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)

I wouldn't begin to understand this, which might be a good thing in terms of having an original perspective(?). But I like your opening sentence. I've developed my thoughts on Time over the weekend & just posted them (Monday 20.14 GMT)

Paul

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.

      B^2:

      Entropy is a result of causality and so an effect in our universe where the flow of time is in the direction of what we name the future, entropy is only existing on a larger scale as quantum scale, so you are right when you say that the arrow of time is "also" explained by entropy, but with the remark that this is valable in our universe, there may be universes where it is different.

      I am not lumping all of time into the present because of the fact that we can not experience the NOW. And why not ? I propose that when reaching Planck Time (5.39121x10^-44sec) and by passing it we enter in this "fifth" dimension, the Total Simultaneity of world lines (String theorists place there their enrolled 10 dimensions). So the treshold of NOW could be placed there, in this total simultaneity all possible moments are lumped together but they make no longer part of our reality.

      This "fifth" dimension is as mystical as the enrolled 10 dimensions of String theory, it is just another way of trying to explain OUR reality, you can make it mystical like all the things we cannot explain in our existance.

      I think (believe?) that an observation collapses the wave function of a particle, observation needs consciousness (for humans) so that we become aware, if for example we take the YOUNG experiment with the one or two slits, in my vieuw I can explain why the particle becomes a wave when there are two splits, the two possibillities exist in total simultaneity, the definitive "decision" depends on the number of slits that are present in the Planck time , here I don't have to create a paralel world when the "decision" is made, (all possibilities existing already, also the answer to Paul)

      The whole idea is worked out in my essay (see link in my answer to Paul above)

      keep thinking

      Wilhelmus

      Paul could elaborate on your statement?

      Wilhelmus at first I was surprised by you mentioning consciousness and different/multiple universes. Then I realized you were trolling me, that was well played sir.

      What did you the two of you think of this article on 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