Does Time Really Exist? Debunking Common Beliefs

[quantumdude]

Any point of view is subjective. In fact the very act of defining any kind of order requires a point of view. That doesn't mean that nature requires a point of view. My reference here is that a point of view is just that, a point and from that point of view, space and time are fundamentally connected, as it takes time for the point to move in space.

Of course any pont of view is subjective. But it is not from any single subjective frame of reference that we say that space and time are coupled. It is because of the objective relationship that connects all frames of reference that we say that space and time are fundamentally connected.

The measure of time, in fact is specifically subjective, in that it measures a particular action against its context.

What?

Temperature is a more objective measure of motion, as it is a general level of activity against a predetermined scale.

Temperature is no more objective that time. It is not Lorentz invariant.

Tom: Neither space nor spacetime is considered a reference frame by anyone. A reference frame is nothing other than a state of motion from which one can assign spacetime coordinates.

brodix: I'm afraid you've lost me on that.

Then study relativity, and stop making up terms.

If a reference frame is a state of motion, isn't that in space and in time?

Yes. That doesn't mean that spacetime is a frame of reference.

My point is that there are various scientific concepts, specifically matter/anti-matter and absolute zero which assume a neutral vacuum as an equilibrium.

Then why do you say that the point of view taken by physics on spacetime is "taken for granted"?

Not all science is unconsciously reductionistic, in fact much of scientific inquiry is that attempt to see beyond the subjective. That being said, I refer first to my first point, in that simply determining principles that apply to any subjective perspective doesn't make an observation objective, it just makes it subjectively general.

How does "subjectively general" differ from "objective"?

Second, I will refer to the primary point I keep making in these discussions; That if you are measuring motion, then the frame of reference is in motion as well

Why say that? If it is approximately inertial, then the frame can be regarded as at rest.

and is a counter to the point of reference,

What do you mean by "counter to the point of reference"?

otherwise you end up with this static fourth dimension of space that the point of reference is presumably moving through.

Who presumes what now?

Remember, the frame of reference isn't some Newtonian universal field.

What frame of refernce?

It is all other bodies, which are in motion and as I've pointed out, there is a general scientific agreement that they do exist in a larger equilibrium, so if you have isolated out a particular motion as a reference, then this leaves a void in that larger equilibrium.

What?

When one isolates a particular motion as a reference, one does so as a mental exercise. It cannot possibly leave a "void in that larger equilibrium", because it has no efficacy in the real world. What you say here makes no sense.

As QM points out, measuring something affects it, so measuring the rate of motion of the universe affects it equal to your measure.

We were talking about spacetime in relativity, remember? What does this have to do with anything?

You are simply seeing the abstract units, not the process that measures them.

No, I'm not. But you are putting undue emphasis on a process that may be used to measure time. Rotating clock hands are not necessary.

As I've pointed out, units of time go from beginning to end, while the process goes on to the next, leaving the old. This is a good example of the subjective nature of time, as we tend to view units of time as sequential, because we only view them from one point. The reality is that there are people all around the Earth and they all have overlapping units of time, so that as a day is dawning in one part of the world, it is fading in another part and the process of time is going on to new units as it leaves the old.

This is completely irrelevant to Relativity. It doesn't matter that it is pitch black in one part of the world, when at the same time day is breaking in another part. What matters is that clocks tick at the same rate in different frames.

Regular processes that we can effectively use to measure standard units. Notice how we associate the marking of the unit with decay. Meanwhile the process goes on to the next measure...

We don't just associate the marking with decay. We associate the unit with any rate that is known.

As in?

As in any time-dependent process with a known period or rate.

What is our frame of reference? The Earth rotating relative to the sun? From our perspective, it is the sun that is moving from east to west, but from a more objective perspective, it is the Earth that is moving, as it rotates west to east.

Let me help: It is the Earth that is rotating.
The acceleration can be measured.

I feel I have been, but that is only my frame of reference, so my question is to you;

You feel wrong. You have not presented any evidence as to why you think science overlooks any "equilibrium". Nor have you presented any specific cases in which this oversight has been been exhibited, nor have you even explained what the problem is, in your opinion. All you have done is assert that science is overlooking something.

Well, that's not very helpful!

Care to listen with as much willingness to agree as to disagree?

Always. Do you care to do the same? And do you care to present actual evidence to back up your claims?

 

[kurious]

This forum should be divided into a mathematical TD and a TD for word wars.
That way everyone would be happy.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Thinking and thinking in your position, and trying to be on your side, I really thanks to T.S.K and his landmark work, as only through it I can understand your reticence to even consider another point of view. You really are the best interpreter of normal science I have ever met, but paraphrasing T.S.K, interpretation presupossed a paradigm, and yours is quite clear, a philosophical conception of reality called relativity, which is part now of normal science, "an enterprise that, as we have seen, aims to refine, extend, and articulate a paradigm that is already in existence."
Is not this the reason why what seems to you so obvious is not for others?
In regards to your claiming of evidence regarding my proposal, next week I will look a good site to publish four papers, that I don't pretend will convince you, but my aim is just to share a different point of view in presenting those fundamental equations of physics in a rigorous way, I mean, mathematically but by means of complex numbers, as it were, with the third included; to share them with those all interested in the evolution of philosophy of science, and in another point of view regarding it.
In the meanwhile I thought you might be interested in my paper at my profile, Physics, Edgar Morin and Complex thinking. As an engineer, as scientist, as philosopher my main concern have been always not to be in sort of cocoon but try to understand and see different points of view independently of my own.
My best regards
EP

That should be obvious!

Logic and evidence define what is rigorous and scientific.

 

[quantumdude]

This forum should be divided into a mathematical TD and a TD for word wars.
That way everyone would be happy.

When's the last time you saw a would-be theorist at PF even try to put his ideas on mathematical footing?

 

[quantumdude]

Thinking and thinking in your position, and trying to be on your side, I really thanks to T.S.K and his landmark work, as only through it I can understand your reticence to even consider another point of view.

You haven't presented another point of view!

You won't present arguments or evidence, and you won't answer questions. I can't read your mind.

 

[north]

Crap = crap. Time and space are inseparable,
___________________________________________

really! explain!

 

[north]

At the infinitesimal 1D region of spacetime, space and time cannot be distinguished and both are curved by the very strong orthogonal forces as absolute constant localized angular accelerations. Because of the extreme forces, the constant change of directions of these accelerations, once started, are very difficult to vary hence the changing direction is conserved and these can become a principle of directional invariance.

___________________________________________

of course logically 1D cannot exist in the first place,regardless of minuteness of depth.

 

[north]

time's essence is change. and i mean beyond biology.for inanimate substance change(combinations) was here well before our existence.

 

[brodix]

Tom,

Of course any pont of view is subjective. But it is not from any single subjective frame of reference that we say that space and time are coupled. It is because of the objective relationship that connects all frames of reference that we say that space and time are fundamentally connected.

I do realize what the position of relativity is. My argument is that space is a first order equilibrium that is the basis for physical reality and that time is a third order method of measuring the motion of the physical.

The measure of time, in fact is specifically subjective, in that it measures a particular action against its context.


What?

You are measuring a specific action, relative to its context. That is why, when you change the context, such as putting the timekeeping device in outer space, the measure of time changes.

Temperature is no more objective that time. It is not Lorentz invariant.

Let's use a crowd of people as our example; If we are to measure some general level of activity on a scale, such as the number of people moving, relative to the total, what their average speed is, etc. it is a form of temperature reading, just as a thermometer measures the level of atomic activity in its location. Now if we were to draw a line of the path any particular person is taking, it would be their timeline. Now this line is an abstraction because no two people can occupy the same space, so only by all people moving about is it possible for anyone person to keep moving. I can make this model much more complex, such as comparing the forming of relationships and how they slow movement down to the relationship of energy to matter, etc. but I’ will stick to the point in question; That temperature records a more basic, general level of activity and as such is objective in the it doesn’t take the perspective of anyone person. In fact there have been recent studies on the property of nanotubes, in which temperature has ceased to function because the size in question has gone below the level at which atoms are judged statistically and are individual operators.

Then study relativity, and stop making up terms.

You like to tell others to provide examples and obviously you have a more subtle understanding of the specific understanding of spacetime as being something other than a reference frame for bodies in action. Since I’m assuming this is still a forum for education and exchanging of ideas, rather then the soapbox we all treat it as, why don’t you try to give me a short explanation?

If a reference frame is a state of motion, isn't that in space and in time?

Yes. That doesn't mean that spacetime is a frame of reference.

You deleted my last sentence; Space is a state and time is motion.

My point is that there are various scientific concepts, specifically matter/anti-matter and absolute zero which assume a neutral vacuum as an equilibrium.

Then why do you say that the point of view taken by physics on spacetime is "taken for granted"?

Because of the assumption that the balance between the rate of expansion and the force of gravity is coincidental, rather then the consequence of a basic equilibrium.

How does "subjectively general" differ from "objective"?

That sentence wasn’t clear. I’m sorry. I should have said something along the lines of; generally applicable to all subjective perspectives.

Why say that? If it is approximately inertial, then the frame can be regarded as at rest.

This is my whole point! What we are measuring is MOTION! The frame isn’t an absolute and the point of reference is a valid frame in itself, therefore the reference frame is effectively moving in the opposite direction of the point. In systems where the point and the frame are closer in size, such as the moon to the earth, this effect is far more evident then where the relationship isn’t comparable, such as an individual person vs. the earth. But then a child riding in a car sees the world as moving, rather then himself, just as we see the sun as moving, rather then the earth.

What do you mean by "counter to the point of reference"?

The “equal and opposite reaction.”

otherwise you end up with this static fourth dimension of space that the point of reference is presumably moving through.


Who presumes what now?

Those who think of the frame of reference to motion as being at rest.

Remember, the frame of reference isn't some Newtonian universal field.


What frame of refernce?

This one;

“If it is approximately inertial, then the frame can be regarded as at rest.”

What?


When one isolates a particular motion as a reference, one does so as a mental exercise. It cannot possibly leave a "void in that larger equilibrium", because it has no efficacy in the real world. What you say here makes no sense.

I assumed you would understand that I was developing an abstraction of the “equal and opposite reaction.”

As QM points out, measuring something affects it, so measuring the rate of motion of the universe affects it equal to your measure.

We were talking about spacetime in relativity, remember? What does this have to do with anything?

The uncertainty principle is relativistic. Position is space and momentum is time.

No, I'm not. But you are putting undue emphasis on a process that may be used to measure time. Rotating clock hands are not necessary.

I suppose the rotating Earth isn’t either?

This is completely irrelevant to Relativity. It doesn't matter that it is pitch black in one part of the world, when at the same time day is breaking in another part. What matters is that clocks tick at the same rate in different frames.

Units of time vs. the process of time. The process is what exists, ie. the present. Units come and go.

We don't just associate the marking with decay. We associate the unit with any rate that is known.

And any unit of time goes from beginning to end, while the process continues.

As in any time-dependent process with a known period or rate.

What processes are not time dependant?

Let me help: It is the Earth that is rotating.
The acceleration can be measured.

We are in agreement on that, but it isn’t the point. The day is a creation of the fact that we subjectively exist at only one point on the surface of the earth.

You feel wrong. You have not presented any evidence as to why you think science overlooks any "equilibrium". Nor have you presented any specific cases in which this oversight has been been exhibited, nor have you even explained what the problem is, in your opinion. All you have done is assert that science is overlooking something.

Well, that's not very helpful!

Science currently proposes a theory of the universe in which 96% is invisible to everything but the math, because it chooses not to see any equilibrium between collapsing mass and expanding energy. So now that they have found old galaxies and huge galaxy structures at the very edge of the visible universe, the only response is to scratch their heads and wonder how such structures grew up so fast, not whether their model deserves to be questioned. Does the word “epicycle” come to mind?

Always. Do you care to do the same? And do you care to present actual evidence to back up your claims?

What would you allow as evidence? A personal lightning bolt? Sometimes lousy reception is due to a poorly tuned receiver, not a weak signal.

 

[brodix]

Straightening out the quote marks;

otherwise you end up with this static fourth dimension of space that the point of reference is presumably moving through.


Who presumes what now?

Those who think of the frame of reference to motion as being at rest.

Remember, the frame of reference isn't some Newtonian universal field.


What frame of refernce?

This one;

“If it is approximately inertial, then the frame can be regarded as at rest.”

What?


When one isolates a particular motion as a reference, one does so as a mental exercise. It cannot possibly leave a "void in that larger equilibrium", because it has no efficacy in the real world. What you say here makes no sense.

I assumed you would understand that I was developing an abstraction of the “equal and opposite reaction.”

As QM points out, measuring something affects it, so measuring the rate of motion of the universe affects it equal to your measure.

We were talking about spacetime in relativity, remember? What does this have to do with anything?

The uncertainty principle is relativistic. Position is space and momentum is time.

No, I'm not. But you are putting undue emphasis on a process that may be used to measure time. Rotating clock hands are not necessary.

I suppose the rotating Earth isn’t either?

This is completely irrelevant to Relativity. It doesn't matter that it is pitch black in one part of the world, when at the same time day is breaking in another part. What matters is that clocks tick at the same rate in different frames.

Units of time vs. the process of time. The process is what exists, ie. the present. Units come and go.

We don't just associate the marking with decay. We associate the unit with any rate that is known.

And any unit of time goes from beginning to end, while the process continues.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

A paper for Physics Forum

Mr Mattson and everyone interested,

Here is a paper I have prepared specially for this forum and a consequence of the dialogues I have had in it:

Is the Pendulum an Open Dynamic System?
Abstract.
In this paper the pendulum and its approximation factor, that can be validated
with what is observed in the reality "out there", is presented by using the
complex basic unit system concept based on Euler relation. This paper is a
result and a promise made in Physics Forum, in its sub forum Theory
Development, where I have been participating under the pseudonym Epsilon Pi.
Here I want to show that it is possible to cope the fundamental equations of
physics from a point of view or framework that includes the third, which means
mathematically speaking, by using complex numbers.
Comments: 7 pages, 1 figure, 1 table and equations.
The url is:
http://www.geocities.com/paterninaedgar/Papers/Pendulum.pdf
The next paper will be:
The Schrodinger's wave equation and the rationalization of duality

Thanks in advance for your time, comments or criticism.
Best regards
EP

You haven't presented another point of view!

You won't present arguments or evidence, and you won't answer questions. I can't read your mind.

 

[rob_we]

guys, what is time? If you consider time as a dimension containing momentary snaphots of mass (like in a film for examle) time is nothing but a movement or an expansion of a container carrying that mass maybe ;) www.donut-universe.info :)

 

[RAD4921]

Reading suggestion

I suggest the book, "The End of Time:The next revolution in physics" by physicist Julian Barbour.

 

[brodix]

rob we,

is that time, or is it information? Like pages of a book, they just sit there.

time is only a dimension if the frame of reference is at rest, but you are measuring motion and the point of reference consitutes an opposing frame of reference, just smaller, so the larger frame is not at rest, just moving proportionally slower in the opposing direction.
All of the various energies and particles that come together to form any particular event travel their own path through all other such forces. those which constitute you, as well as those which you move through. The only reality is this energy and the information it is currently manifesting. Time is simply a method of measuring these relationships. The reason it is so important to us is that it is the measure of the particular point of reference against its subjective context, which pretty much describes our intellectual perception of reality.

rad,

I suppose I only read several reviews and interviews when the book came out, but his seemed to be proposing time as a form of eternal dimension, with our place on it as a form of anthropocentrism, ie. we are here, or where ever, because that is just where we happen to be. As I've been trying to point out to Tom, the notion of time as a dimension rests on the assumption that the frame of reference is at rest and the problem with this is that it is completely counter to the concept of relativity. Since there is no universal frame of reference, we can only measure the motion of one point against the position of others. Since no positions are absolute, then the references are moving in the opposite direction.
Tom seems to be on leave...

 

[quantumdude]

Tom seems to be on leave...

Not on leave, just taking my time. I'm trying to figure out if I'm not understanding you, or if you're just nuts.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

That's what I like from you Mr Mattson, you take your time, and please do, nobody is in a hurry!, but why must we take always both ends? why do we not try to take an intermediate position?...not that you do not understand, not that we're nuts. If we talk to each in different languages it does not matter too much if we do not understand, except that we must learn a common language, must we not?... or at least that language must be used properly.

My best regards and thank you for your time!
EP
PS: and that's why we are here, don't we?

Not on leave, just taking my time. I'm trying to figure out if I'm not understanding you, or if you're just nuts.

 

[Antonio Lao]

of course logically 1D cannot exist in the first place,regardless of minuteness of depth.

Maybe, I think, you mean 1D cannot be separately visualized? What is visualizable is always 3D although even that we can at most only sees 2D at a time, one component of the 3D is always hidden from our view. But the moment when we start to move the hidden view starts to be seen. So we can say that motion is another way of viewing hidden dimensions.

But motion is relative (special and general relativity). So what is moving? Is space moving? Is time moving? Can a spacetime point moves? What is the absolute reference frame for these motions (of space, of time, of mass, of spacetime)? The same aged old question about the aether.

 

[brodix]

Tom,

Is that because the implications of my being right are not computable?

I realize that the scientific establishment would consider me as an archtypical crank, except for the detail that, while I do put a fair amount of personal brain time into aspects of this, rather then being the classical obsessive, I am too ADD to be able to put a lot of emotional commitment into it. It's just that it underlays the intellectual equilibrium of my personal philosophy. Whether you believe me or not, my attraction to it is its logic, so if you can provide me with an equally sensible explanation for why I am wrong, I would be disappointed, but understand that I would be more enlightened.

I would also say that in the various conversations I've had on this topic over the years, a fair number of people have understood the basic point I'm making, but many don't and of those, most would throw out a few terms as though I don't understand them and drop the subject, and then there have been a few who would take the time to pick at every loose end they could find, such as your self. It is these people who cause me to do the most introspection and consideration of these ideas and for that I am grateful.

 

[Chronos]

Tom,

Is that because the implications of my being right are not computable?

I realize that the scientific establishment would consider me as an archtypical crank, except for the detail that, while I do put a fair amount of personal brain time into aspects of this, rather then being the classical obsessive, I am too ADD to be able to put a lot of emotional commitment into it. It's just that it underlays the intellectual equilibrium of my personal philosophy. Whether you believe me or not, my attraction to it is its logic, so if you can provide me with an equally sensible explanation for why I am wrong, I would be disappointed, but understand that I would be more enlightened.

I would also say that in the various conversations I've had on this topic over the years, a fair number of people have understood the basic point I'm making, but many don't and of those, most would throw out a few terms as though I don't understand them and drop the subject, and then there have been a few who would take the time to pick at every loose end they could find, such as your self. It is these people who cause me to do the most introspection and consideration of these ideas and for that I am grateful.

Not computable = not reality. When observation and mathematical facts accumulate against you it is time to let go of your failed theories.

 

[brodix]

chronos,

Then I suppose you can explain why it makes sense to define motion in terms of a frame of reference at rest. The object in motion is its own frame of reference, so wouldn't they both be moving relative to one another?
So far as I can tell, through the many examples I've given, observation is in my favor.

 

[Chronos]

chronos,

Then I suppose you can explain why it makes sense to define motion in terms of a frame of reference at rest. The object in motion is its own frame of reference, so wouldn't they both be moving relative to one another?
So far as I can tell, through the many examples I've given, observation is in my favor.

At rest with respect to what? There are no absolute 'rest' frames. All objects are in motion relative to all other objects. The only reference frame they agree on is 'c'. No two observers will ever agree on anything aside from the fact 'c' is constant in both reference frames.

 

[brodix]

Chronos,

Obviously there are no absolute reference frames. That is why I keep making the point that time is not a dimension, but the measure of the relationship between two frames.
As such it is simply a method of measuring a particular aspect of motion, just as temperature is.

 

[Antonio Lao]

As such it is simply a method of measuring a particular aspect of motion, just as temperature is.

Temperature, I think, is the value of a scalar field (no directional property) at a particular point of the field. Charge is the value of a vector field (possesses directional property) at a point. Mass is a value of a scalar field, called the Higgs field. If time is the value of a field, it must be a vector field because of its motion.

 

[brodix]

Antonio,

Temperature, I think, is the value of a scalar field (no directional property) at a particular point of the field. Charge is the value of a vector field (possesses directional property) at a point. Mass is a value of a scalar field, called the Higgs field. If time is the value of a field, it must be a vector field because of its motion.

Thank you! Someone willing to consider it as a logical proposition.

Consider that charge is a vector field, yet mass is not. This is because the charge contained within mass exists in equilibrium. There are generally equal amounts of positive and negative charge. So, in this example, a vector field is a component of a scalar field.

Time and temperature are the same. Temperature consists of a lot of atoms moving about, but because any directional motion is canceled out by the general flux, what is being measured is the energy being generated. Time, as the measure of direction, is the specific pushing against context.

Now on the next level, this temperature represents energy that is being radiated and as such is another form of direction, but even this exists in context, as the amount of energy remains the same, so other fields are absorbing what has been radiated. This ties back into my point that units of time go from beginning to end, while the process of time goes on to the next, shedding the old.

Consider that economic statistics, such as GDP, or employment reports, are scalar readings of the energy being generated as individuals move along the paths of their lives, pushing the larger society toward both greater complexity and confusion...building up and breaking down.

regards,

brodix

 

[Antonio Lao]

Consider that economic statistics, such as GDP, or employment reports, are scalar readings of the energy being generated as individuals move along the paths of their lives, pushing the larger society toward both greater complexity and confusion...building up and breaking down.

Definitely, you have a wider conception of time and space. In my case, I am only limiting my understanding to local infinitesimal region of spacetime, when and where the directional property comes into existence and just as quickly ceases its existence. The concept of energy is free of any directional property. It's more like chaos (random process). But still, I believe that order can emerge from chaos. But how long this process takes is another story.

 

[brodix]

Antonio,

when and where the directional property comes into existence and just as quickly ceases its existence. The concept of energy is free of any directional property. It's more like chaos (random process). But still, I believe that order can emerge from chaos. But how long this process takes is another story.

Something to consider is Complexity Theory. It examines and contextualizes the top down direction of order and the bottom up processes of growth and how they compliment each other. Order defines energy/chaos and the energy/chaos motivates order. This relationship is actually what we think of as time, in that which we think of as past is what has been ordered and the future is the energy that will determine what survives and what vanishes. The present is the complex phase transition.
I first studied Complexity Theory as I was developing this understanding of how time has two directions and they are different expositions of the same process. The direction of the unit, that goes from beginning to end is that of order defining energy and when it reaches the stage of maximum definition, it amounts to a closed set and is subject to entropy/diminishing returns. Meanwhile the energy it has been shedding, radiates out and goes on to other structures that are still absorbing energy, thus the process is continually going on to other units of time. The relationship I'm developing here is that the unit of time is the material entity, as it forms out of interstellar gases and radiation, coalesces into ever more dense matter and as this gravitational process continues, starts radiating out more and more energy, until it grows big enough to ignite as a star and radiates out more energy then it is absorbing. There are levels of this, all the way up to galaxy cores. The energy radiates out till it has cooled to the point of condensing back out as hydrogen and other basic forms of mass. So what we have is a convective cycle of collapsing mass and expanding energy.

 

[Antonio Lao]

I first studied Complexity Theory as I was developing this understanding of how time has two directions and they are different expositions of the same process.

In the early 90's, i was actively investigating theory of complexity as endorsed by the Santa Fe Institute of which Murray Gell-Mann was a member and maybe he still is. I lose touch with the activities of this institute for a while. I wonder what are their latest findings on the science complexity?

 

[brodix]

Antonio,

It had originally grown out of seminars put together by John Reed, at the time president of Citicorp(now temporary head of the NYstock exchange) in trying to understand the economic forces which caused his bank to loose so much money in South America. As such, it has always had a very strong business focus and was much of the basis for the new paradigm of horizonal management that swept the economy in the 90's. Other then that, most of what was coming out was a lot of dense studies of the economy and other areas, which were high on details, but didn't add all that much in insight.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

What if there are additionaled curled dimensions of time?

 

[Antonio Lao]

...in trying to understand the economic forces...

quoting from page 38 of M. Mitchell Waldrop's book Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of order and Chaos, of Brian Arthur's manifesto for a whole new kind of economics, that "It was a vision much like that of the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, who observed that you can never step into the same river twice. In Arthur's new economics, the economic world would be part of the human world. It would always be the same, but it would never be the same. It would be fluid, ever-changing, and alive."

 

[Antonio Lao]

What if there are additionaled curled dimensions of time?

Do you think that when the time dimension is curled up, its directional property vanishes? In other words, time stands still. It has no motion not even constant motion of any kind.

 

[brodix]

Antonio,

Of the various books I read on the subject, Waldrop's was the best written and most insightful of the basic issues.
Arthur's insight was that the classic top down economic ordering was politically convenient, but to the extent it stifled bottom up growth in favor of contol, was economically destructive.

I've had two copies of that book and gave them both away. That's the way it is. I only have the books I didn't think enough of to give away.

Tom,

Can you explain that?

 

[Antonio Lao]

Tom,

I invited Waldrop to give a short talk about the science of complexity at the think tank company I used to work at Crystal City in Arlington, VA, close to the Pentagon, and he accepted. Twenty or more people (including military officers) attended but I don't know how many have benefited from his talk. I for one still trying to find the math aspect of complexity. Can the whole theory of complexity be formulated into math equations? What would be the variables? Could time be an indispensable variable?

 

[brodix]

Antonio,

What is math? It is a process of ordering. Think of how you are trying to use it. To create a formula to explain a process that is inherently not reducible. Thus the best we can do are statistics. Consider your audience and their needs. Consider the situation the military finds itself in today. They are not independent operators, but are responsible for maintaining civil order in the most basic fashion.
Order is the concrete, growth is the grass pushing up through it.
I don't know whether you've followed my argument, so I'll review it;
Think of a factory; The product goes from initiation to completion, but the production line points in the other direction. Its future is in the start and the finished product is past.
The unit of time, a day, or the life of an object, goes from beginning to end, birth to death but the process is going on to the next unit, just as the species goes on to the next generation, shedding the old like dead skin.

Further expositions are scattered about the discussion.
This model is basic to reality. Consider; The Republic is an political unit; Top down order. Democracy is a political process; Bottom up...process.
Are those officers interested in defending the entity, or dealing with process?
The problem for that perspective is that the unit ceases to grow when it stops absorbing fresh energy and becomes a closed set, subject to entropy. Then it relies on its shell to maintain integrity for as long as possible. That is why the old America grew, whatever its mistakes, while the post 9/11 America has started to shrink.
The process has no defenders, only the unit and those seeking to replace it with the next unit that fight. Those who are basic to the process power through whatever form is taken. Those who turn the other cheek.
Jesus' symbol wasn't the cross, but the fish. That is because he lived at the dawn of the age of Pisces. As we live at the dawn of the age of Aquarius. Units of time in the process. The cross is the symbol of the institution which grew up in his shadow. A unit.


Truth is. Answers are what people will pay to hear. Philosophers seek truths. Priests and politicians provide answers. That's why there are more priests and politicians then philosophers.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Truth is. Answers are what people will pay to hear. Philosophers seek truths. Priests and politicians provide answers. That's why there are more priests and politicians then philosophers.

How about scientists? Or physicists in particular? They are also seeking the truth. The answers the politicians and priests provided are in the forms of promises while the physicists' answers are real results from experiments (these results led to the advancement of technologies). But i still need to see a physical equation that does not have time as an independent variable. My hunch is that square of energy can be formulated without time as a variable.

 

[brodix]

Antonio,

Anything you measure is going to have time as a variable, just as it will have temperature...except for...0...but then you have quantum fluctuation...matter/anti-matter...

Priests and politicians provide answers as real as the questions. It is just that scientists have more precise questions.

 

[Antonio Lao]

just as it will have temperature...except for...0

Learning from thermodynamics, temperature is just a measure of an average kinetic energy of particles in an isolated system (no transfer of mass or energy, in or out).
Still this isolated system can have local changes of its functions of state. But time is not explicitly a variable of the energy function. In fact, the energy function is independent of time hence the law of energy conservation as an invariance or time symmetry according to Noether's theorem.

 

[Antonio Lao]

From Maxwell's relations, temperature (T) can be explicitly defined as the partial derivative of energy (E) with respect to entropy (S) at constant volume (V).

T = \left( \frac{\partial E}{\partial S} \right)_V

 

[brodix]

Antonio,

I didn't say time is a measure of energy, a clock and the rotation of the Earth can record the same time, but one entails more energy.

It is a measure of the rate of motion of two frames relative to each other.

At zero, you have no energy and no motion.

The question is whether there can be a situation in which time isn't a factor.

If you were to have only one frame, there wouldn't be any way to measure time, but then there would be no way to define the frame either. It could be infinite or imaginary. So it wouldn't have any parameters and there would be no way to define it as one. It would effectively be absolute and thus zero.

The reason time has two directions, as both frames must be moving, like the product and the production line, is conservation of energy; "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

 

[Antonio Lao]

brodix,

At temperature of absolute zero, there still exists zero-point energy. Motion is then localized and ruled by the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. Only one direction of time is defined. I agree with you that time has two distinct (quantized) directions. But in order to incorporate this other direction, we must take the square of energy. And the double integral of the square of energy with respect to two time's directions gives a double actions integral.

A^2 = \int \int E^2 dt dt

This, by coincidence, is just the square of Planck's constant, h.

 

[brodix]

Antonio,

If it isn't evident by now, I'll point out that I'm not a mathematician, but am just trying to comprehend reality. That said, personally I'd have ask what isn't zero point energy, in that everything is supposedly matter and anti-matter. Which returns me to the point; Zero is zero. Yes, it is nothing, but nothing as a state of equilibrium, thus which contains all of reality. The absolute as infinite.

I do realize measuring time requires an energy component, but in terms of relativity. If you change one field, without changing the other, the measure of time is changed.

I have been occasionally asked if I could put the concept of time having two directions into an equation. Do you have any ideas?

 

[Antonio Lao]

brodix,

For two directions of time, the double actions is given by the previous integral equation.
For three directions of time, the triple actions is given by the following:

A^3=\int\int\int E^3 dtdtdt \geq h^3

For n directions of time, the n actions is given by

A^{n}=\int_1 ... \int_{n} E^{n} dt_1 ...dt_{n} \geq h^{n}

 

[Antonio Lao]

Furthermore, the exponent of the action can indicate whether the action is the configuration of matter (fermions) or energy (bosons). Odd exponent is for fermions, matter-particles; even exponent is for bosons force-particles, energy waves and radiations.

 

[LeBrok]

Can you gentleman, explain this.

We have an empty space (no reference points). In this space we have to clocks side by side at rest to each other. Now one clock accelerates from the other. How will they show time relatively to each other. Is one ticking faster than the other or are they ticking the same as they move away from each other with same velocity, as relativity dictates?
Well, I’m a bit lost here.

PS. Great discussion on this board. Time/space a very intriguing subject. Hopefully somebody is going to figure it out before my time runs out, hehe.

 

[brodix]

Antonio,

My brain just doesn't think in equations, just like it can't think in languages other then english. And the visual. And occasionally the emotional.

LeBrok,

The question is whether there is any other frame of reference. As you propose that there isn't, then they tick at the same rate. The situation is that the presumption exists of an absolute framework, by which the reality of both clocks can be determined, but the absolute isn't a framework, it is an equilibrium and with only two points of reference, then the equilibrium is between those two points. If there are more reference points, then the larger frame starts to develop, but it is only an absolute as a whole. This means that if you isolate any point, then the rest of the frame is relative to that point. In other words, like your two clocks, if you move one, it is only in relation to the other. So in this sense, one point is one clock and everything else is the other clock. So there is no absolute frame in which motion occurs, because any motion affects this frame.

 

[LeBrok]

Thanks brodix for responding.
I did some thinking about what you said about employing an idea of the frame for these two clocks situation. Then I run into problems with that. One is that if just only one of them were accelerating they both would approach the speed of light at the same time. If one of them gets to the speed of light (to visualize the extreme situation) they would both stop ticking at exactly same time? Other problem comes from the first one. To keep this synchronized time they have to communicate with each other. One knows what the other is doing and they do that much faster that the speed of light.
I just fought of the third problem. If you accelerate each of them in opposite direction to 51% of speed of light each, which is physically possible, in this frame of two clocks they would fly faster than the speed of light.

On the other hand if I go with the notion that one clock will tick faster than the other in this two clocks scenario, then I come to the conclusion that the space itself must be the reference for the clocks. And this goes against SR theory.
Hmmm
I’m stuck again.

 

[brodix]

LeBrok,

The problem is that all of space has matter and energy, so it does effectively form something close to an absolute frame of reference, unless of course you believe in the Big Bang theory, but we have currently found mature galaxies and enormous galaxy structures at the very edge of the visible universe, which is the point I'd assumed that the scientific establishment would have to start questioning it, but the penchant for institutional kool-aid is strong.
The reason time slows at the speed of light is because complex atomic structure has electrons flying around the nucleus of atoms at close to the speed of light, so you cannot accelerate matter past the point where internal and external speeds exceed the speed of light, so that the faster an object moves, the slower itss internal processes function. The reality is that if you did accelerate it to the speed of light, it would be light and have no moving internal structure. As it is, light leaves light sources in opposite directions at the cummulative speed of, obviously, double the speed of light.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Rationalization of duality

Mr Mattson and everyone interested,

As you made so serious claims in this post, I am presenting here the second paper of four:

The Schrodinger's wave equation and the rationalization of duality.

http://www.geocities.com/paterninaedgar/QM.pdf

In this paper the SWE is presented not as a postulate but under the concept of the basic unit system.

Abstract. In this second paper of four the Schrodinger's wave equation is presented under the concept of the basic unit system. Again it is too, a result and a promise, because of those dialogues in Physics Forum in its TD sub forum. By using complex numbers we find that the duality of time and space cannot be dropped out just by taking the square of a complex equation as in this way we drop out not just one part of that complex equation but, we do not rationalize duality of time and space, of wave-particle, anymore.
Comments: equations included.

There you will find why I do not consider the Klein and Gordon's equation a consistent solution to the problem of duality of time and space, wave-particle.

In my next paper I will present a non relativistic point of view of the Lorentz Transformation Group by using the same basic unit system concept.

My best regards
EP

But you have to make good philosophy to make good science. That means you have to provide arguments and evidence for your position, which you have consistently failed to do.
Are you saying that it is a mistake not to use an "included middle" in our logic?



Wrong. It is possible to start from the Lorentz transformation and recover Einstein's 2 postulates from them. Furthermore, the Lorentz transformations explicitly encode the coupling of space and time. In fact, it is the interdependence of spatial and temporal parameters in the Lorentz transformation that physicists define as the coupling of space and time. As I said before, if you change the LT in such a way that space and time are decoupled, then it won't be the LT anymore.

But since you won't even look at the Lorentz transformations, it is hopeless to try to convince you on this. All I can do is correct you.



Duality between which two concepts, exactly?



Again, what is "the third"?



Since you have not said what those two orders of reality are, or how the Euler relation can be used to separate them, this makes absolutely no sense.



So that means you are not going to present it?

This is a cheap cop-out that is typical of crackpots who cannot defend their position.



It seems clear that you are saying that "the third" is "the included middle", but without your explicitly saying so I am not going to assume it. I will point out, however, that using an included middle reasoning system is hopeless because if the compound statement (P and ~P) is true, then it is possible to prove any statement "true", whether it is true or not.

Surely it should not be thought that this is good philosophy.



The Euler relation does not "represent the covariant laws of nature". Tensor equations do that.



You just don't get it. "We" don't couple time to space for any applications! Space and time are coupled, and "we" are powerless to do anything about it. The coupling of space and time as exhibited explicitly in the Lorentz transformations is a derived result of the 2 postulates of relativity, which are also features of our universe. And there is no analog between the coupling of time and space in SR and the unertainty principle in QM. Both are derived independently of the other, and the two do not have any formal similarity.



Of course it does. In this thread, all you have done is deny that time and space are coupled because it seems wrong to you. You don't have a single argument, or a single piece of experimental evidence to support your position. If there were ever a more clear cut instance of someone rejecting a scientific theory because it does not sit well with his philosophical taste, then I have not seen it.



This is just another cheap cop-out. You have not presented a "different way to cope reality", so how could I be expected to comment on it?

In any case, I would say that the mathematical description of the universe is not subject to such a rash rewriting as you would have us do. You are simply wrong to think that both a statement and its negation can both be descriptive of our universe.

I'll note here that you have referred to complementarity, and I suspect that this is a veiled reference to quantum logic. If so, then note that that will not rescue your position against the excluded middle (if that is indeed your position) because multiple-valued logics (such as those that can accommodate complementarity) can still have an excluded middle.




You never presented an argument. All you said was that it is a mistake not to use "the third". You did not say why, nor did you even say what "the third" is.



Yes. Einstein opened his 1905 paper by noting the experimental failure of Galilean relativity as applied to Maxwell's equations.

See On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.



You thought wrong. Einstein derived the LT from 2 postulates: one physical, one mathematical. There's no metaphysics involved here.



They are. But the postulates also permit such validation.

See The Experimental Basis for Special Relativity.



Wrong. As previously noted, time and space are manifestly linked via the Lorentz transformation. This is the definition of the concept of the coupling of time and space.



You simply have no idea of what you are talking about. The coupling of time and space as in the Lorentz transformation fits perfectly well with the uncertainty principle. I have repeatedly referred you to Klein-Gordon and to Dirac. But I'm convinced that you haven't investigated it, so this is hopeless.



You have made it sufficiently clear that you aren't interested in rigorous scientific or philosophical debate.



I wish I could say the same. You did exactly what I asked you not to do: present unsubstantiated opinions with no proof or evidence.



You can attach a file to a post, or you can simply write it in a post.

 

[modmans2ndcoming]

there is time

For a week I'm thinking about what's time. I have an idea that looks good to me so I decided to share with ppl. looking for the answer . What do you think? Here it goes. (can't explain it better, english is my second language)


Imagine there is no time… It’s tough if not impossible. At least you could imagine the room or other place without the movement.

at its simplest term, time is nothing more than the relation of two separate events. if there was no relation between events, then one could not reliably predict what will be next and that will make life impossible since life is based on predictable events.

 

[Antonio Lao]

My brain just doesn't think in equations, just like it can't think in languages other then english. And the visual. And occasionally the emotional.

The integral symbol \int over time means that time can be added. 1 second + 1 second = 2 seconds. The unit of the time's quantum is 1. But if the time's quantum is 0, adding a bunch of quanta of "zero," the sum is still "zero." Hence by zero quantum of time, time does not exist. But if the time quantum is very small such as Planck time, then adding a lot of them gives a finite value of time. This logically seems to indicate that time zero does not exist. If time zero does not exist then there must be some kind of local infinitesimal motion for the existence of Planck time of 10^{-43} sec.

Note: Temperatures (density and maybe mass) cannot be added since they are point values of a scalar field. But the point values of a vector field can be added together.