Real-Time Physics

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.

John,

Yes, you've got it! Exactly! Bravo! Once you see it, it seems so obvious.

As you may recall, my essay 'Time: Illusion and Reality' begins with the following quote:

'The task is not so much to see what no one yet has seen, but rather to think what no one yet has thought about that which everybody sees.' -- Erwin Schrödinger

jcns

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

Andy,

Just a quick reply to let you know I'm reading the piece by Christian for which you provided a link. Thanks. More later.

jcns

Relativity and quantum mechanics treat time differently. In relativity time is an invariant measure with respect to proper time. Quantum mechanics assigns field amplitudes on each point of a spatial manifold, where that manifold is determined by a coordinate choice in spacetime, and then integrates quantum field amplitudes forwards in time through a succession of spatial manifolds.

Cheers LC

Dan,

Keep in mind that the whole Big Bang, expanding universe model is based on the concept of a flexible space-time geometry. So if you do away with time as the fourth dimension, you are left with space as just the flat void and any optical distortions are just that. So an expanding universe would be a basic expansion in flat space and you would have to explain why we are at the center. Now if redshift is actually a function of distance and not actual recession, the evidence makes sense.

Remember also that the light cone of any event only exists at the point of its occurrence. While all the energy exists prior to the event, the point of the cone is the event, so the coming together of this energy is in the future, prior to its occurrence. That's why it is indeterministic. There is no way to completely calculate how all this energy will interact, prior to it happening.

I think black holes are geometric structures, but the physical manifestation likely involves energy being radiated back out,jets,gamma rays, light,etc. And when we fully account for it all, it will be energy redistributed back out across intergalactic space, eventually to fall back into another galaxy and start the cycle over again.

the borrowed iPad here.....

John,

The key point is that we all have a common history. While the "metabolic rate" of a clock changes due to the state of motion per the laws of relativity, we all live a universe that is XX.X years old (13.7 billion is the current figure). Hypothetically, we could construct computation cosmic time clocks that would adjust themselves by slowing down or speeding up depending on the observed relative motion wrt to the CMB and any local gravitational fields. These computational clocks would have to be initially synchronized wrt a clock centered in the largest cosmic void and at rest wrt to the CMB. Then, this particular clock would have the highest "metabolic rate" of any other one in the universe, since all others would experience some type of dilation. If every observer possessed one of these hypothetical clocks, they would always agree on the age of the universe, regardless of their state of motion.

Since the velocity of light is finite and universal for all observers, the farther any observer looks in space, the farther she look back in time until she can look no further, i.e. she sees only the CMB. The cosmic time of every observer can be extrapolated back to this same geometric point-like time (i.e. the universe is the same age for all observers). If you hold cosmic time constant and vary the spatial dimensions, one at a time, space traces out a circle (with radius equal to the cosmic time duration between the CMB and the clock that is being held constant) for the 1st spatial dimension, a spherical surface for the 2nd dimension and a hyperspherical surface for the 3rd and final spatial dimension. No observer on this hyperspherical surface holds a special place in space. They *all* appear to be at the center of the universe.

Secondly, redshift *is* a function of distance (and therefore time) and other factors. The key to redshift is it is equivalent to information loss. The information that is "lost" in a BH (massive redshift wrt a typical observer, massive blueshift wrt the event horizon of the BH) is recovered (blueshift gradually becomes redshift) at the beginning of the new cycle.

Finally, you said "Remember also that the light cone of any event only exists at the point of its occurrence." Physical points are an impossibility due to the uncertainty principle (this is the reason for indeterminacy), but the path of information can be extrapolated through unobstructed spacetime, backward into past and forward into the future *with certainty* due to the constancy of a finite light speed wrt to all observers. We still need to call it spacetime, since dynamical existence (along with the velocity of light) defines space and time.

Dan

Dan,

Your first paragraph is spot on and I've made that point as well, that there is an equilibrium state to space and we could find it by finding the state at which a clock runs fastest.

As you point out though, this "metabolic rate" is an effect of activity, like temperature and so it means time is not a dimension interchangeable with spatial dimensions.

If redshift is a function of the wave of light dispersing over ever increasing volume, the further it travels, it causes a parabolic increase in redshift. Eventually it reaches the point where those galaxies appear to recede at the speed of light and this creates a horizon line for visible light. Which is at the 13 billion lightyear range. It's not a horizon line for black body radiation though, which would explain the CMBR. Rather than being the initial stage of a singularity, it's the final state for light that has completely fallen off the visible range.

It should be noted that the current oldest detected galaxy is at 13.2 billion lightyears. That means it would have had to have coalesced out of the end of the inflation stage, to a size sufficient to shine that far, in only 500 million years. Theoretically inflation distributed everything out fairly evenly and that means gravity as well, including dark energy, since its only attribute is gravity. Considering it takes our galaxy 225 million years to make one rotation, that is a bit short for that much energy to coalesce. Remember this is mass accumulating out of essentially thin gases, spread over hundreds of millions of lightyears. When you think about it, it makes the idea of a 6 thousand year old earth seem logical.

It should be noted that the one mission NASA seems intent on preserving is the James Webb telescope, which is intended to study this background radiation. I predict that should it actually get into service, it will find the shadows of ever more distant galaxies in that CMBR.

Space is infinite. It didn't start at one point. Time is not a linear progression out from that point.

We all have our individual narratives and they are like threads bound up in larger narratives, but there are lots of cross hatching and counter-narratives out there. Newton said that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Essentially an action is a linear narrative thread. The reaction though, is decidedly non-linear. It is all the cross currents, obstacles and reactions combined.

Reality is both being and doing, because without motion, nothing exists, but with motion, nothing exists forever.

The lightcone is a conceptual construct anyway, being the three dimensional space of the sphere of inclusion, flattened to two dimensions, then projected out along the narrative dimension. So the point of the cone is an abstraction anyway. The fact is that total input into any event cannot be determined prior to that event, because some input remains outside of the lightcone of any particular point of reference prior to that event. Basically you would need massive amounts of faster than light communication to determine all input into any event and if faster than light communication is possible, it could also have input into that event as well, so then you would need faster communication than the faster than light communication and then the problem repeats itself. Future events are indeterministic.

If we call it "spacetime," why not call it "spacetemperature" as well, because if the vacuum isn't fluctuating, there is no time.

Past my bedtime....

Already in 2004, arXiv:gr-qc/0308028 Joy Christian fabricated a synthesis between the non-paradoxical non-monist notion of ubiquitous simultaneity and the mandatory Lorentz transformation. Fig. 2 of his arXiv:gr-qc/0610049v2 (2007) illustrates what is obvious to everybody except for theoreticians.

From Lee Smolin's article I cannot exclude that Lee will check other approaches. I maintain the view I tried to express in my essays 369, 527, and 833. Meanwhile I am seriously questioning the synchronization introduced by Poincaré who was perhaps inspired by his teacher Potier 1874.

When I discussed the twin paradox with Thomas Ray, he tried to explain it away with acceleration. This did not persuade me because the acceleration required for reversal of velocity is independent from the duration of the journey. I will continue the discussion in connection with my topic 833.

In all I collected mounting evidence for the possibility that some cranks were not entirely wrong. Having read e.g. "Special Relativity and Maxwell's Equations" by Haskell I would like to ask for compelling arguments in defense of SR.

Eckard

According to Haish and Rueda the particle oscillate because it absorbs and emits the oscillation (energy) from the vacuum. It means the Compton wave of the particle creates an information background for the vacuum. Assume each interference between the Compton wave ancodes a Planck time dilation. If we sum all the interferencies we get known equation for gravitational time dilation. Does it mean the Planck length and Compton length has a special meaning for our Universe ?

Is time only a sum of Planck time constant for each quantum interference between the non-local information of Compton waves which create our Holographic Universe ?

I have some simple calculation on website:

http://www.hologram.glt.pl/

[Purely] electromagnetically, there is no time. Time is ultimately linked with, and dependent upon, gravity.