one to be a fixed point (stay at home twin) and the other the traveling twin. The straight line between them is oriented from the fixed point toward the opposite point, so the radius of the circle is expanding in proportion to the rate of acceleration. Nevertheless, so long as the poles remain in this fixed relation, each twin sees the other as growing older; spacetime between them is symmetric. When the traveling twin reverses course, however, the symmetry is broken -- the radius of the circle is now fixed, and the traveling twin is accelerating on the curve toward the fixed point. The intervals between the traveling twin and the stay at home twin smoothly vary in accordance with the rate of acceleration, the radius of the circle shrinking incrementally toward shorter and shorter intervals, until the points meet at zero curvature.

The aging differential is the result of the behavior of time, not space by itself. The point set geometry is indfiferent to aging, but because we know experimentally that faster moving particles are longer lived and that all motion is relative, a fixed mass, i.e., one at rest relative to a moving mass, necessarily ages faster relative to the one in motion. As a result, spacetime is a real physical phenomenon; i.e., the increments of changing relations between mass points on a curve represented by Riemannian spacetime geometry correspond to real physical processes.

However one's intuition may be scandalized by the facts, the physics is quite straightforward.

Tom

Dear Tom,

I found the following reply of you merely on top of the recent posts: "Eckard,

I don't know how Peter Lynds entered this discussion. Did I miss something? I wouldn't have anything to say about that paper anyway, since I find it philosophical, and empty of scientific content.

On this petition re the twin paradox (which is not really a paradox)it sounds like an updated version of "100 scientists against Einstein." As much nonsense as it ever was.

In any case, it is quite obvious from the description of the problem that the difference between a..."

Obviously this is not your complete message. I was pointed to the paper by Peter Lynds there , and I wondered why Peter Lynds listed Lee Smolin. I do not quite share your opinion that the Lynds paper is philosophical. I called already the title bewildering. Perhaps the first one who wrote "universe without begin and end" was Thomas Gold, the same who early understood that the passive traveling wave model of cochlea must be wrong, see my

[link:www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/527] essay "Galilei, Gold, Ren - votes for ultimate reality". A circle has no beginning and no end except for the point on it I might be located at myself. Bewildering to me was something else. The denial of the distinction between past and future.

What about the petition, I suggest you will read that it is not about whether or not the paradox is not a paradox at all but why it is not a paradox. To me NPA was almost like a who is who. I found the names of Lawrence Crowell, John Wheeler, Petr Beckmann, Roland Fritzius, and many others.

Regards,

Eckard

Eckard,

I don't understand the problem. On my computer, my total message shows up as the last post in your 14 April @14;58 gmt thread.

Tom

Dear Tom,

Having read your message now, I would like to decide. Although the mainstream consensus is that the paradox is not a problem and as such has a definitive solution, there is no agreement as to exactly what that solution is. There are

a) Solutions that claimed to employ only the postulates and methods of the special or restricted theory of relativity in which the differential aging effect is due to relative motion.

b) Solutions that invoke the general theory of relativity and, by implication, contend that there is no solution possible from the principles of the special theory of relativity.

c) Solutions that invoke, often implicitly, different or additional assumptions than used in either the special or general theory and, by implication, contend that there is no resolution possible using either theory.

What category does your solution belong to?

I found among those who signed the petition proponents of SR like Wolfgang Engelhardt and Bruce Harvey as well as interesting arguments against it, e.g. by Thim, Phipps, de Mees, Kalmyrov, and ronald.ray.hatch@gmail.com who is distinguished by 24 GPS patents:

Evidence is presented to show that infinitesimal Lorentz transformations (ILTs) contradict the clock hypothesis that acceleration affects the clock rate only indirectly through the resultant velocity. But the clock hypothesis has substantial supporting experimental evidence. It is also shown that the equivalence principle, upon which the general relativity is based, depends on the validity of ILTs. In addition, a fairly simple Moessbauer experiment on the International Space Station is suggested, which would clearly indicate whether or not the ILTs are valid. However, it is also shown that a careful consideration of clocks on the earth already provides equivalent experimental data, which indicates that ILTs are invalid.

Regards,

Eckard

In my modest opinion trying to devide space and time "ad infinitum", leads us only to paradoxes and non-understandable singulairities.

Why ? because our 4-d Univesre has its limits.

For space : the Planck length, for time the Planck time (10^-44sec, result from putting together G (Newtons constant for gravity), h (Planck's constant and c (velocity of light), the velocity of light being the other (local) limit of our universe.

The ultimate rythm of a "clock" depends so on the minimum length of time 10^-44sec, below this unit of time we enter in non causal non deterministic dimension because there one after another is no longer possible, here we meet the boarder of "digital" tieme and analog (experienced) time.

At the local relative velocity of the speed of light time is not progressing, so there is no more "change", we cannot longer compare one situation with another, in fact we are there entering the same "time" (digital) as we are entering after the Planck time and the "clock" is no longer valid.(no changes)

As for the ILT's, it is the adjective I (infinitsemal) that is in my opinion wrong and not appliccable, it is the same as believing in the Big Bang with a singulairity as the "beginning".

keep on struggling

Wilhelmus