Brian Greene: "The Past is as Real as the Present

[Ivan Seeking]

When pressed for a definition regarding "the past", and whether or not it "does" exist, Brian Greene

http://www.randomhouse.com/knopf/catalog/results2.pperl?authorid=11013

made this comment in an interview tonight.

~ I don't know if we can get there, but "the past is as real as the present"

Interesting, I thought.

 

[JP1746]

When pressed for a definition regarding "the past", and whether or not it "does" exist, Brian Greene

http://www.randomhouse.com/knopf/catalog/results2.pperl?authorid=11013

made this comment in an interview tonight.

~ I don't know if we can get there, but "the past is as real as the present"

Interesting, I thought.

Hi Ivan Seeking, and hello all.

I've lurked here often, and found this site very interesting. I'm not a sceintist, though I can claim an enquiring mind.

Regarding your post, I heard a quote once, which I thought interesting ... "The present is the futures past"

What prompted me to register however, were the several quotes in your sig. I found them most refreshing, though unfortunately, often rebuked by scientists, even on these boards.

Cheers
JamesP

 

[maverickmathematics]

The past is in the future and the future is in the past

 

[waht]

re

Steven Hawking once asked why can we remeber the past but not the future.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What prompted me to register however, were the several quotes in your sig. I found them most refreshing

What? People actually read those?

 

[PIT2]

Steven Hawking once asked why can we remeber the past but not the future.

And why is this?

 

[maverickmathematics]

We do not rememebr the future as we only experience the flwo of time in one direction - it is the same reason why we do not see broken tea cups fixing themselves and leaping up back on to tables.

 

[PIT2]

But why do we only experience the flow of time in one direction?

Is there something stopping it from going the other way around?

 

[Gale]

But why do we only experience the flow of time in one direction?

Is there something stopping it from going the other way around?

its the arrow of time. entropy always increases. so things always go from ordered to disordered. if a broken tea cup suddenly jumped up onto the table and mended itself, that'd be a more ordered state. therefore we never see it happen.

 

[divag30]

Look up and see the night sky ...its the past.

 

[nwall]

But why do we only experience the flow of time in one direction?

Is there something stopping it from going the other way around?

To elaborate on Gale's reply, the conclusion Hawking came to was that we will always experience time in the same direction that entropy increases because our brains become more ordered by creating disorder in the universe. He gives the example of a computer because we know how they work much more than brains. In order for a computer to "remember" something it has to write it to its harddrive, which takes energy. The amount of order lost in the universe from the energy needed for a computer to add something to memory is greater than the amount of order gained within the local system of the computer (to get energy for the computer we have to burn fossil fuels, etc)--therefore anytime you want to "order" something you must increase the total "disorder" of the universe as a whole by more. So for us to order our brains with new information, we have to use up energy and decrease the order of the universe as a whole, so we will always experience time in the same direction in which entropy increases.

Hawking goes on to say that if entropy decreased as time moved on, and somehow intelligent beings were here to witness it, although they would hypothetically "see" everything happening in reverse (broken cups jumping back up on tables), they would remember the future and not the past. So when the cup was broken on the floor they would remember when it was on the table, but after it assembled and jumped onto the table, they wouldn't remember it having been on the floor; thus they would still be "experiencing" time in the opposite direction from that in which entropy decreases (ie: they will experience time just like us, as entropy increases, they'll remember more).

 

[Pi_314B]

But why do we only experience the flow of time in one direction?

Is there something stopping it from going the other way around?

There is no direction for the flow of time. There is no past, nor is there a future. What you may think of as the past is actually a current event. Whatever you may dwell on as the future is actually a current event. Without a past or future - there can be no flow of time in a particular direction.

In our universe there are only ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing ones are composed of.

 

[Pi_314B]

Look up and see the night sky ...its the past.

This is not true at all. It should be categorized as your current state.

 

[Dr.Yes]

Time moves in every direction. It is non linear. Its more like a bowl of Jello (pig tallow). If you have your wits about you you can look ahead, to the side and behind you, in the bowl of time, simultaneously. But the enormous amount of information about the future and all other directions in the time-jello-bowl requires a substantial amount of processing. The brain tries not to confuse its host organism with the details of how to get to the fridge or to the bar.

Nor does the brain dilly dally the host with the infinite probabilities and actualities that are taking place, will take place or took place... eventuating their arrival at the pub.

Chain reactions don't just go from link to link, one at a time, all events are linked to one another. These links are also readily observable in what is today called linear time. But even more obvious are the simultaneous chain-reactions seen in quantum studies.

 

[MaxS]

You people are crack heads. Atoms move around, particles decay. Thats what creates the passage of time. Your brain only processes the information it receives through the senses. It can't "see" ahead into the future.

 

[totallyclueless]

Is it true that if you make an atom go faster than the speed of light, you will really be going back in time?

 

[DM]

You people are crack heads. Atoms move around, particles decay. Thats what creates the passage of time. Your brain only processes the information it receives through the senses. It can't "see" ahead into the future.

That pretty much summarises it with the exception of "totallyclueless" wanting to know about "you will really be going back in time?" opposed to "ahead in the future". Still you're right, it's simply hopeless since we're unable to see, whether if it's in the past or future.

All in all this topic intersperses a lot of time knowledge and an elaborate theory understanding about manipulative atoms fitting a required time space to permit an individual to "travel back and forwards in time. This is really inexorable, whatever you guys do, don't mention John Titor, a complete and total waste of time.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't think Brian Green and John Titor go together very well.

 

[Enos]

The past is more real than the present. For beings who observe anyway. Every observable moment you live, your every thought is always in the past. We can only exist in the present and predict the possibilities of the future. Time to me is rather a way we define one moment from another without knowing the exact order of every particle in the universe.

 

[DaveC426913]

You people are crack heads. Atoms move around, particles decay. Thats what creates the passage of time. Your brain only processes the information it receives through the senses. It can't "see" ahead into the future.

You should read more. It's a lot more complex than you think.

For example:
1] "Particles moving around" has no intrinsic direction through time.
2] Particles mazy decay, but they also fuse.
Both of your examples are not dependent on a direction of time.

In fact, it is precious hard (though not impossible) to find a good example of a behaviour that is dependent on a single direction of time.

I highly recommend .

 

[MaxS]

I highly recommend that you take an elementary physics course.

Particles don't move in any "direction of time". They simply move, that movement is what your brain sees and understands to be a change from their previous state (fires burn out, people get old...)

This backwards forwards time movement is utter nonsense.

 

[Dr.Yes]

You people are crack heads. Atoms move around, particles decay. Thats what creates the passage of time. Your brain only processes the information it receives through the senses. It can't "see" ahead into the future.

Speak for yourself. Got any good crack?

 

[Huckleberry]

Here's a colorful speculation.

If the consciousness exists partly in a higher dimension then it might explain why we perceive the past the way we do.

A line is 1 dimensional. When it is bent it is still a 1 dimensional line, but it exists partly in 2 dimensions because it needs two variables to explain its shape. It is like our curved space-time. Our senses interpret matter. Matter exists in 3 dimensional space. Our senses only interpret objects that are at least partially 3 dimensional.

Assuming time is not an object, then how can we perceive it? If our consciousness is partially in the 3rd dimension then it must have some mass. (Anyone seen 21 grams?) If it is completely in the 4th dimension then how can it interact with our bodies? If it is inbetween, such as an electron or photon might be inbetween dimensions, then it would be like the bent line. It would travel on one line in a 4 dimensional plane. Thus we perceive time moment by moment.

We don't directly perceive the past or the future. We have memory of the moments we experienced in the past. The future we have not yet experienced and have no memory of. It appears to us as if it has not yet happened.

Why don't we experience all points on our time line simultaneously? An eye is a 3 dimensional object, but it records 2 dimensional (at least partially) images of the objects it sees. There are two points I could make.
1. A 2 dimensional plane cannot express 3 dimensions accurately. It can see one side or the other. It could also be bent, but then it's perception would be warped like a funhouse mirror. The same might be said for a 3 dimensional perspective of a 4th dimension.
2. We cannot see an object hidden behind another object on a 2 dimensional plane. Again, same for the 4th dimension viewed from a 3 dimensional plane.

Because we exist as matter in 3 dimensions we are limited to our perception of time. We can only experience one direction, the future, and experience each moment individually. The past is a memory of what we have experienced. It is a part of the same plane as the present and the future. If the consciousness were to be removed from the matter, then it wouldn't be limited by these restrictions. Or a consciousness could be attached to the matter, but be warped and it would experience a funhouse version of time.

edit- Any accurate dimensional comparison would need to be done on a logarithmic scale.

 

[eNathan]

Here's what I say to this...

The past is not real; It was real.

 

[Picklehead]

Doesnt relativity suggest that holding a specific point in spacetime (whether it be in the past; right 'now'; or in the future; way, way, way far away; or really, really close) to be more 'real' then the other is a violation of the no preferred reference frame or somesuch?

Or, if that didnt make any sense, which I don't think it did, that according to relativity all points in spacetime are on equal footing, or, equally 'real', if you like.

The present isn't any more or less 'real' then the past or future, all three being a 'persistent illusion' any way.

 

[Doctordick]

I think everyone here should be a little more careful with their thoughts.

To begin with, the concept of time has been around long before the invention of clocks and the concept itself never required the existence of accurate clocks. The most fundamental characteristic of time is that it divides our universe (the reality within which all experiments conceivable are performed) into two distinctly different realms: the past and the future! It is an experimental fact supported by observations extending back to before written history that nothing can be done to change the past and that we do not know exactly what the future will turn out to be. The power and dependability of this single idea (that the past and the future are fundamentally different realms) is the central reason for the very existence of the concept of time. To forget this fact is to overlook a very important phenomena fundamental to our very existence.

In the beginning, the concept of time was really a subtle reference to what was known. To refer to a specific moment in the past (usually by naming a significant event, someone's birth, a sunrise or perhaps a war) was to provide a reference to the division between past and future from the perspective of experiencing that event. Time was essentially delineated by a succession of such events. Even prior to the invention of writing, I am sure it was evident to our ancestors that the motion of the sun (among other repetitive events) provided a convenient commonly understood event as a easy reference event. It is my position that this is the real source of the idea behind clocks, devices which could track and label the present. That is, to provide specific references to the collection of interesting boundaries between associated states of past and the future (personal experience itself).

Until Newton came along, I think the concept of time was in good alignment with the needs of mankind; however, I think Newton's great success was the source of a perspective which was fundamentally erroneous. In essence, Newton showed that the future mechanical motion of many objects could be predicted from the past motion via some very simple mathematical relations, time (as a numerical parameter) became a very important scientific concept. This, in itself, was not at all in violation of the concept of time which I have here presented.

So long as clocks are seen as mechanical devices designed to provide a convenient laboratory collection of reproducible repetitive events, then there is no real conflict with the earlier concept concept of time, the division between past and future from the perspective of the events being examined in the laboratory.

Newton made an error when he presumed that these laboratory clocks provided a valid universal collection of well understood events: i.e. that everybody's clock could be set to agree and thus provide a universal division between between past and future. The power of Newton's achievements, the ability of his ideas to analytically predict the behavior of many events, insured the development of clocks of ever finer precision. In fact, this precision became so important that the scientific society actually moved to the position that "clocks define time"; totally losing sight of the fact that the central issue of time was the division of the past (that which cannot be changed) from the future (that which science is trying to predict).

The scientific community had become so sure that the future was a direct calculate-able consequence of the past (the mechanical machine paradigm) that they forgot the underlying purpose of the concept: i.e., to separate reality into those two distinctly different realms, the past and the future. They did not feel that these realms were different in any interesting way and thus did not worry about the universal fact that the past is what we cannot change and the future is what we do not know. Absolutely no scientific interest was dedicated to that issue at all.

When Einstein realized Newton's error, (that everybody's clock could not be set to agree) he also realized that it was that fact which had created the problems displayed by the success of Maxwell's equation. His relativity was a brilliant solution; however, his classical education had so tied to the idea that the universe was mechanical machine where the future was a calculate-able consequence of the past that he continued to regard the past and the future as entirely equivalent ("God does not play dice"). He continued to conceive of time as a fundamental parameter of that boundary between past and future even when he himself proved that it was not (the twin paradox is actually a simple statement that they won't agree with each other's personal time parameter).

Even today, the simple statement that "clocks to not measure time" is sufficient to convince anyone in the physics community that one is a complete crackpot (that's yours truly if anyone is interested ). No one will even consider the consequences of that suggestion and they will go to any lengths conceivable to avoid even thinking about the issue. The mechanism they use is misdirection of attention! Only magicians understand how easily people can be misled. Misdirection of attention is the very soul of magic; with it magicians can hide the truth for decades even when we know they are trying to fool us (how much worse is it when we trust them implicitly). In science, attention is focused on new ideas, not on the old concepts which are presumed to be clear and consistent; how else could Newton's error have stood for three hundred years? The current error in perspective will probably stand for another thousand years in spite of the fact that this very simple change resolves the problems between general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Someday, they will invent an atomic clock which displays the correct time by definition (see the current definition of time) which is small enough and cheap enough that most everyone can wear one on their wrist. Maybe then, when none of those clocks agree, it might dawn on someone with scientific authority that those clocks do not agree on the measure time (the division between past and future). I really wish I could get someone to discuss the issue with me (preferably someone who understands mathematics).

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Q_Goest]

nwall

Nwall: The quote from Hawking is interesting. Energy is required for memory and the flow of energy results in increasing entropy. I'd agree with everything you/Hawking said, but...

Doesn't this simply move the question about the flow of time over to the question, "Why does entropy increase in the forward direction of time?" The argument by Hawking would seem to me, to be based on the premise that entropy increases with time, so he's using these two almost interchangably. If we lived in a world where entropy decreased over time, would time reverse? It might, it might not, so I don't think the argument is valid. One has to find a reason why entropy increases over time. Time is every bit as fundamental as increasing entropy, maybe more so since:
- entropy would seem to arise from the configuration of matter in the universe
whereas
- time seems to be a dimension OF the universe.

PS: you inspired me to create a separate thread around the topic of computation and entropy here: Computation and Entropy

 

[Q_Goest]

DrDick

Someday, they will invent an atomic clock which displays the correct time by definition (see the current definition of time) which is small enough and cheap enough that most everyone can wear one on their wrist. Maybe then, when none of those clocks agree, it might dawn on someone with scientific authority that those clocks do not agree on the measure time (the division between past and future).

If we could create the hypothetical 'perfect watch', then of course the watches wouldn't necessarilly agree. Time isn't classical as you've pointed out - as the pre-Einstein years might have one believe. Time is warped just as linear dimensions are warped. If we assume time is a dimension, on par with linear dimensions, we find all dimensions are a bit 'warped'. Linear distances between galaxies are increasing because there is a component of space itself that is expanding. This is perfectly analogous to time dilation which is dependant on velocity and acceleration. It seems that time is merely a dimension of this universe on par with the three linear dimensions and is affected equally by some phenomenon which results in it's changing with respect to other dimensions.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that clocks can (in principal) be made to measure this dimension of time, just as other tools can be used to measure distances. And I believe that was the point of relativity. Do you believe that such a measuring device is not, in principal, something that can be devised? Obviously it will only measure the time through which it passes, not some universal time, but I see no real problem with that because none of the dimensions are fixed in the classical sense.

 

[Doctordick]

Time isn't classical as you've pointed out - as the pre-Einstein years might have one believe.

No, I haven't pointed out that time isn't a classical concept; that question clearly depends on what one means by the term "classical". I feel that the classical concept of time was that it was a reference to the personal division between the past and the future experienced by everyone. It was Newton who suggested (through his fabulous success) that it could be seen as a mere parameter: i.e., that there was no difference between the past and the future. That is the erroneous presumption conjured up following Newton's work which is still held as valid to this very day.

Time is warped just as linear dimensions are warped.

This presumes time is a dimension just like the common geometric dimensions.

If we assume time is a dimension, on par with linear dimensions, we find all dimensions are a bit 'warped'.

As you say, "if we assume"; my point is why don't we try assuming something else.

Linear distances between galaxies are increasing because there is a component of space itself that is expanding. This is perfectly analogous to time dilation which is dependant on velocity and acceleration. It seems that time is merely a dimension of this universe on par with the three linear dimensions and is affected equally by some phenomenon which results in it's changing with respect to other dimensions.

This comment is pure misdirection of attention. I have a Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics from a reputable university. I am very familiar with Einstein's relativity and the mechanics of calculating fundamental consequences of that theory. I have no argument whatsoever with those results and likewise, those results have little to do with the realizations I am trying to communicate. You should be aware of the fact that there are problems combining quantum mechanics with general relativity. Dirac's equation is a relativistic generalization of quantum theory which encompasses the entirety of special relativity but does not resolve the subtle problems inherent in trying to encompass general relativity. These problems are real and no satisfactory solution exists in the physics community; though I am sure you could find physics devotees who would argue otherwise. The validity of modern physics as understood has become a religious position, not a scientific position.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that clocks can (in principal) be made to measure this dimension of time, just as other tools can be used to measure distances. And I believe that was the point of relativity. Do you believe that such a measuring device is not, in principal, something that can be devised? Obviously it will only measure the time through which it passes, not some universal time, but I see no real problem with that because none of the dimensions are fixed in the classical sense.

This is little more than additional misdirection of attention. Attention is being directed to the successes of Einstein's theory, not to the failures.

I hate to say it, but when it comes to general relativity, Einstein convinced the physics community that the problem was too difficult for them to solve. Once his solution was accepted, actual work towards alternate possibilities ceased. The entire physics community concentrates all their attention on the successes and none on alternate possibilities. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is deeply rooted in Newton's vision of the universe as a great mechanical system which is describable in terms of things which propagate into the future according to a specific mathematical operator. The only problem with that interpretation was and is with the "collapse of the wave function". They have moved to the position that the "wave function" is a real physical entity (a piece of that machine which propagates into the future in a predictable fashion).

What they have completely laid aside is the idea that the past is different from the future: the past cannot be changed and the future cannot be known. That is the essence of the mechanist view introduced by the success of Newton's work. Today, the demand that the perspective be maintained has led to the idea of "entanglement". The problem with that perspective is that quantum mechanics itself denies any mechanism capable of yielding that "entanglement". The error is clearly the requirement of a "mechanism": there is a fundamental flaw in their perspective. (Remember, I am a crackpot! )

Regarding my status as a crackpot, back when I was a graduate student, I was quite astonished (being a graduate student of "theoretical physics") that the central issue of "theoretical physics" was the problem of finding ways to calculate the consequences of current theory, not questioning that theory. Please notice that Richard Feynman's great contribution to theoretical physics was his introduction of "Feynman diagrams", a mechanism for keeping track of terms in a perturbation expansion. Think about that for a moment. Who is doing "theoretical physics"?

But back to my complaint on the issue of "time" and "what clocks measure". My position is very simple: time is a concept generated by the mind of man. Time is not a "measurable variable"; I do not say that particular instantiates of time are not representable via the readings on a particular clock, but rather that this interpretation is not universal. Universally speaking, time is not a measurable entity!

If one makes a careful analysis of relativistic relationships and clocks, one should (if they have any brains at all) notice a very unusual fact. In Einstein's theory of relativity, there is a measure commonly referred to as the "invariant interval". Clocks invariably read exactly this "invariant interval". It makes no difference whether one is talking about special relativity or general relativity, the reading on a given clock is universally equal to exactly the "invariant interval" along the space time path of that clock. One could conclude that the clock is measuring something very fundamental! But it is certainly not time! Certainly not the time as proposed by Einstein's theory.

If any of that makes sense to you and you want to talk about it I will be following the responses to this post.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Pi_314B]

Please Doctor Dick ... Cut down on the I and me and my in your post. I can't take it anymore, because I and only I know that I can't take it anymore. I also think that I can solve your problem, because it is me that knows that I can fix this problem. I hope you can see the problem I am having, because I'm making it perfectly clear how bothersome it is for me. As I stopped reading your post months ago, I still have to see that I have to see that you post, and I want that to go away so I can live in peace. I hope you understand what I'm trying to get across. I couldn't make it anymore clear than what is posted here by me and only me. Surely a smart man as yourself can understand how I feel about how I have to put up wth this nonsense that I have shown by me and only me, as to how I am going nuts seeing that you still post in such a way that I have to think that I have to put up with what I term the I syndrome. Please try Doctor Dick
Please please please.

Me myself and I are begging you.

 

[Dr.Yes]

Here's what I say to this...

The past is not real; It was real.

Is now the same now without the past to support it?

Doesn't that make the past an integral part of now, therefore imbuing some form of the past into the present? If so, this would make the past an element of "real" time or... " the present".

And, similarily, doesn't the future belong to the present, as well, in that it is a product of the now? Today's tommorrow being yesterday's day after tommorow... and what not?

The "past", according to me, is happening now, along with everything else.

 

[Tournesol]

DrDick

I am not sure what your present/future distinction is supposed to be. It could be about the direction of time
(which relativity can deal with, albeit in a rather static way, in the spirit of the distinction between north and south),
or it could be about dynamism, the flow of time, the changingness of the present moment.
The complaint that Relativity cannot deal with this subjectively apparent feature of time is not new --
it was famously made by Bergson during Einstein's lifetime (he called that aspect 'duree').

There is a further confusion over the nature of the problem. As I said before the flow of time (duree, etc)
is subjectively apparent, but that does not mean it is subjective simpliciter. Interpretations of QM in
which collapse is treated realistically agree more with our subjective intuitions about time; they allow
the future to be open, to consist of multiple possibilities, which have not yet collapsed into a definitive past
(to skate over a number of complications). And in doing so, it puts our subjective apprehensions onto
an objective basis. we perceive things that way because that is the way they actually are!

Your comment that clocks do not measure time seems unwarranted. A more natural conclusion
from relativity is that they do measure times. Every reference frame has its own 'proper' time,
which is measured unproblematically by clocks -- my watch measures my time, your watch measure your time.
There is no universal, Newtonian Time to be measured, but that does not mean time is subjective.

There is a loose, analogical resemblance between relativity and relativism, but it is no more than that.
To say that something is subjective, ie relative to persons, is to make the epistemological claim that
the truth of a statement legitimately depends on someone's psychology. Thus, aesthetic preferences
are subjective because everyone has their own taste. To say that something is is relative, in the Einsteinian
sense is to say that physical measurements made by obserervers will vary accoding to objective, physical characteristics
of observers, such as their relative velocity. Even the word 'observer' is misleading here as the same relativistic distortions and dilations would
be recorded by an automatic apparatus, such as a rocket-mounted video camera, traveling the same trajectory as a human observer. Some subjectivists try to evade this counterargument by claiming that a human oberserver is still needed to examine
the video footage (or whatever) -- presumably meaning that the footage is somehow ontologically indeterminate until a human looks at it. But for a human observer to generate the right data, in agreement with the theory, she would have to know the trajectory of the camera, and what evidence would she have for that except the tape itself. This manoeuvre is surely pretty desparate.

 

[Tournesol]

Time is not a "measurable variable"; I do not say that particular instantiates of time are not representable via the readings on a particular clock, but rather that this interpretation is not universal. Universally speaking, time is not a measurable entity!

OK. So time is not Newtonian, as everybody knows.

But back to my complaint on the issue of "time" and "what clocks measure". My position is very simple: time is a concept generated by the mind of man.

That is in no way implied by what you say above.

 

[Doctordick]

Hi Tournesol,

Sorry but I had pretty well given up on having a rational discussion with you after your last few statements to me

You may have a solution to the abstract problem of guessing which data follow on from a partial dataset, but it is only going to muddy the waters if you insist there is a real, concrete problem of "absolute ignorance".

If "it" didn't all begin from "absolute ignorance" exactly what was known when "it" began?

I am not sure what your present/future distinction is supposed to be. It could be about the direction of time (which relativity can deal with, albeit in a rather static way, in the spirit of the distinction between north and south), or it could be about dynamism, the flow of time, the changingness of the present moment.

Has it occurred to you that my complaint has to do simply with the "definition of time"?

There is a further confusion over the nature of the problem. As I said before the flow of time (duree, etc) is subjectively apparent, but that does not mean it is subjective simpliciter. Interpretations of QM in which collapse is treated realistically agree more with our subjective intuitions about time; they allow the future to be open, to consist of multiple possibilities, which have not yet collapsed into a definitive past (to skate over a number of complications). And in doing so, it puts our subjective apprehensions onto an objective basis. we perceive things that way because that is the way they actually are!

Is this more than hand waving and distraction designed to avoid thinking about time? I never said Einstein's theory gave incorrect results (I am very familiar with those results and the mental process used to develop them), what I said was that, in my opinion, he made a very significant error: "he presumed clocks measured time". The scientific community's position seems to be, that was what clocks were invented for; if that invention doesn't work, all must be lost.

And of course, Einstein was a god and it is not possible that he made an error is it? His catechism is now laid down so firmly that it is heresy to even suggest the existence of an alternative view. Just for your information, I am fully aware of the details of Einstein's theory and its experimental successes (well, at least as it was laid out fifty years ago anyway). I will admit that, as selfAdjoint pointed out, there are probably a number of changes in the popular shorthand representations since my ostracism. But there haven't really been any fundamental changes. What I have to offer does not contradict any aspect of any experimental result credited to Einstein's theory at all. I am not even saying that Einstein's perspective is not an excellent way of perceiving and solving a number of very important problems. What I am saying is that there exists an entirely foreign way of looking at the problem of relativity itself (100% consistent with every experiment so far performed) which solves some other very serious problems which are not solved by Einstein's theory. Problems the academy guaranteed were on the verge of being solved forty years ago when I first brought the issue up; problems still as unsolved today as they were then. My opinion:

It is my position that this perception [that clocks measure time] so blocked his view (as even today it blocks the view of the whole scientific community) that he made a mistake in his fundamental view of the problem one would not expect of a high school science student much less a trained scientist.

has so offended all the Einsteinian disciples of physics that they would rather throw rocks than listen to anything I might have to say. I am very glad that the "physics" academy has yet to established a "scientific" inquisition or I would be up on blasphemy.

Your comment that clocks do not measure time seems unwarranted.

Of course it doesn't seem warranted! If it did seem warranted, the physics community would have discovered a hundred years ago what I discovered in the 1960's.

A more natural conclusion from relativity is that they do measure times. Every reference frame has its own 'proper' time, which is measured unproblematically by clocks -- my watch measures my time, your watch measure your time.

As I said, misdirection of attention is the very best way to hide what is really going on behind the scenes.

There is no universal, Newtonian Time to be measured, but that does not mean time is subjective.

I didn't say it was subjective (not in the sense you mean it anyway), what I said was that "clocks do not measure time". Yes, in very special cases, under specific constraints, they can be used to give the appearance of measuring time (i.e., that variable one wants in those powerful equations of motion) but that fact merely deflects attention from the fact that "clocks do not measure time".

There is a loose, analogical resemblance between relativity and relativism, but it is no more than that.

This comment implies that you don't think I have any knowledge of physics at all. Really, I do have a Ph.D. in theoretical physics from a reputable university and I was at the top of my class in relativity and quantum mechanics. Apparently you haven't read much of what I have said. Either that or you are in the process of setting up a straw man to deflect attention from what I am saying. If that's the case, you got me again! You and Faustus can "bump chests".

Back to the issue of exactly what clocks measure:

1.The twin paradox points out that clocks can not be used to arrange meetings. If we are going to be "in the same place at the same time", personal clocks cannot assist us in that goal. Notice that personal rulers can be used as their readings have nothing to do with how we get to our destination. Our rulers go right back to being correct when we return to the original reference frame; but our clocks don't. The argument here is that there is a very real and important difference between time and space and clocks are not at all analogous to rulers.

2. Einstein's space time theory has a variable called the "invariant interval". All clocks accelerated or at rest measure exactly the integral of the invariant interval along its space time line of existence. This is a fairly fundamental concept in relativity and clocks always measure it without any special arrangements at all. If "what clocks measure" is time then why don't we call the invariant interval "time" and call that coordinate axis Einstein uses in his continuum something else? Ah, the real reason is that the fact that when two objects follow different paths (from point A to point B), the fact that the invariant interval calculated over the two paths is the same does not mean that that when the two objects arrive at B at the same time. (Clocks, though they measure that integral very accurately, do not measure time!)

3.The central concept of relativity is that the laws of physics are not a function of the coordinate system. The functioning of a clock is a mechanical process governed by the laws of physics. It follows that the reading on a clock can not be a function of the coordinate system it is in. In fact, this very issue is used to prove that decay times for fundamental particles (a fundamental clock) appear extended when they are moving at a relativistic velocity. Yeah, I know "they are measuring time in their rest frame". More misdirection of attention. Note that the reading on a specific clock at any specific event or interaction in the path of that clock is not a function of the observers frame of reference at all; it is what ever it is as we are talking about a specific event.

4.Which brings up another conundrum. The invariant interval along the path of a photon is zero. Under the math I know, that makes photons singular phenomena. Since all our information comes to us via photon interactions, that kind of puts us on the wrong side of the singularity doesn't it?

5.Einstein's space time continuum possesses paths which cannot be followed by any object (any path where the differential of the "invariant interval" is imaginary). Why does his geometry possesses paths which cannot be followed? The answer is, of course, because in order to follow such a path, they would have to travel faster than the speed of light. The fact that that reasoning is invalid is pointed out by the serious scientists looking for tachyons. His geometry may be convenient for solving some problems but there certainly is no evidence it is the only possible geometry or even the correct geometry. That his geometry is the only possibility is a religion, not a scientific fact.

And don't bother giving me the standard answers to these questions; I am well aware of them all. My position is simply that they are all magician's tricks to deflect your attention from the fact that "clocks do not measure time". And they have been totally successful at that goal for over a hundred years.

To paraphrase Lincoln, "you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time", and that's all you need to keep the wool over their eyes and the authorities in charge: i.e., it is never necessary to fool all of the people all of the time. Why do you think astrology is still such a lucrative profession.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Tournesol]

Sorry but I had pretty well given up on having a rational discussion with you after your last few statements to me

same here.

If "it" didn't all begin from "absolute ignorance" exactly what was known when "it" began?

Already explained. Know-that emerged from know-how emerged from survival.

Has it occurred to you that my complaint has to do simply with the "definition of time"?

That's a possibility. But you haven't been clear about what is wrong with the
current definition and what justifies your fix.

Is this more than hand waving and distraction designed to avoid thinking about time?

It's exactly the opposite: an attempt to analyse and clarify the issue of time.

I never said Einstein's theory gave incorrect results

Neither did I.

(I am very familiar with those results and the mental process used to develop them), what I said was that, in my opinion, he made a very significant error: "he presumed clocks measured time".

But you haven't explained why that is erroneous.

And of course, Einstein was a god and it is not possible that he made an error is it? His catechism is now laid down so firmly that it is heresy to even suggest the existence of an alternative view.

That is the kind of comment cranks are always making. well, not all cranks are wrong. But the ones that are right, are right because they can put forward a gogent case. You still haven't explained your alternative view.

What I am saying is that there exists an entirely foreign way of looking at the problem of relativity itself (100% consistent with every experiment so far performed) which solves some other very serious problems which are not solved by Einstein's theory.

And perhaps one day you will spell out what it is.

I didn't say it was subjective (not in the sense you mean it anyway), what I said was that "clocks do not measure time".

Firstly, you still haven't explained what this means or what justifies it.
Secondly your statement "time is a concept in the mind of man" is
exactly what I eman by "subjsective".

This comment implies that you don't think I have any knowledge of physics at all. Really, I do have a Ph.D. in theoretical physics from a reputable university and I was at the top of my class in relativity and quantum mechanics. Apparently you haven't read much of what I have said. Either that or you are in the process of setting up a straw man to deflect attention from what I am saying. If that's the case, you got me again! You and Faustus can "bump chests".

Dozens of words of ad hominem; you could have proved, and not just claimed, how smart you are by using the same amount of words to put
forward a convining case.

1.The twin paradox points out that clocks can not be used to arrange meetings. If we are going to be "in the same place at the same time", personal clocks cannot assist us in that goal. Notice that personal rulers can be used as their readings have nothing to do with how we get to our destination. Our rulers go right back to being correct when we return to the original reference frame; but our clocks don't. The argument here is that there is a very real and important difference between time and space and clocks are not at all analogous to rulers.

OK

2. Einstein's space time theory has a variable called the "invariant interval". All clocks accelerated or at rest measure exactly the integral of the invariant interval along its space time line of existence. This is a fairly fundamental concept in relativity and clocks always measure it without any special arrangements at all. If "what clocks measure" is time then why don't we call the invariant interval "time" and call that coordinate axis Einstein uses in his continuum something else? Ah, the real reason is that the fact that when two objects follow different paths (from point A to point B), the fact that the invariant interval calculated over the two paths is the same does not mean that that when the two objects arrive at B at the same time. (Clocks, though they measure that integral very accurately, do not measure time!)

That's semantics.

3.The central concept of relativity is that the laws of physics are not a function of the coordinate system. The functioning of a clock is a mechanical process governed by the laws of physics. It follows that the reading on a clock can not be a function of the coordinate system it is in. In fact, this very issue is used to prove that decay times for fundamental particles (a fundamental clock) appear extended when they are moving at a relativistic velocity. Yeah, I know "they are measuring time in their rest frame". More misdirection of attention. Note that the reading on a specific clock at any specific event or interaction in the path of that clock is not a function of the observers frame of reference at all; it is what ever it is as we are talking about a specific event.

4.Which brings up another conundrum. The invariant interval along the path of a photon is zero. Under the math I know, that makes photons singular phenomena. Since all our information comes to us via photon interactions, that kind of puts us on the wrong side of the singularity doesn't it?

You mean null connections ?
That is quite interesting from the POV of action-at-a-distance and non-locality, but how
does it connect up with what your saying ?

5.Einstein's space time continuum possesses paths which cannot be followed by any object (any path where the differential of the "invariant interval" is imaginary). Why does his geometry possesses paths which cannot be followed? The answer is, of course, because in order to follow such a path, they would have to travel faster than the speed of light. The fact that that reasoning is invalid is pointed out by the serious scientists looking for tachyons. His geometry may be convenient for solving some problems but there certainly is no evidence it is the only possible geometry or even the correct geometry. That his geometry is the only possibility is a religion, not a scientific fact.

so it is not logically necessary , only empirically correct. Everyone already knew that.

And don't bother giving me the standard answers to these questions; I am well aware of them all. My position is simply that they are all magician's tricks to deflect your attention from the fact that "clocks do not measure time". And they have been totally successful at that goal for over a hundred years.

And you STILL haven't explained what this great insight is supposed to be.

 

[Doctordick]

same here.

I wish I could trust you! I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but I am certainly not expecting a rational response.

Already explained. Know-that emerged from know-how emerged from survival.

Ah so, those who couldn't do it died off did they? Doesn't that sort of beg the question? Some of them managed to do it didn't they? How can you sit there and tell me it can not be done?

That's a possibility. But you haven't been clear about what is wrong with the current definition and what justifies your fix.

And the statement that there are conflicts between quantum mechanics and relativity theory is insufficient to take a new look? Or don't you believe there are conflicts between quantum mechanics and relativity? I have met plenty of indoctrinated professional physicists who hold steadfastly to the idea that no conflict exists. That's what makes physics a religion.

It's exactly the opposite: an attempt to analyse and clarify the issue of time.

Sounds more like reassertion of the Einsteinian catechism to me.

Neither did I.

I never said you did! But you were certainly going all out to imply that I didn't understand Einstein's theory.

But you haven't explained why that is erroneous.

Well, I would! Except for the fact that every time I bring the issue up I get immediately shoved into the "crackpot" category.

That is the kind of comment cranks are always making. well, not all cranks are wrong. But the ones that are right, are right because they can put forward a gogent case. You still haven't explained your alternative view.

Not all cranks are wrong? Isn't being wrong the definition of a crank?

And perhaps one day you will spell out what it is.

Ah perhaps one day! I would say against that statement that I read every post you have submitted to this forum up to and including your response to Pensador at 10:15 AM on 04-01-2005. I would have continued except for the fact that at about that time, you had made it quite clear that you had no interest in anything I might say. So I gave up on you. I only comment on that because of my very first post to the physics forum. You have obviously never read that. If you check that thread, you will also discover that no responses were ever posted to my comment. Implying that you and Faustus weren't alone in your desire not to think about such blasphemous issues.

Firstly, you still haven't explained what this means or what justifies it. Secondly your statement "time is a concept in the mind of man" is exactly what I eman by "subjsective".

No, I don't think it is. I don't think you have thought the issue through. If you are going to attach the word subjective to any and all "concepts in the mind of man", then you are a solipsist by definition. My point is that one must be very careful with ones definitions.

Dozens of words of ad hominem; you could have proved, and not just claimed, how smart you are by using the same amount of words to put forward a convining case.

First, I don't think you have a very good understanding of the general use of the term "ad hominem", second, at no point have I ever claimed to be "smart" and finally, no case on any subject is "convincing" if the audience refuses to pay any attention to what is being said. And you have as much as told me you have no interest in what I say.

That's semantics.

Semantics? Isn't that being careful about what you are expressing? Methinks you are just trying to avoid the issue of the confusion in your thoughts.

And you STILL haven't explained what this great insight is supposed to be.

And that is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. As I said earlier, my very first post on the physics forum points out an alternate geometry 100% consistent with special relativity. On top of that, I have posted many conclusions (together with cross references) which can be reached with a little logic and the realization that clocks do not measure time. Faustus even had the gall to criticize what I was saying without even looking at the references and you congratulated him for expressing your opinion. If you want references to more significant posts, I'll give them to you. This is a good one. You might try reading the whole thread (if it doesn't exceed your attention span).

If you are interested, read that essay on the issue of http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/flaw/Fatalfla.htm and, if you can understand what I am saying, and have any interest in how it effects general relativity I will help you; however, it's not a trivial issue even if it is much simpler than Einstein's results. At any rate, don't bother to respond unless you are interested in having a rational discussion.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[bottomfeeder]

. Why do you think astrology is still such a lucrative profession.

Have fun -- Dick

careful, one of our illustrious moderators is a 13 year veteran who doesn't take kindly to being put on the spot or defend her "profession"

she will just ban you in which case you might have to reincarnate

after a few PF lives you almost reach nirvana

 

[Smurf]

That's a possibility. But you haven't been clear about what is wrong with the current definition and what justifies your fix.

You must be behind in the times, the search for a 'Theory of Everything' has been going on for a while, turns out our current definition(s) are in direct conflict with each other.

People get confused about this because they work well enough for practical purposes at the present. And I say at the present because it's quite evident they will need to be refined eventually. Only half a century ago Newtonian physics was considered infallible (at least for all practical purposes), but it wasn't until Quantum Mechanics and Relativity that we were able to figure out nuclear power and the really really really really small computer bits that are enabling you to read this right now.

 

[Doctordick]

careful, one of our illustrious moderators is a 13 year veteran who doesn't take kindly to being put on the spot or defend her "profession"

she will just ban you in which case you might have to reincarnate

after a few PF lives you almost reach nirvana

I think you misread what I say. I am not criticizing anyone's beliefs; all I am saying is that a rational discussion should follow the rules of logic. The issue between physicists and astrologers is not with their beliefs but rather with the predictive value of those beliefs. Most people who's success is most directly dependent upon the accuracy of the forecasts put stronger stock in the physicist's views than they do in the astrologer's view. They do that in the interest of good logic not for emotional reasons. None the less, if your life depends on it, I would say going with your gut is the best bet over any logic.

But, when I say that, I don't mean go with someone else's gut; I personally feel leadership in the world is usually provided by the people worst qualified for it (anybody with any sense and decent morality doesn't want the job). I often say, "god save us from the guy who knows what ought to be done". Everyone should make up their own mind as to what is best.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[bottomfeeder]

Dr Dick

do you mean GUT as in one's very own "grand unifying theory" which may or may not be backed up by empirical data and may defy logic and reason yet you somehow intutitvely "feel" it to be true ?

and i hope you mean everyone should make up their own brain as opposed to mind because you can sometimes lose your mind given that it's not really yours you just tap into it for a while and feedback to it but it belongs to everybody and some people never even know they have the same one or are sharing it with others

I'm all about having fun though cos it makes me happy and there are no degrees of freedom in happiness you either are or are not

at least that's my opinion and I'm sticking with it until somone can convince me theirs is better in which case I'll tka e theirs on board as well

 

[Andre]

Time? Augustinus has explained that already in the fourth century, let's see ..errrm

http://www.bgbach.asn-ktn.ac.at/latein/tempus_2000.htm
Si nemo ex me quaerat, scio; si quaerenti explicare velim, nescio.

What then is time? If nobody asks me, I do know; but when I want to explain it to an enquier, I don't know.

 

[Tournesol]

DrDick

Where have you posted anything relating your theory of time to QM ?

 

[Doctordick]

Where have you posted anything relating your theory of time to QM ?

​

You are joking of course! Don't you have any understanding of the "religion" you are discussing?

When I first began posting (to QM and other relevant divisions) the response of the "powers that be" was overwhelming. Every post I made was moved over to the "Theory Development" section (except for that philosophical post and one to the feedback thread). I also suspect a number of posts to extant threads were deleted by those very same authorities. Now, in my head, nothing of what I was saying was theoretical in any way but I certainly was willing to accommodate myself to their desires so I posted only to that section. I wasn't totally put off by that development until it became quite clear that the academic abilities of the people posting there was quite short of what one would expect of a "physics forum" (which lead to that "feedback thread" referenced above). It was made clear to me by some of those certified "Super Mentors" that the "Theory Development" section was reserved for nuts and crackpots. They even, on occasion, referred to it as the "Nuts are Us" forum.

Well, if that was the situation, that was the situation. Really it wasn't much different from my earlier experiences. Even back as a graduate student in the "theoretical physics" section, I found very little interest (if any at all) in thinking about the basis of theories. It was the presumption of every theoretician I ever met that "theoretical physics" was a closed subject. Everybody was spending all their time trying to find proper approximations which would allow numerical computation of the "already accepted as correct" theoretical position. My thesis was the development of a calculation method which would accomplish a valid sum of a large number of terms in a particular expansion. I think it is hysterically funny that one of the greatest breakthroughs of the twentieth was Feynman's notation (which was an accounting method of keeping track of terms in a QED expansion not an advance in the theory at all). By the way, that doesn't imply I don't respect Feynman! I do, I managed to talk to him in 86 and he agreed to take a close look at my work; after he finished with that challenger thing. Next thing I heard, he had died of cancer.

So, only quacks think it is possible that alternate perspectives might be possible and I was relegated to the "Theory Development" section. I even managed to get some intelligent people interested in what I was saying. That's when chroot decided that only mentor's could start new threads in the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=39733 section and began locking the threads where I was posting. (I suppose he was worried that I might generate a following to my logic and disrupt the authorities power).

So I am now posting to the "Philosophy" section. I suppose that tells you what the opinion of the "physics authorities" is of philosophy! I am sorry, they have made it quite clear that they don't want me posting to the "QM" or the "Relativity" sections. Reminds me of an event which occurred when I was in my first year of graduate study. The chairman of the department was teaching introductory quantum. After class one day, I showed him the perspective I discussed with Hurkyl earlier. His response was, "well what you say is certainly correct, but don't show it to any of the other students, it will just confuse them!" (By the way, he gave me a A+ in the course.)

I think Greg, chroot, et al. are afraid I will "confuse" their following. (I may be baned after this post, so wish me luck.)

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Doctordick]

do you mean GUT as in one's very own "grand unifying theory" which may or may not be backed up by empirical data and may defy logic and reason yet you somehow intutitvely "feel" it to be true ?

I mean the intuitive feeling! (But, after all, isn't that your real GUT feeling anyway?) If you can follow my thoughts, I think put the issue of how I view things pretty clear in my post to Is theory development possible in the absence of thought?

If nobody asks me, I do know; but when I want to explain it to an enquier, I don't know.

That seems to be the summary of everyone's answer.

Where have you posted anything relating your theory of time to QM ?

It occurs to me that I may have misunderstood what you meant. The essence of the relation between my representation of time and quantum mechanics is pretty well laid out in the reference I gave you. If you are trying to understand the detailed relationship, you need to first understand my representation of QM. Essentially, I derive QM directly from first principals (that is what I am doing with saviormachine right now). My destination is the equation given in my post to magus niche. It is the solutions of that equation which constitute all of QM, even general relativistic QM. If you care to take the trouble, I can first show that ordinary non-relativistic QM is an approximate solution of that equation. That fact allows me to define certain concepts as specific factors in the equation. Once that identification is made, a specific interpretation of the approximations used in the first step turn out to be the standard non-relativistic approximations.

I then show that Dirac's equation is also an approximate solution of that equation when those specific approximations above are not used. That solution yields terms which must be interpreted as electromagnetic fields. When one looks at circumstances where those terms are significant (not just given values), it turns out that Maxwell's equations are an approximation to my fundamental equation. In order to get that result, one must assume that the exchange events are massless. The form of the equation allows interpretation of fields where the exchange events have mass and that result is quite similar to nuclear forces. The actual forces are a consequence of the detailed structure of the exchange events so there is no contradiction of conventional physics.

When you get there, it is only a small step to finding solutions which correspond to general relativistic circumstances. At that point, I get results almost identical to Einstein only not quite. My results have another term (a small correction) which is as small with respect to the general relativistic effects as the general relativistic corrections are with respect to the Newtonian result. At the moment, I don't think the differences between Einstein's results and mine are within the range of experimental verification. In addition to that, I may have made a minor error somewhere (I have been known to do that). To date, I am not aware of any competent examination of my work.

If you are interested, do your best to follow what I am presenting to saviormachine and comment if any of it seems unreasonable to you.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your comment above.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[bottomfeeder]

I mean the intuitive feeling! (But, after all, isn't that your real GUT feeling anyway?) If you can follow my thoughts, I think put the issue of how I view things pretty clear in my post to Is theory development possible in the absence of thought?

Have fun -- Dick

yeah man, I know what you meant, I was just pulling your chain

I tend to react by blind instinct which in my postings as RingoKid and spicerack have been consistent with my postulate of a passenger consciousness we tend to overide to assume manual control in the form of logic and reason

my "grand unifying theory" is mainly about bubbles and nothing in particular

nothing is perfect
in the space where nothing exists
will one find perfection
the perfect nothing

accept nothing as fact
question everything
determine your own truth
define your own reality

Imagine, if you will bubbles...
expanding as they float around
bumping into other bubbles
and inside of these bubbles
is another bubble expanding
and so on...

...and if all these bubbles
made a musical note,
as they bumped and merged
and expanded,
they created chords and melodies
and so on...

and for what it's worth in real life. I work in the arts as an art director here in New Zealand for short films, music videos, commercials as well as being a graphic designer and screen printer all of which requires evolving, adapting to change and making subjective decisions based solely on instinct and intuition in real time, real fast. I also do rigging for the entertainment industry which requires putting my ass on the line in a very real way.

I don't have any formal education in anything even remotely physics/maths oriented and don't feel I need to. I visualise and project a reality that i can make real in an illusory form as art.

Make and take from it what you will and come hang out in the strings and branes section

peace

 

[Gaijin]

time is a figment of our imagination

Im not shure who to side with because, the last buch of posts between the doctor and tounesol have been have been more aimed at each other than at the definition of time.

ok, on with this.

My say is that that time is not a sperate dimention from space, it is really just the decay of matter, and that "time" at its measurement are constructs of the mind. Time, as the progression from past to future, is really not a thing but a movement of matter from low entropy to high entropy, the normal flow of matter in this universe. "Time" is only a construct of the human mind to help simplify our understanding of the changes we see in matter(decay and transformation) and to deal with our own mortality. It helps us to invent a concept of time to help us a. go about our daily scheduled lives and b. explain why things get old, people die, and why we can remeber the past and not the future.

The reason why we can remeber the past is because our brain registers past senses, that were at the moment of reception were present occurances, as memories in our brain. Now we cannot "remember" the future because we have not had the current experience of it to store the sensual memory of it in our brains.

Humans created the idea of time like other constucts, words and numbers, to express and comunicate thoughts and messages to each other. But like the other constructs, especially words, they are a point of refenece to the user and differ by the different user. Take the word "happy" we cannot perfectly define what it means because it does not exist. We are not "happy" because we say the word, but because we have an emotion of pleasure.
People were quote "happy" long before they had a word to define it, and to be "happy" has a slightly different meaning with everyone because we cannot see others peoples point of view. The same reason we created words to "try" to express things to each other(because we can never truly communicate) was why we created time to express our present moment with past experiances and our predictions of the "future". We created time to help catalog our memories of experiances.

There is only a past and future in time in the sense that with our point of refence(now), an event has either already happened(in our memory) or it has not happened(not in our memory).


wow. good thing that words aren't real, so i can have an excuse for why this doesn't make sense. Go ahead and tear this up (i would actually like to see what you think, either on my idea or immature wrighting style) but the main point was that time does not exist because it is a constuct of the human mind to simplify what information it gathers.

 

[Tigron-X]

Steven Hawking once asked why can we remeber the past but not the future.

We do. It's called deja vu. :P

Chain reactions don't just go from link to link, one at a time, all events are linked to one another. These links are also readily observable in what is today called linear time. But even more obvious are the simultaneous chain-reactions seen in quantum studies.

So time moves three dimensionally, and in reaction to posing and opposing forces?


Anyhow, here's something I'm working on:

To me time is not really a dimension I can consider at the moment, but rather I see it as a concept we attempt to plot by calculating various other dimensions simultaneously with respect to one another. And we fail because we can't find a sound beginning and an end to always follow. And, we cannot predict the expansion and contraction of space. It seems there are too many variables to measure and to plot as a consistent array of sequences that would define a given event properly.

However, I do recognize gravity and magnetic fields as two separate dimensions. Gravity defines a moving point through space, and a magnetic field defines a linear wave expanding through the dimensions of space simultaneously as if a 3D ripple occured. I also recognize magnets as the sixth dimension. This defines the intensity of passing energy through a magnetic field. The next two dimensions are measured with use of thermodynamics and calculation of kinetic energy. Of course, thermodynamics define the fluctuation of heat, and kinetic energy expresses the amount of stored energy. And, the last dimension is radiation which is used to show the fluctuation and transfer of stored energy between each magnetic pulse.


more later... I need to go to bed before I go crazy.

 

[GiZeHy]

hi
i just want to throw in one way of thought. itz just an argument not based on any scientific results. we all only exist in the 'now'. when we mentaly look back in time we can also only do it in the 'now'. so the past was not, instead it 'is'. of course one can only imagine it but the only way of the mind to exist is in the 'now' which is not bound on time. in this 'now' we always imagine the past and the future. for the brain there is no difference of now and past either. the same electronical impulses are measured in the brain when reality is interpreted in the now or even imagined from the past. only the mind makes the difference to build up a logical construct in which it is able to learn end evolve. now, why do we perceive time flowing in this certain direction? i think many facts are responsable for this, even facts no human being ever thought of. related to a spiritual matter one could say: we perceive time passing with rising entropy because our true selfs should realize that we're here to create and bring order to kosmos. whatever dudes, time is a difficult topic...

 

[Dr.Yes]

Time is our method of measuring change.

Each change gives rise to another change.

This makes every change part of/or rooted in/ the change that came before it.

This makes the present changes we are experiencing part of the past changes that bring about the present and those changes associated with the present. This makes the past real in that it is a part of "real time" or "the present".

If we can remember the past we can remember the future. There are certain "sequences" that lead up to certain conditions. These can be used to "remember the future". We get our cues from the past and how it has effected the present, then use this set of sequences to remember how things turn out... in order to remember what will happen in the future. We have to figure in various developments that have evolved out of all the c hanges making up the present but the evolution of change is usually on a slow and steady course. So, the future will usually look similar to the present or the past according to certain laws that change very slowly or not at all.

What is sequence equated with in quantum studies?

 

[Smurf]

Steven Hawking once asked why can we remeber the past but not the future.

A better question would be, Why can we only remember one past?