Real-Time Physics

Accleration of the traveling twin in his opposite direction is not reversal of velocity. It implies negative acceleration in the direction of the stay at home twin.

Tom

John,

I have to point out the errors from your post above.

You wrote re. 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."

This is incorrect. There are many examples where the observed redshift of an object would correspond to a recession velocity > c. For an example see here. The z of the QSO from this link is 6.28, which would represent a recession velocity 6.28 times c, which is prohibited as actual motion through space. This is why redshift is *not* due to the recession velocity of the object, but due to cosmic expansion. There is very little motion through space on the cosmic scale due to the tremendous distances involved. To move only a short cosmological distance would require relativistic motion through space. We *only* observe this behavior from cosmic rays.

Then you wrote: "Theoretically inflation distributed everything out fairly evenly..."

You must have the Standard Model in mind when you wrote this. My model would: "immediately possess a uniform distribution of SMBHs and IMBHs, each with their emergent local spacetime patches with respective protogalaxies or protoclusters." (see last line on page 8 of my essay)

You wrote:"if the vacuum isn't fluctuating, there is no time."

I would say: if the universe isn't in motion there is no time. If it isn't expanding, there would be no predominate redshift, but rather a Gaussian distribution of blueshifts and redshifts (with -1< z

John, For some reason, my last post was cut off. It was meant to read:

I would say: if the universe isn't in motion there is no time. If it isn't expanding, there would be no predominate redshift, but rather a Gaussian distribution of blueshifts and redshifts (with -1< z < 1) around a mean shift of zero. There would be no correlation of redshift to distance. This is *not* what we observe. The expansion of the universe provides the motion for light to be distinguished between space and time and provides a mechanism for the correlation of redshift to distance.

BTW the fluctuation of the vacuum is due to the uncertainty principle and provides the "fuzziness" in points of space, and therefore moments in time. Zeno's paradox doesn't exist because nothing is *ever* truly at rest.

Dan

Dan,

I wasn't saying redshift was due to actual motion through space, but that because redshift can be correlated to recession, by the point it appears to recede at the speed of light, it would create an effective horizon line. Maybe I'm connecting the dots wrong on that, as it's been quite a few years since I read it, but isn't the presumed edge of the universe, 13.7 billion lightyears out supposed to be receding at close to the speed of light? Since I think redshift is an optical effect, much as gravity bends the path of light, not actually moving the source around, redshift makes galaxies appear to recede, but I am of the stable state school and think it's an optical effect.

As you point out, the theory is that space is expanding, but wouldn't that mean time would have to dilate as well? Here is an interesting article on the subject: http://www.physorg.com/news190027752.htmlhttp://www.physorg.com/news190027752.html]http://www.physorg.com/news190027752.html[/link]

My problem with the idea is that if space actually expands, wouldn't lightspeed increase proportionally, otherwise a stable speed of light would imply a stable measure of space. If two galaxies go from x lightyears apart, to 2x lightyears apart, the space, as defined by lightspeed, isn't expanding, but just increasing. Much as the train moving away doesn't create space, it just puts space that was in front of it, behind it.

We have quite a lot of patches on this expanding universe theory, from inflation to dark energy, for me to accept it unconditionally. That's why I keep looking for other explanations for observed phenomena.

As for a balance between redshifts and blue shifts, if redshift is a function of the expansion of light across increasing volumes of space, there would be no corresponding blueshift effect, because the opposite effect is the gravitational collapse of mass. Radiation is expansion. Mass is contraction. Light passing through gravity fields might be bent, but as light its character is expansion.

If space is flat in total, with gravitational collapse matched by expansion, then it would seem there is an overall balance between expansion of light and collapse of mass. The mass falling into galaxies eventually burns up and is radiated back out. The radiation, that not absorbed by other mass, travels until it completely fades to black body radiation and this explains the CMBR and why it appears to come from the edge of the universe. The reason this is stable at 3.7k might be because there is a phase transition and above this temperature, it starts to condense out as subatomic particles. Thus starting the cycle over again.

Possibly a primitive model, but it doesn't need inflation or dark energy to make it work, nor does it have to squeeze all evolutionary processes of the universe into 13.7 billion years.

As it is, we really don't understand gravity and the nature of light has quite a few loose ends, so proposing to know the extremes of time and space seems far-fetched.

Forgot to properly format that link:

http://www.physorg.com/news190027752.

html

Keep in mind that it takes our galaxy 225 million years to make one rotation. The current oldest observed galaxy cluster is at 13.2 billion lightyears. That means it would have had to form in the time it takes our galaxy to make about 2.3 revolutions. That would have to be a fairly complete proto-cluster, which would defeat the purpose of inflation, causing the background radiation to be smooth.

Andy,

Have just finished a first read of the Joy Christian paper 'Absolute Being vs. Relative Becoming' for which you were so kind as to provide a link ( http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0610049v2 ) and also his 'Passage of Time in a Planck Scale Rooted Local INertial Structure' ( http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0308028v4 ). Thank you very much for putting us onto these. I previously was not aware of his work, but am glad to learn about it.

In the concluding remarks of the 'Passage of Time' paper Christian states, ". . . according to the present theory the local causal structure intrinsically distinguishes the future from the past, due to the built-in directional 'flow of time,' and thereby provides an opportunity to derive the thermodynamic arrow of time from the time- symmetric microscopic laws. This aspect of the proposed theory has not been discussed in the present paper, but it will be explicated fully in a separate publication." But a quick scan of his other papers did not immediately reveal where this discussion may have appeared. Can you by chance point me toward it easily?

This is a particularly fascinating topic when the flow of time is viewed (as I do) as being equivalent to changing (i.e., evolving) configurations of the universe. For example, in a hypothetical universe which is in a state of thermal equilibrium time would continue to "change," but the change would not resemble the sort of "flow" with which we're familiar, but instead would more closely resemble the randomly changing configurations of gas molecules in thermal equilibrium. Not a very interesting "flow." FWIW, I discussed this briefly in a 1999 monograph titled 'Regarding the Nature of Time: A New Look at an Old Riddle,' which unfortunately is not available on line.

As I understand Christian's papers he is taking a mathematically rigorous approach to expressing a view of time which is not unlike the view I've outlined in purely qualitative terms in my essays 'Time: Illusion and Reality' and 'On the Impossibility of Time Travel.' In this regard, it was gratifying to see that Christian rules out time travel for much the same reason I did in my time travel essay. It's also gratifying to see some nails being driven into the coffin of block time.

Again, many thanks for the reference!

jcns

JCNS,

Here is Joy's home page from Perimeter Institute listing several of his recent papers. I'm not sure the one you seek is there, but it may be a good starting point.

John,

That is an interesting link. You are correct that time dilation should occur for more distant objects and has been observed for supernovae, yet quasars seem to be exempt from dilation vs. distance. This is yet another fascinating astrophysical mystery that will have to be explained by a proper model. I need to search for this in a journal article to get more detail.

You wrote: "My problem with the idea is that if space actually expands, wouldn't lightspeed increase proportionally, otherwise a stable speed of light would imply a stable measure of space."

Light speed does increase wrt cosmic time, but local time, t, changes proportionally such that the local coordinate, ct, remains invariant locally. (See fig. 3 and endnote A from my essay)

Regarding the use of the word "protocluster" in my essay, I am using this in reference to emergent globular clusters, which have been recently linked to the newly discovered intermediate mass black holes (IMBHs) and not galaxy clusters. However, one point regarding co-moving coordinates, is that the relative distribution of the SMBHs is practically constant over time and only the scale of separation changes, so the beginning of new cycles are statistically indistinguishable from the beginning of previous cycles. Therefore the galaxy clusters do not have to reform, since the SMBHs, for the most part, keep their relative relationship to one another.

Dan

John,

In a previous post you wrote "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."

Exactly. I believe that the view of time which we are proposing is nothing short of a paradigm change, not unlike the one which allows us to recognize the underlying reality of what we *perceive* as the sun moving across the sky. This sort of ability to hold what we might think of as being a "dual perception" is beautifully exemplified by the simple Necker cube here. Which perception is "correct"? Both perhaps, depending on the purpose for holding it?

So what is changed by a paradigm change? Absolutely nothing; nothing, that is, aside from the way we think about the things we observe. Important? Only if we agree that it's more useful/constructive, for example, to think about the perceived transit of the sun across the sky as being a result of the Earth's rotation rather than as the sun actually traveling around the Earth. Rather than go out on a limb here I'll wait for wiser heads to weigh in on that.

jcns

Dan,

Big Bang theory really does boil down to whether recession is the only viable explanation for redshift, because there are quite a number of other issues with the overall theory, that other avenues of enquiry would gain much more attention. Here is an interesting link, which Israel Perez provided:

http://www.fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristov_WaveMotion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf

A similar paper:

http://www.fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristov_AIP_978_3_SpaceMaterialContinuumCosmologicalRedshift.pdf

jcn,

The idea does have significant implications for how physics understands time, since, as you point out, it is much more of a thermal medium, than a spatial dimension. Considering the extent to which much of physical theory is based on time as a form of dimension, it would send earthquakes through the entire discipline.

There is a much larger reality though. Quite literally all of human civilization arises from narrative and the subsequent passing on of knowledge. This would take that entire paradigm and turn it on its head. Now quite obviously it would take generations for this effect to really become apparent, since people do not change their conceptual foundations very easily and it only happens as generations of people come and go.

A good example is monotheistic religion. Now most arguments about it revolve around whether there is some single supernatural being pulling all the strings, but the historical foundation is one of shared narrative. Consider how the various monotheisms displaced pagan religions and erased the narrative stories of these people, putting the stories of Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, etc. in their place. Basically they were saying there are not multiple narratives, but only this one group narrative. Now when you look at time as going from past to future, it does seem as though there must be some absolute flow of time, from past to future, even if we only see individual motion. It seems obvious enough. We all exist in the same present, we seem to have come from the same past and those who survive meet up in the same future. On the other hand, if you look at it as a thermal medium, it's almost like a bowl of spaghetti, with lots of narrative threads all mixed up, sometimes woven together in larger ropes and sometimes weaving together in mosaics. It becomes poly-narrative, rather than a mono-narrative.

Conceptually, it is much more complex, but people are going to have to learn to deal with ever more complexity, otherwise we just keep having wars over whose narrative is better or stronger. Then it gets into politics and how people tend to only see one side of any issue, etc.

We are getting there, in a bottom up fashion, given the extent to which computers introduce the ideas of networks and complexity arising from basic code, etc. into peoples conceptual assumptions.

For me, it's this larger conversation that I'd like to see happen, but we have to first break down the barriers in physics first and then maybe our kids can argue the bigger issues.

Dan,

"Light speed does increase wrt cosmic time, but local time, t, changes proportionally such that the local coordinate, ct, remains invariant locally."

If two galaxies are x lightyears apart and the universe doubles in size, presumably they are 2x lightyears apart? That's increased distance.

Remember that link you gave me:

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2007/9/modern-cosmology-science-or-folktale

Quoting from it:

"In the 1930s, Richard Tolman proposed such a test, really good data for which are only now becoming available. Tolman calculated that the surface brightness (the apparent brightness per unit area) of receding galaxies should fall off in a particularly dramatic way with redshift--indeed, so dramatically that those of us building the first cameras for the Hubble Space Telescope in the 1980s were told by cosmologists not to worry about distant galaxies, because we simply wouldn't see them. Imagine our surprise therefore when every deep Hubble image turned out to have hundreds of apparently distant galaxies scattered all over it (as seen in the first image in this piece). Contemporary cosmologists mutter about "galaxy evolution," but the omens do not necessarily look good for the Tolman test of Expansion at high redshift."

Redshift as an optical effect, not recession, would be an obvious explanation.

John,

You keep confusing the Standard Model based on a hot Big Bang with my model. I do not support the SMC and my model is *not* a Big Bang model. The state of expansion is just the natural state of the universe, much as free fall is the natural state of motion. Expansion was not caused by the initial state, or any inflaton field, etc., rather the initial state is just one of the many stages of an eternally expanding universe. This is *completely* different than the Big Bang and most cosmologists would not agree with the previous two statements. The burden is on me to justify them.

Redshift as a optical effect is not tenable argument, except in a BB universe that ends in a heat death. To suggest otherwise, is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

quote per Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington:

"The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations -- then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation -- well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."

Page 7 of my essay explains how my model never violates the second law.

When you quoted: "Light speed does increase wrt cosmic time, but local time, t, changes proportionally such that the local coordinate, ct, remains invariant locally."

and then responded: "If two galaxies are x lightyears apart and the universe doubles in size, presumably they are 2x lightyears apart? That's increased distance."

you must have a misunderstanding the meaning of the coordinate ct. This is not a true spatial distance (contrary to those who believe in a block universe), but rather the distance in the 4th dimension (in the Platonic realm). Even though the coordinate ct is invariant locally, the co-moving coordinates are not invariant, so: "That's increased distance." is not in dispute.

Dan

Dan,

Entropy only applies to a closed system. If the universe is infinite, energy lost or radiated away from one field is replaced by energy being radiated back in from surrounding fields. Conservation of energy applies here.

Space expands outside of gravity fields, but it collapses in them. Flat space means these effects are equivalent. Presumably one of the various problems inflation is supposed to solve is why space does appear flat and the idea is that does so by blowing the universe up so much that what is visible appears flat, much like a small patch of the earth's surface appears flat. On the other hand, if it's just a convection cycle of expanding radiation and collapsing mass, the same balance would exist, by a much less complicated mechanism. It should also be noted that the cover story on this month's SciAm was by one of the originators of inflation theory, Paul Steinhardt, questioning the efficacy of Inflation.

I'm not ignoring that your theory isn't standard BBT, but that tends to be the point of reference.

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 ?)