Real-Time Physics

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.

B^2

This is as short/simple as I can be:

An independent reality exists. We do not create it, we experience it (note: experience includes logically inferred hypothetical 'experiences'). What might lie beyond what we are able to experience is an irrelevant metaphysical consideration. That is entirely different from the fact that there are parts of our reality that we may never experience, but they still exist. There are a number of variables involved in the process of experience which interfere with the reality. But as we come to understand the process, we can apply reverse engineering and identify the original. All entities which comprise our reality change. It is a fundamental characteristic of our reality, and in the sense that it is an all-prevailing constant, it can probably be ignored for most theories/calculations. We label this phenomenon 'time'. However, the interference that occurs in the experience process cannot be ignored, and that revolves around the speed of light/sound and distance. But 'time' (ie the rate of change) in this context is an arbitrarily imposed measuring system, and the issue (contrary to what Einstein concluded) is merely a technicality in the process of experience (which just becomes more complicated if the speed of light has varied), not proof of an intrinsic dimension in our reality (ie space-time).

On your specific question about Ensemble Interpretation:

Having invoked a metaphysical assertion that we create our reality, ie that some form of reality (whether it be all possibilities, random states, whatever) exists a priori and our experiencing it results in a 'selection', then one can invoke any number of 'theories' to explain it. The problem is that the base supposition is null and void. Experience is a complex process, it does interfere with the reality but those effects are identifiable. It might involve some form of 'selection', but we can never know. Beyond our experience is a matter for religious doctrines, mystical beliefs, or 'apparently' ludicrous statements, as there is no proof so any 'explanation' is equally valid.

Paul

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

After "...patents:" the text on ILTs from "Evidence" to "invalid" was an abstract copied from an article by Ronald Hatch. It can be found via the name Hatch in the list of those who signed the petition. I apologize for the missing quotation marks.

Eckard

Eckard,

You asked, "What category does your solution belong to?"

This question itself is in the category of "When did you stop beating your wife?"

Special and general relativity are not two different theories. As the name implies, special relativity is the special case of uniform motion (rate of change). When the theory is generalized to accelerated motion (rate of change of rate of change), there are two considerations that apply to the twin "paradox:"

1. The relation between the fixed point (stay at home) twin and the traveling twin in a straight path, i.e., a linearly accelerated relation. From their inertial frames, each will perceive the other's clock as having slowed. The relation is time symmetric. Each are in an accelerated frame.

2. The relation between the stay at home twin who is not in an accelerated frame, when the traveling twin who is in an accelerated frame, reverses course.

If my previous explanation is not adequate, I don't think I want to take the time to make it better. Those who are unconvinced, due to false assumptions, lack of understanding of relativity, or both, will likely remain unconvinced.

Tom

I was referring to the article on real-time physics in my previous post above. I have not read Hawking's new book, but from the synopsis I read on amazon I see why you are annoyed:

"In The Grand Design we explain why, according to quantum theory, the cosmos does not have just a single existence, or history, but rather that every possible history of the universe exists simultaneously. We question the conventional concept of reality, posing instead a "model-dependent" theory of reality. We discuss how the laws of our particular universe are extraordinarily finely tuned so as to allow for our existence, and show why quantum theory predicts the multiverse--the idea that ours is just one of many universes that appeared spontaneously out of nothing, each with different laws of nature. And we assess M-Theory, an explanation of the laws governing the multiverse, and the only viable candidate for a complete "theory of everything." As we promise in our opening chapter, unlike the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life given in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the answer we provide in The Grand Design is not, simply, '42.'"

DON'T PANIC

I read that Adams came up with the number 42 at 'random'. In fact, I noticed 42 is the sum of the sides of two dice. This has always reminded me of the concept of a random variable. The probabilities for the values of the random variable are dependent on the 'uniform' sample space...random tangent.

I started studying physics because I could not accept the more grand claims and conclusions I read about in popular science books. You have mentioned the reification fallacy before and I understand your frustrations. This is Stephen Hawking though he must be right he cites string theory which is the only viable candidate for a complete "theory of everything." What experiments does he propose in the book?

In 42 (1942) the theorist was born who wrote: "We question the conventional concept of reality, posing instead a "model-dependent" theory of reality." Isn't such utterance cyclic? Wouldn't it be better to start at the indisputable understanding of reality as something prior to all models and theories?

Eckard

I doubt that begging will be enough. I rather see compelling reasons for a unbelievably simple and truly foundational while definitely hurting correction.

Eckard