A-TEMPORAL UNIVERSE
essay
Amrit Srečko Šorli
Scientific Research Centre BISTRA
Ptuj, Slovenija
sorli.bistra@gmail.com
Palle Yourgrau book »A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy Of Gödel And Einstein« opens new perspectives regarding scientific definition and experience of time. Both giants of science have been discussing in a second part of last century a possibility that there is no time in the universe as science experiences it. Their scientific vision of “World without time” is not examined yet fully. In this essay I will discuss some experimental facts that support Gödel and Einstein idea.
At the first place I will discuss upon an experimental fact: with clocks we measure duration of material change that run into universe. There is no evidence that with clocks we measure duration of time. Existence of space-time as a physical reality into which runs material change is a pure preposition. With the eyes we can perceive material change into universe, space-time into which this change should run is not perceivable. Space-time is only a mathematical model into which science experience universe. Time does not run into universe as a fourth dimension of space-time, it runs only as a material change.
Out of that follows that time as we experience it might not exist into universe, it could be only a mind concept through which we experience material change into universe that is without time, timeless, a-temporal. Material changes are first perceived by senses (eyes) than elaborated into time as a mind concept and than experienced. Time is a “mind prism” through which we experience material change that run into a-temporal universe. Past, present and future are elements of time as a mind prism, they exist only in the mind, in the universe there is no past, present and future.
One should distinguish between physical time (material change) and mind time (time as a mind concept). One should be aware that material change has no duration on its own; we give them a sense of duration by measuring them. Clocks run into a-temporal universe, their motion has no duration on its own. We have been defined duration of motion of clocks regarding to the movements of stellar objects, we are not aware that stellar objects move into a-temporal universe. We “measure” with clocks duration of all other material change that run into a-temporal universe.
Understanding of that fact requires awareness that material change does not run into linear way: material change 2 after material change 1, material change 2 before material change 3. What happens is that material change 1 transforms into material change 2, 2 into 3 and so on into a-temporal universe, where nothing is before and nothing is after. Human experience that material change runs into linear time is result of experiencing material change into linear concept of time as a mind concept. That mother is born before son and grandmother before mother belongs to the human experience of life. From the universal point of view all three events happen into a-temporal universe, nothing is after and nothing before, with clocks we measure only numerical order of these three events: grandma has number 1, mother number 2 and grandson number 3, but none of these events is “after” or “before”.
The concept of A-temporal universe means that all material change are a-temporal as well, with clocks we measure numerical order of these events. Numerical order into which happen material change has an “objective value”; it does not belong to the “time as a mind concept”.
This view gives offers deeper understanding of macro and micro universe: “with clocks we measure numerical order of events that run into a-temporal universe”. This definition is more precise of precedent one: “with clocks we measure duration of material change”. “Duration” belongs to the “time as a mind concept”.
Gödel and Einstein are right: no time in universe, no universe in time. Average mind can not grasp their vision but that does not mean that vision is not right. Lets say: “Not understanding of a theory is not a measure of its rightness”.
QUOTE (amrit+May 15 2007, 05:20 PM)
...Gödel and Einstein are right: no time in universe, no universe in time...
By AWT the concept of time dimension exists in physics because it has a physical meaning, it's well defined and we can even postulate the space-time metric with more then one time dimensions. By AWT the time is the compressed/compactified space dimension of the underlying imaginary space-time metric, which is serving as a motion constraint for subsequent space-time dimension.
In sparse particle system many spatial and time dimensions exists for mechanical waves and here's no apparent difference between the spatial and time coordinates. At the moment, such system becomes compacted, the repulsive forces will create the cellular density gradients with negative curvature and the normal direction of these gradients will serve as a time coordinate of the corresponding space-time. The particle wave packets will move along such density gradients like the waves along water surface, while the heavily compacted spatial direction, which limits the degree of their freedom of motion is called the time dimension. Therefore every motion is space will be followed by the corresponding motion in time dimension - albeit quite subtle due the high compactification ratio of spatial and time dimensions forming our 4D space-time metric. This is the reason of the twins paradox, shift of mion decay time during motion and many others well measurable effects.
By AWT the concept of time dimension exists in physics because it has a physical meaning, it's well defined and we can even postulate the space-time metric with more then one time dimensions. By AWT the time is the compressed/compactified space dimension of the underlying imaginary space-time metric, which is serving as a motion constraint for subsequent space-time dimension.
In sparse particle system many spatial and time dimensions exists for mechanical waves and here's no apparent difference between the spatial and time coordinates. At the moment, such system becomes compacted, the repulsive forces will create the cellular density gradients with negative curvature and the normal direction of these gradients will serve as a time coordinate of the corresponding space-time. The particle wave packets will move along such density gradients like the waves along water surface, while the heavily compacted spatial direction, which limits the degree of their freedom of motion is called the time dimension. Therefore every motion is space will be followed by the corresponding motion in time dimension - albeit quite subtle due the high compactification ratio of spatial and time dimensions forming our 4D space-time metric. This is the reason of the twins paradox, shift of mion decay time during motion and many others well measurable effects.
QUOTE (amrit+May 15 2007, 02:20 PM)
Average mind can not grasp their vision but that does not mean that vision is not right.
You can say that again. I quoted that book in TIME EXPLAINED. Even smart people seem to hang on tenaciously to the concept that time is a length. The obvious fact that it's just a relative measure of motion seems too basic for them to grasp.
You can say that again. I quoted that book in TIME EXPLAINED. Even smart people seem to hang on tenaciously to the concept that time is a length. The obvious fact that it's just a relative measure of motion seems too basic for them to grasp.
The fundamental equations: t=d/v and l=ct prove conclusively that time is the foundation of the Cosmos. Time is not just a "dimension" of existence, it is existence itself.
3 spacetime dimensions . . .
I dont believe time is a dimension. Time is an "interval" If the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second, miles is a dimension, second is an interval. Time has no dimension. It exists alone. Time is independent and the same everywhere. Calling it a dimension doesn't make it a dimension. Nobody knows how to define time. It is a mystery. The best definition of time is....T I M E. The best definition of space is S P A C E. You can go crazy trying to figure it out. Those are my thoughts. Sorry to disagree.
A big achievement of AWT:
Physics waited 2000 years before getting the insigth of AWT ...
QUOTE
By AWT the concept of time dimension exists in physics because it has a physical meaning ...
Physics waited 2000 years before getting the insigth of AWT ...
physical time is not dimension, physical time is motion
second part of my essay
“Not understanding of a theory is not a measure of its rightness”.
This insight of time sees universe as an a-temporal phenomena. Concept of space-time is developed into concept of a-temporal space where run of material change is physical time. In General Theory of Relativity gravitational force is result of curvature of space-time. Here idea arises that gravity force is a result of curvature of a-temporal space. Physical base of curvature of a-temporal space is its quantum structure.
With “Loop Quantum Gravity” idea arises that space has a granular structure. Space is made out of “quanta of space” that have a volume of Planck. According to the thesis here a-temporal space is a “pool of free energy” made out of quanta of space (QS), uncreated basic quanta of energy that have a size of a volume of Planck. A new idea here is that size of QS is flexible, in areas where there is no stellar objects, density of space is high, size of QS is of Planck volume, in areas where density of space is low, near stellar objects and inside of them, size of QS is bigger than of Planck volume.
QS which build up space are not connected in a rigid way. Space is a dynamic energy system where fluctuation of quanta of space follows motion of stellar objects and elementary particles. With movement of material object or mass particle into space diminish density of space around material object or mass particle.
Density of space increases with the distance from massive objects. Inside of massive objects density of space depends on density of mass . Higher is density of mass , lover is density of space . Lower is density of space , smaller is number of quanta of space in a given square millimeter of space. Where density of space is lower quanta of space are more “stretched” and have stronger tendency to “shrink”. This “shrinking” force is gravitational force that works between quanta of space that are four dimensional. Gravity force keeps space together and that keeps together also three dimensional objects that exist into four dimensional space. For example between earth and moon gravity force works between four-dimensional “low density space clouds” (LDSC) of earth and of moon. It does not work directly between material objects, it works into space into which objects are existing.
earth – LDSC of earth – gravity force – LDSC of moon – moon
Smaller is density of LDSC, bigger is its curvature. In General Theory of Relativity curvature of space is a measure for density of space . A-Temporal space is “gravity medium” between stellar objects. In a similar way A-Temporal space is “information medium” between two elementary particles by “Einstein-Podolski-Rosen” experiment. Information does not travel between particle A and B, information is into a-temporal space into which exist both of particles. Light is bend by passing massive stellar objects because of different density of space through which moves. Physical space into which stellar objects exist can not be curved on its own. Physical base of curvature of space is variable quantum density of space .
Vector of gravity force
In areas where density changes vector of gravity force is into direction of decreasing of density . Material objects and elementary particles move into direction of decreasing of density of space. A mass particle creates a small LDSC around it, mass less particle does not create LDSC around it.
In space where there is no change of density there is no change of rate of curvature. Gravity force as a shrinking force of the space is still there, but gravity on a given object there is zero. Such areas are for example at Lagrange point between earth and moon where density of space is stable. Object there will not move but gravity force as a shrinking force between quanta of space is there. Such an area is also in the centre of stellar objects where density of space is stable, there is no change of rate of curvature, but gravity as a shrinking force of the space is there.
Gravity acceleration inside stellar objects
Density of space going from the surface of the stellar object is increasing with the distance on square, density of space is decreasing going inside the stellar object and depends on the density of matter . Going towards the centre of the earth density is decreasing and density is increasing. According to this understanding gravity acceleration g inside stellar objects depends on change of density that determinates strength of gravity vector.
Density of space inside of black holes, binary neutron stars, in the centre of galaxies
Inside black holes density of space is so low that space has an enormous force of shrinking. This shrinking force disintegrates all subatomic particles back into quanta of space. Beyond Schwartschild radius mass transforms back into quanta of space. Black hole “sucks” matter from outer space and transforms it into quanta of space. Transformation “mass - quanta of space” continuously increases density of space in the centre of black hole that spreads with the light speed into outer space as a “gravitational waves”.
Astronomical observations of diminishing of speed of rotation (orbit time) of binary neutron stars PSR1913+16 is explained by transformation of mass of stars into gravitational radiation. According to the understanding here gravitational radiation is result of transformation of mass of stars into quanta of space in the centre of binary stars (similar as in the centre of black holes). Transformation “mass - quanta of space” increases density of space in the centre of stars that spreads with the light speed into outer space as a “gravitational waves”.
Existence of gravitational waves that are emission of mass and are absorbed by mass in a similar way as electromagnetic waves might be a wrong preposition. Some researches exclude existence of gravitational waves that travel from stellar object A to stellar object B in order to keep them together.
Astronomical observations shows that Active Galactic Nucleus (AGN) of our galaxy “eats” near stars and galaxies and time by time throws out huge amount of fresh gas. AGN transforms matter it into quanta of space. This process increases density of space into AGN. As by black stars and neutron binary stars gravitational waves are spreading into outer space also from AGN. When a huge amount of matter is entering AGN, density of space reaches certain maximum in a very short time. This sudden increasing of is a cause for a big explosion where quanta of space transform into elementary particles. After density turns below maximum value, explosion stops. AGN are “refreshing” fabric of the universe, they transform “old” matter into “fresh” matter and keep entropy of the universe constant.
In the universe there is a permanent fluctuation of energy “matter-space-matter-space”. Sum of density of matter and density of space in a given volume of universe tends to be in equilibrium: . When there is an access of density matter will turn into space, where there is an access of density space will turn into matter. Universe is an A-Temporal system in a permanent dynamic equilibrium, there is no beginning and on end of the universe.
Literature:
(1) Sorli A., Sorli K. (2005) From Space-time to A-Temporal Physical Space, Frontier Perspectives, Philadelphia, Vol. 14, Num. 1.
(2) Yourgrau P. (2006) A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legaci of Gödel And Einstein
(3) Rovelli C. (1997) Loop Quantum Gravity, Living Reviews in Relativity
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-1998-1/
(4) Fiscaletti D., Sorli A. (2006) Toward a New Interpretation of Subatomic Particles and Their Motion inside A-Temporal Physical Space, Frontier Perspectives, Philadelphia, Volume 15, Number 2
(5) Sorli A., Sorli I. (2005). A-Temporal Gravitation And Hypothetical Gravitational waves, Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol 2, Num 5
(6) Loinger A. The gravitational waves are fictitious entities - II
http://arxiv.org/vc/astro-ph/papers/9904/9904207v1.pdf
(7) Goss. W.M. (2003). Sagittarius A* as an AGN
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ASPC..300..123G
“Not understanding of a theory is not a measure of its rightness”.
This insight of time sees universe as an a-temporal phenomena. Concept of space-time is developed into concept of a-temporal space where run of material change is physical time. In General Theory of Relativity gravitational force is result of curvature of space-time. Here idea arises that gravity force is a result of curvature of a-temporal space. Physical base of curvature of a-temporal space is its quantum structure.
With “Loop Quantum Gravity” idea arises that space has a granular structure. Space is made out of “quanta of space” that have a volume of Planck. According to the thesis here a-temporal space is a “pool of free energy” made out of quanta of space (QS), uncreated basic quanta of energy that have a size of a volume of Planck. A new idea here is that size of QS is flexible, in areas where there is no stellar objects, density of space is high, size of QS is of Planck volume, in areas where density of space is low, near stellar objects and inside of them, size of QS is bigger than of Planck volume.
QS which build up space are not connected in a rigid way. Space is a dynamic energy system where fluctuation of quanta of space follows motion of stellar objects and elementary particles. With movement of material object or mass particle into space diminish density of space around material object or mass particle.
Density of space increases with the distance from massive objects. Inside of massive objects density of space depends on density of mass . Higher is density of mass , lover is density of space . Lower is density of space , smaller is number of quanta of space in a given square millimeter of space. Where density of space is lower quanta of space are more “stretched” and have stronger tendency to “shrink”. This “shrinking” force is gravitational force that works between quanta of space that are four dimensional. Gravity force keeps space together and that keeps together also three dimensional objects that exist into four dimensional space. For example between earth and moon gravity force works between four-dimensional “low density space clouds” (LDSC) of earth and of moon. It does not work directly between material objects, it works into space into which objects are existing.
earth – LDSC of earth – gravity force – LDSC of moon – moon
Smaller is density of LDSC, bigger is its curvature. In General Theory of Relativity curvature of space is a measure for density of space . A-Temporal space is “gravity medium” between stellar objects. In a similar way A-Temporal space is “information medium” between two elementary particles by “Einstein-Podolski-Rosen” experiment. Information does not travel between particle A and B, information is into a-temporal space into which exist both of particles. Light is bend by passing massive stellar objects because of different density of space through which moves. Physical space into which stellar objects exist can not be curved on its own. Physical base of curvature of space is variable quantum density of space .
Vector of gravity force
In areas where density changes vector of gravity force is into direction of decreasing of density . Material objects and elementary particles move into direction of decreasing of density of space. A mass particle creates a small LDSC around it, mass less particle does not create LDSC around it.
In space where there is no change of density there is no change of rate of curvature. Gravity force as a shrinking force of the space is still there, but gravity on a given object there is zero. Such areas are for example at Lagrange point between earth and moon where density of space is stable. Object there will not move but gravity force as a shrinking force between quanta of space is there. Such an area is also in the centre of stellar objects where density of space is stable, there is no change of rate of curvature, but gravity as a shrinking force of the space is there.
Gravity acceleration inside stellar objects
Density of space going from the surface of the stellar object is increasing with the distance on square, density of space is decreasing going inside the stellar object and depends on the density of matter . Going towards the centre of the earth density is decreasing and density is increasing. According to this understanding gravity acceleration g inside stellar objects depends on change of density that determinates strength of gravity vector.
Density of space inside of black holes, binary neutron stars, in the centre of galaxies
Inside black holes density of space is so low that space has an enormous force of shrinking. This shrinking force disintegrates all subatomic particles back into quanta of space. Beyond Schwartschild radius mass transforms back into quanta of space. Black hole “sucks” matter from outer space and transforms it into quanta of space. Transformation “mass - quanta of space” continuously increases density of space in the centre of black hole that spreads with the light speed into outer space as a “gravitational waves”.
Astronomical observations of diminishing of speed of rotation (orbit time) of binary neutron stars PSR1913+16 is explained by transformation of mass of stars into gravitational radiation. According to the understanding here gravitational radiation is result of transformation of mass of stars into quanta of space in the centre of binary stars (similar as in the centre of black holes). Transformation “mass - quanta of space” increases density of space in the centre of stars that spreads with the light speed into outer space as a “gravitational waves”.
Existence of gravitational waves that are emission of mass and are absorbed by mass in a similar way as electromagnetic waves might be a wrong preposition. Some researches exclude existence of gravitational waves that travel from stellar object A to stellar object B in order to keep them together.
Astronomical observations shows that Active Galactic Nucleus (AGN) of our galaxy “eats” near stars and galaxies and time by time throws out huge amount of fresh gas. AGN transforms matter it into quanta of space. This process increases density of space into AGN. As by black stars and neutron binary stars gravitational waves are spreading into outer space also from AGN. When a huge amount of matter is entering AGN, density of space reaches certain maximum in a very short time. This sudden increasing of is a cause for a big explosion where quanta of space transform into elementary particles. After density turns below maximum value, explosion stops. AGN are “refreshing” fabric of the universe, they transform “old” matter into “fresh” matter and keep entropy of the universe constant.
In the universe there is a permanent fluctuation of energy “matter-space-matter-space”. Sum of density of matter and density of space in a given volume of universe tends to be in equilibrium: . When there is an access of density matter will turn into space, where there is an access of density space will turn into matter. Universe is an A-Temporal system in a permanent dynamic equilibrium, there is no beginning and on end of the universe.
Literature:
(1) Sorli A., Sorli K. (2005) From Space-time to A-Temporal Physical Space, Frontier Perspectives, Philadelphia, Vol. 14, Num. 1.
(2) Yourgrau P. (2006) A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legaci of Gödel And Einstein
(3) Rovelli C. (1997) Loop Quantum Gravity, Living Reviews in Relativity
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-1998-1/
(4) Fiscaletti D., Sorli A. (2006) Toward a New Interpretation of Subatomic Particles and Their Motion inside A-Temporal Physical Space, Frontier Perspectives, Philadelphia, Volume 15, Number 2
(5) Sorli A., Sorli I. (2005). A-Temporal Gravitation And Hypothetical Gravitational waves, Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol 2, Num 5
(6) Loinger A. The gravitational waves are fictitious entities - II
http://arxiv.org/vc/astro-ph/papers/9904/9904207v1.pdf
(7) Goss. W.M. (2003). Sagittarius A* as an AGN
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ASPC..300..123G
QUOTE (amrit+May 16 2007, 06:39 AM)
physical time is not dimension, physical time is motion
Time is a cycle of Energy and its Conversion from its Wave State(A-Temporal), to its Observor State(Temporal).
Energy(Time) facilliates a specific Functional requirement of the System, and therefore gives 'Identity'(collapse of the wave function to a singular Behavioral State).
Time is a cycle of Energy and its Conversion from its Wave State(A-Temporal), to its Observor State(Temporal).
Energy(Time) facilliates a specific Functional requirement of the System, and therefore gives 'Identity'(collapse of the wave function to a singular Behavioral State).
time is numerical order of material change that run into a-temporal universe.
amrit: You know I understand what you say, and take the same view of time. But for many others it goes whoosh, right over their heads. The shutters are down and there's nobody home.
[b]hi Farsight
yes, they do not have any proof that things are different
time as science experience it today is a pure preposition
no evidence on it
we spend (i spend 20 years) to get what time is
and NOW no one can understand us
but this vision of time will be in power in a 10 years
we need 10-20 main strem physicist to get that
i think it is time to found A-TEMPORAL CLUB
and inform about our research on time most important physicists on globe
my impression is Prof. Penrose woulde be open for such an interpretation of time
yours amrit[/B]
my mail
sorli.bistra@gmail.com
yes, they do not have any proof that things are different
time as science experience it today is a pure preposition
no evidence on it
we spend (i spend 20 years) to get what time is
and NOW no one can understand us
but this vision of time will be in power in a 10 years
we need 10-20 main strem physicist to get that
i think it is time to found A-TEMPORAL CLUB
and inform about our research on time most important physicists on globe
my impression is Prof. Penrose woulde be open for such an interpretation of time
yours amrit[/B]
my mail
sorli.bistra@gmail.com
QUOTE (Farsight+May 22 2007, 11:14 AM)
amrit: You know I understand what you say, and take the same view of time. But for many others it goes whoosh, right over their heads. The shutters are down and there's nobody home.
Amrit, Farsight, I will try to explain why I personally do not agree with you. It isn't because it goes 'whoosh' over my head, but because I have a different line of thought:
Imagine you are 2-D, looking along a 2-D world. (Like Mario or Sonic). You cannot actually see that you are in a 2-D world, all you can see is a 1-D vertical line. You cannot see that you are in 2-D until you view from a 3-D perspective, and can view the 2-D world from a non-parallel viewpoint.
Similarly, if you are 3-D, looking out on a 3-D world (notice, still no time, so no movement) you cannot decide if you are in a 3-D or 2-D world because you cannot gauge distance from you or move through it. It appears to be a 2-D picture at you eyes. Once you introduce time, you can start to view from different perspectives and compare them to each other, gathering enough information to decide you are in a 3-D world.
Yet you still cannot 'see' the time dimension, as it is perpendicular to all dimensions you exist in. This doesn't mean it isn't there. Not necessarily as another 'space' dimension, but a dimension all the same.
This just seems too much of an analagous extrapolation not to be based in reality and is one of the reasons I see time as another dimension.
Hope it makes you think (as your posts made me), even if it doesn't convince you
Amrit, Farsight, I will try to explain why I personally do not agree with you. It isn't because it goes 'whoosh' over my head, but because I have a different line of thought:
Imagine you are 2-D, looking along a 2-D world. (Like Mario or Sonic). You cannot actually see that you are in a 2-D world, all you can see is a 1-D vertical line. You cannot see that you are in 2-D until you view from a 3-D perspective, and can view the 2-D world from a non-parallel viewpoint.
Similarly, if you are 3-D, looking out on a 3-D world (notice, still no time, so no movement) you cannot decide if you are in a 3-D or 2-D world because you cannot gauge distance from you or move through it. It appears to be a 2-D picture at you eyes. Once you introduce time, you can start to view from different perspectives and compare them to each other, gathering enough information to decide you are in a 3-D world.
Yet you still cannot 'see' the time dimension, as it is perpendicular to all dimensions you exist in. This doesn't mean it isn't there. Not necessarily as another 'space' dimension, but a dimension all the same.
This just seems too much of an analagous extrapolation not to be based in reality and is one of the reasons I see time as another dimension.
Hope it makes you think (as your posts made me), even if it doesn't convince you
time time t t t t
QUOTE (amrit+May 22 2007, 12:05 PM)
[b]hi Farsight
yes, they do not have any proof that things are different
time as science experience it today is a pure preposition
no evidence on it
we spend (i spend 20 years) to get what time is
and NOW no one can understand us
but this vision of time will be in power in a 10 years
we need 10-20 main strem physicist to get that
i think it is time to found A-TEMPORAL CLUB
and inform about our research on time most important physicists on globe
my impression is Prof. Penrose woulde be open for such an interpretation of time
yours amrit[/B]
my mail
sorli.bistra@gmail.com
I'm not sure "A-temporal club" sounds quite right, amrit. And I've a hunch that some guys already know the truth. See page 258 of The Trouble with Physics.
yes, they do not have any proof that things are different
time as science experience it today is a pure preposition
no evidence on it
we spend (i spend 20 years) to get what time is
and NOW no one can understand us
but this vision of time will be in power in a 10 years
we need 10-20 main strem physicist to get that
i think it is time to found A-TEMPORAL CLUB
and inform about our research on time most important physicists on globe
my impression is Prof. Penrose woulde be open for such an interpretation of time
yours amrit[/B]
my mail
sorli.bistra@gmail.com
I'm not sure "A-temporal club" sounds quite right, amrit. And I've a hunch that some guys already know the truth. See page 258 of The Trouble with Physics.
QUOTE (Farsight+May 22 2007, 11:14 AM)
But for many others it goes whoosh, right over their heads.
Maybe he needs some psychedelic animated GIFs. A picture is worth a thousand words, and the consensus here is that an animated and abstract picture can take the place of any mathematical or logical structure. Some conservation law at work, I suppose.
Maybe he needs some psychedelic animated GIFs. A picture is worth a thousand words, and the consensus here is that an animated and abstract picture can take the place of any mathematical or logical structure. Some conservation law at work, I suppose.
Hi. I'm not a scientist, not even an armchair one, but does anyone find the following quote applicable:
Time is a byproduct of change.
In other words, if nothing changes, can we tell time?
Just a thought...
Time is a byproduct of change.
In other words, if nothing changes, can we tell time?
Just a thought...
QUOTE (Farsight+May 29 2007, 07:23 PM)
I'm not sure "A-temporal club" sounds quite right, amrit. And I've a hunch that some guys already know the truth. See page 258 of The Trouble with Physics.
farsight that makes me happy
Time is a byproduct of change.
TIME IS A NUMERICAL ORDER OF CHANGE.
farsight that makes me happy
Time is a byproduct of change.
TIME IS A NUMERICAL ORDER OF CHANGE.
NOTHING HAS TO HAPPEN FOR THERE TO BE TIME. 
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
everything that happen is creating time: numerical order of events
Hej Amrit
QUOTE: "TIME IS NUMERICAL ORDER OF IRREVERSIBLE MATERIAL CHANGE THAT RUN INTO A-TEMPORAL UNIVERSE.
SMALLEST UNIT OF TIME IS PLANCK TIME.
WITH A CLOCK ONE MEASURES NUMERICAL ORDER OF MATERIAL CHANGE."
I think that I have put it forward previously - but it would be wise trying to define smallest unit of time a bit more according to newer ideas about sub-atomic world. It would also be wise trying to include the fact that time is a truly local phenomenon, tied to its very location - that time is "The Beat of Universe" at the very location it is being measured. And totally dependant on outside observer.
Actually I have had the same idea of time for quite many years - and I think that there is quite a number of people now grasping the concept - which is more than logic and quite simple - I wonder if we need a club -
QUOTE: "TIME IS NUMERICAL ORDER OF IRREVERSIBLE MATERIAL CHANGE THAT RUN INTO A-TEMPORAL UNIVERSE.
SMALLEST UNIT OF TIME IS PLANCK TIME.
WITH A CLOCK ONE MEASURES NUMERICAL ORDER OF MATERIAL CHANGE."
I think that I have put it forward previously - but it would be wise trying to define smallest unit of time a bit more according to newer ideas about sub-atomic world. It would also be wise trying to include the fact that time is a truly local phenomenon, tied to its very location - that time is "The Beat of Universe" at the very location it is being measured. And totally dependant on outside observer.
Actually I have had the same idea of time for quite many years - and I think that there is quite a number of people now grasping the concept - which is more than logic and quite simple - I wonder if we need a club -
Hej Amrit
As to your "second part of my essay"
QS bears many similarities to the concept of 3D Pixel Universe.
I have described it in another thread "Particles have mass - how?" and I will try to point the differences:
Universe is the physical expression of informations - it is the key point that highly organized and complex structures cannot originate solely on the basis of haphazard trial and error.
Any physical matter is the result of information - and the information is translated / expressed via the 3D Pixel screen - which is a true interphase between information and physical.
Axiomatically the physical world is quantic - so it implicates that any physical matter is presented in an oscillating glimpse and then it is re-created in the next glimps - it is "The Beat of Universe".
Nature is very efficient - everything is made in the most logical and simple form - and as such Nature expresses matter by using the least amount of information to achieve the most complexity.
That is why we need an absolutely ordered 3D Pixel Screen - and that is why everything is a result of wave-functions.
With the 3D Pixel concept gravity is a logic consequence of how matter is formed by interference / resonnance patterns - and it is (in my eyes) a strong concept if we want to include information in the expression of Universe.
As to your "second part of my essay"
QS bears many similarities to the concept of 3D Pixel Universe.
I have described it in another thread "Particles have mass - how?" and I will try to point the differences:
Universe is the physical expression of informations - it is the key point that highly organized and complex structures cannot originate solely on the basis of haphazard trial and error.
Any physical matter is the result of information - and the information is translated / expressed via the 3D Pixel screen - which is a true interphase between information and physical.
Axiomatically the physical world is quantic - so it implicates that any physical matter is presented in an oscillating glimpse and then it is re-created in the next glimps - it is "The Beat of Universe".
Nature is very efficient - everything is made in the most logical and simple form - and as such Nature expresses matter by using the least amount of information to achieve the most complexity.
That is why we need an absolutely ordered 3D Pixel Screen - and that is why everything is a result of wave-functions.
With the 3D Pixel concept gravity is a logic consequence of how matter is formed by interference / resonnance patterns - and it is (in my eyes) a strong concept if we want to include information in the expression of Universe.
hi bukh
as time is only numerical order of events
who came fist on the genius idea is not so important
most important is
that we now explain that to others
as time is only numerical order of events
who came fist on the genius idea is not so important
most important is
that we now explain that to others
I think the concept of units of time is a result of current love affair with computers. As has so obviously been pointed out in another essay in another thread on this same site. To which I replied.
The essay pointed out (quite correctly in my view) that if time occurs in units then there will be wildly predictable effects of massive accelerations generated over time due to the sum of vectors being calculated at only times when time is measurable in whole units as result.
The author then went on to point out that this may in fact be observable in nature as all we have to do is look at the accelerated expanding Universe - simple cause and effect.
Now I do not happen to agree that time occurs in distinct units. Therefore I may have some disagreement with the current theories on Quantum Mechanics.
But I am sure the mathematics can be tweaked a number of ways as this stuff is all theoretical anyway.
If time did exist in distinct units then objects would not move from point a to point b. Instead, they would jump into and out of existence along a line between points a and b until eventually objects jumped into existence at point b.
This means it would be possible to pick a point on the line between a and b that the object traveling from point a to point b did not pass through.
In fact if we have distinct units of time then a high velocity object passing from point a to point b may actually not exist in more points along the line than the number of points along the line that it does exist.
This would lead to the conclusion that an object could travel so fast that it could travel from point a to point b without existing in any point between point a and point b.
This stuff starts to look somewhat absurd to me.
Schrödinger could take his cat for a walk from point a to point be without actually moving and yet point a and point b would be two separate points.
You start to see the problem - what force would apply that could make an object move from point a to point b that can exist in between time and space when the object traveling is not present?
We have to come up with something to explain why the object that vanishes at one point will reappear with any amount of predictability at another point.
In other words when you jump in your car to go grocery shopping you have to wonder why you ever get there when the spinning wheels will bear absolutely no relationship with the road surface.
Jeff
The essay pointed out (quite correctly in my view) that if time occurs in units then there will be wildly predictable effects of massive accelerations generated over time due to the sum of vectors being calculated at only times when time is measurable in whole units as result.
The author then went on to point out that this may in fact be observable in nature as all we have to do is look at the accelerated expanding Universe - simple cause and effect.
Now I do not happen to agree that time occurs in distinct units. Therefore I may have some disagreement with the current theories on Quantum Mechanics.
But I am sure the mathematics can be tweaked a number of ways as this stuff is all theoretical anyway.
If time did exist in distinct units then objects would not move from point a to point b. Instead, they would jump into and out of existence along a line between points a and b until eventually objects jumped into existence at point b.
This means it would be possible to pick a point on the line between a and b that the object traveling from point a to point b did not pass through.
In fact if we have distinct units of time then a high velocity object passing from point a to point b may actually not exist in more points along the line than the number of points along the line that it does exist.
This would lead to the conclusion that an object could travel so fast that it could travel from point a to point b without existing in any point between point a and point b.
This stuff starts to look somewhat absurd to me.
Schrödinger could take his cat for a walk from point a to point be without actually moving and yet point a and point b would be two separate points.
You start to see the problem - what force would apply that could make an object move from point a to point b that can exist in between time and space when the object traveling is not present?
We have to come up with something to explain why the object that vanishes at one point will reappear with any amount of predictability at another point.
In other words when you jump in your car to go grocery shopping you have to wonder why you ever get there when the spinning wheels will bear absolutely no relationship with the road surface.
Jeff
great insight
time do not exist in distinct units
however events have numerical order
distinct units are man inventions
time do not exist in distinct units
however events have numerical order
distinct units are man inventions
Hej Jeffsaunders
QUOTE: "If time did exist in distinct units then objects would not move from point a to point b. Instead, they would jump into and out of existence along a line between points a and b until eventually objects jumped into existence at point b.
This means it would be possible to pick a point on the line between a and b that the object traveling from point a to point b did not pass through."
Imagine that time did NOT exist in distinct units - then there would not be Smallest Change - there would be no quant - no discontinuity.
How then would you define motion. Motion means that an object change its position - and if you accept continuity in physical world - you will end up in a situation where you ad infinitum reduces the motion into smaller and smaller steps - untill there will be either no motion or you have to accept that the object is not existing in between two points.
So in physical world one have to choose between continuity or discontinuity - and I prefer the latter.
QUOTE: "If time did exist in distinct units then objects would not move from point a to point b. Instead, they would jump into and out of existence along a line between points a and b until eventually objects jumped into existence at point b.
This means it would be possible to pick a point on the line between a and b that the object traveling from point a to point b did not pass through."
Imagine that time did NOT exist in distinct units - then there would not be Smallest Change - there would be no quant - no discontinuity.
How then would you define motion. Motion means that an object change its position - and if you accept continuity in physical world - you will end up in a situation where you ad infinitum reduces the motion into smaller and smaller steps - untill there will be either no motion or you have to accept that the object is not existing in between two points.
So in physical world one have to choose between continuity or discontinuity - and I prefer the latter.
In quantum physics, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle expresses
a limitation on accuracy of simultaneous measurement of observables
such as the position and the momentum of a particle. (1927)
Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says that ....
"any precise mathematical system must contain some statements
that are neither provable nor disprovable
by the means allowed within the system". (1931)
In 1916 Einstein published his general theory of relativity. In it he proposed that gravity is not a force but a curved field in the space-time continuum that is created by the presence of mass. People were astonished by the fact that space and time are under relativity. Even though, the world could stay ease within the determinism where there was a general algorithmic procedure for resolving all mathematical questions.
But since Heisenberg's discovery, Isaac Newton's laws of motion has not been used to predict accurately the behavior of single subatomic particles. The world was then suffered from this uncertainty. Gödel gave an additional blow to the people's mental world with the incompleteness.
Relativity, Uncertainty and Incompleteness!
Wow! We are free from the determinism!
Roger Penrose, Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University and a physicist, now happily says, "We cannot create any kind of new artistic sensitivity however we may accumulate many times of calculations. Art is a non-computable physics."
I would like to say, "Music is a non-computable physics, too".
But over the centuries musicians, mathematicians, theorists, thinkers, experts and amateurs have been suffered from the comma which is the difference between a perfectly tuned octave and the octave resulting from a tuned circle of fifths. Many great people have been trying to create the perfect scale in vain. Mathematics easily proves that perfection is not possible. Any solution does not exist. Musicians, especially pianists, have been accused of using the Equal Temperament for thier pianos because the Equal Temperament is said to be an anti-musical compromise which leaves each key equally damaged and none perfectly in tune.
This comma has put a curse on music.
http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/wtcuncertain.html
Iori Fujita
a limitation on accuracy of simultaneous measurement of observables
such as the position and the momentum of a particle. (1927)
Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says that ....
"any precise mathematical system must contain some statements
that are neither provable nor disprovable
by the means allowed within the system". (1931)
In 1916 Einstein published his general theory of relativity. In it he proposed that gravity is not a force but a curved field in the space-time continuum that is created by the presence of mass. People were astonished by the fact that space and time are under relativity. Even though, the world could stay ease within the determinism where there was a general algorithmic procedure for resolving all mathematical questions.
But since Heisenberg's discovery, Isaac Newton's laws of motion has not been used to predict accurately the behavior of single subatomic particles. The world was then suffered from this uncertainty. Gödel gave an additional blow to the people's mental world with the incompleteness.
Relativity, Uncertainty and Incompleteness!
Wow! We are free from the determinism!
Roger Penrose, Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University and a physicist, now happily says, "We cannot create any kind of new artistic sensitivity however we may accumulate many times of calculations. Art is a non-computable physics."
I would like to say, "Music is a non-computable physics, too".
But over the centuries musicians, mathematicians, theorists, thinkers, experts and amateurs have been suffered from the comma which is the difference between a perfectly tuned octave and the octave resulting from a tuned circle of fifths. Many great people have been trying to create the perfect scale in vain. Mathematics easily proves that perfection is not possible. Any solution does not exist. Musicians, especially pianists, have been accused of using the Equal Temperament for thier pianos because the Equal Temperament is said to be an anti-musical compromise which leaves each key equally damaged and none perfectly in tune.
This comma has put a curse on music.
http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/wtcuncertain.html
Iori Fujita
Lori Fujita
Can a wave be defined as continous in the physical world - I would say No, this is restricted to the paper - math. world.
Can a wave be defined as continous in the physical world - I would say No, this is restricted to the paper - math. world.
Well doesn't this boil down to is the real world an analog system or a digital system?
Which system can be used to more closely simulate the real environment?
Is there an infinite number of points on the line between a and b or is there really only a finite number of points?
All our recent maths dating back some time now and all geometry says there is an infinite number of points on any line X-Y but you are now saying this is not true!
Since you are saying there is a finite minimum then you should be able to tell me how many points there are in any line for which the co-ordinate points are known.
If this is true isn't it about time we fixed up all those school science text books to fit this new reality?
Jeff
Which system can be used to more closely simulate the real environment?
Is there an infinite number of points on the line between a and b or is there really only a finite number of points?
All our recent maths dating back some time now and all geometry says there is an infinite number of points on any line X-Y but you are now saying this is not true!
Since you are saying there is a finite minimum then you should be able to tell me how many points there are in any line for which the co-ordinate points are known.
If this is true isn't it about time we fixed up all those school science text books to fit this new reality?
Jeff
Hej Jeffsaunders
QUOTE: "Since you are saying there is a finite minimum then you should be able to tell me how many points there are in any line for which the co-ordinate points are known."
I agree - not saying that it for the time being is possible to come up with such a number.
According to 3D Pixel Universe, the physical world (Universe) is expressed via a pixel screen composed of smallest particles arranged in an ideal regular 3D lattice.
All physical matter is composed of interference / resonance wave-patterns, and smallest waves are made from smallest shapes (particles).
Smallest shapes represent a transitional form - they are not made from particle-wave structures (simply because they are the smallest - so they cannot be made of even smaller particle structures), they have a quantic appearance on - off, they exhibit spin (because they are quanticly expressed with 180 twist around axis), and they express wave structures by interfering - signaling to neighboring shapes via angular momentum, induced when smallest shapes are instructed (via informational world) to take the relevant a-symmetric shapes.
Smallest shapes may be calculated according to kolmogorov scale (suggestion), and they represent smallest change - smallest time unit - and any Matter any Change and any Force can be calculated out from how many shapes (pixels) are involved.
The physical world is oscillating on-off in its presence - being constantly re-created with the "beat of universe". Most of the re-creation is made from already existing wave-systems, being slightly moved around (either back/forward at site - or in the case of motion, being moved step by step in the said direction)
Light is probably a convenient way of erasing the screen, with building blocks that do not interfere with nearstanding wave-formations (matter), and thus keeping the screen in a high responsive state.
3D pixel screen is a bit more elaborated in the thread "Particles have mass - how?"
QUOTE: "Since you are saying there is a finite minimum then you should be able to tell me how many points there are in any line for which the co-ordinate points are known."
I agree - not saying that it for the time being is possible to come up with such a number.
According to 3D Pixel Universe, the physical world (Universe) is expressed via a pixel screen composed of smallest particles arranged in an ideal regular 3D lattice.
All physical matter is composed of interference / resonance wave-patterns, and smallest waves are made from smallest shapes (particles).
Smallest shapes represent a transitional form - they are not made from particle-wave structures (simply because they are the smallest - so they cannot be made of even smaller particle structures), they have a quantic appearance on - off, they exhibit spin (because they are quanticly expressed with 180 twist around axis), and they express wave structures by interfering - signaling to neighboring shapes via angular momentum, induced when smallest shapes are instructed (via informational world) to take the relevant a-symmetric shapes.
Smallest shapes may be calculated according to kolmogorov scale (suggestion), and they represent smallest change - smallest time unit - and any Matter any Change and any Force can be calculated out from how many shapes (pixels) are involved.
The physical world is oscillating on-off in its presence - being constantly re-created with the "beat of universe". Most of the re-creation is made from already existing wave-systems, being slightly moved around (either back/forward at site - or in the case of motion, being moved step by step in the said direction)
Light is probably a convenient way of erasing the screen, with building blocks that do not interfere with nearstanding wave-formations (matter), and thus keeping the screen in a high responsive state.
3D pixel screen is a bit more elaborated in the thread "Particles have mass - how?"
Bukh,
Just a question for you then.
If we live in a pixelated universe - and you may well be right ( i don't like it).
We will have the minimum sizes and we will have to throw away some treasured notions like the line a - b will have a finite number of points.
But I foresee other problems within the quantum world.
We have every object consisting of building blocks and some other things that it would need to contain.
Every building block would need to consist of information as well.
Information detailing directional intensity i.e which way it is moving and how fast.
Not sure if this is the absolute minimum we need but I think it might be.
Things like charge and spin may be created from various ways of adding up these two minimums.
The absolute smallest object constructed from these building block minimums may well be 100's or 1000's of units big. Much like trying to make a protein out of atoms.
But given a smallest object size and given that it needs information - that tends to indicate there is something smaller.
cannot have self-contradictory system.
Jeff
Just a question for you then.
If we live in a pixelated universe - and you may well be right ( i don't like it).
We will have the minimum sizes and we will have to throw away some treasured notions like the line a - b will have a finite number of points.
But I foresee other problems within the quantum world.
We have every object consisting of building blocks and some other things that it would need to contain.
Every building block would need to consist of information as well.
Information detailing directional intensity i.e which way it is moving and how fast.
Not sure if this is the absolute minimum we need but I think it might be.
Things like charge and spin may be created from various ways of adding up these two minimums.
The absolute smallest object constructed from these building block minimums may well be 100's or 1000's of units big. Much like trying to make a protein out of atoms.
But given a smallest object size and given that it needs information - that tends to indicate there is something smaller.
cannot have self-contradictory system.
Jeff
QUOTE (Iori Fujita+May 31 2007, 10:07 PM)
Relativity, Uncertainty and Incompleteness!
Wow! We are free from the determinism!
But after all, where comes from then that tiny and very deterministic h!? Or
H_g = 7.4E-28 m/kg!?
In fact the determinism is now bigger then ever. "Roulette World" is far less "Free World" of any. Men only think they have a freedom of choice. They haven't. Only "Inner Observer" is free - forever and constantly.
Regards
Wow! We are free from the determinism!
But after all, where comes from then that tiny and very deterministic h!? Or
H_g = 7.4E-28 m/kg!?
In fact the determinism is now bigger then ever. "Roulette World" is far less "Free World" of any. Men only think they have a freedom of choice. They haven't. Only "Inner Observer" is free - forever and constantly.
Regards
Hej Jeffsaunders
Quote: "If we live in a pixelated universe - and you may well be right ( i don't like it).
You do not like to live in a pixel universe - or you do not like if I am right - or both ?
Quote: "to throw away some treasured notions like the line a - b will have a finite number of "
You mean infinite ? - anyway finite number is for the physical world - in the paper - math. world you can have as many points as you like.
Quote: "Every building block would need to consist of information as well."
I would rather prefer to say that any "buildingblock" is the result of information, meaning that it can be replicated by using same information. Information is contained in Informational World - but information is also partly delegated to the Pixel Grid, in that every building block is the result of interference/resonance patterns of waves, and all these waves are already existing.
Quote: "But given a smallest object size and given that it needs information - that tends to indicate there is something smaller."
Smallest shape is the smallest physical expression - but in Informational World there is smaller entities.
Quote: "If we live in a pixelated universe - and you may well be right ( i don't like it).
You do not like to live in a pixel universe - or you do not like if I am right - or both ?
Quote: "to throw away some treasured notions like the line a - b will have a finite number of "
You mean infinite ? - anyway finite number is for the physical world - in the paper - math. world you can have as many points as you like.
Quote: "Every building block would need to consist of information as well."
I would rather prefer to say that any "buildingblock" is the result of information, meaning that it can be replicated by using same information. Information is contained in Informational World - but information is also partly delegated to the Pixel Grid, in that every building block is the result of interference/resonance patterns of waves, and all these waves are already existing.
Quote: "But given a smallest object size and given that it needs information - that tends to indicate there is something smaller."
Smallest shape is the smallest physical expression - but in Informational World there is smaller entities.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.