QM/GR Wrong about Nature of Time?

[rogerl]

Lee Smolin stated in Trouble with Physics (page 256):

"More and more, I have the feeling that quantum theory and general relativity are both deeply wrong about the nature of time. It is not enough to combine them."

<snip>

"We have to find a way to unfreeze time - to represent time without turning it into space. I have no idea how to do this. I can't conceive of a mathematics that doesn't represent a world as if it were frozen in eternity. It's terribly hard to represent time, and that's why there's a good chance that this representation is the missing piece."

-----
What is he talking about? Anyone got an idea, or share new papers or perhaps have a clue to an eventual solution?

 

[atyy]

http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.1861
http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.5754

 

[Phrak]

http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.1861

Good grief, atty. Have you read what this guy from the "Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics" has written?

 

[atyy]

Good grief, atty. Have you read what this guy from the "Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics" has written?

Hmmm, ist it bad? I have to confess I like her work.

 

[rexrino]

Perhaps time is real in the sense that inches are real or millimeters are real.

 

[tom.stoer]

I have no clear picture about it, but my impression is that physical time emerges as a "clock defined by physical processes". In a universe w/o any physical process there is no physical time, only a collection of time coordinates w/o any physical relevance. Not even proper time of particles is meaningful as nothing happens to this particle. Think about a photon world line, you can rescale it as you like.

A simple physical process would be the decay of a particle. In this case the proper time begins to make sense as one can use the decay time or half-life as a standard clock to measure or to compare other processes. Think about two decaying particles with different half-life

So the idea is that the web of physical processes is the basis on which physical time emerges. In that sense this physical time will not be a fundamental entity but will emergy only in certain scenarios. Therefore there is no reason to be worried about the fact that there is no such physical time in certain quantum gravity approaches. It simply does not make sense to look for time at that level. In the same sense one could ask (better: should not ask) "what is the color of an electron?".

 

[Fra]

What is he talking about? Anyone got an idea, or share new papers or perhaps have a clue to an eventual solution?

I don't know exactly where in the book that is but I think he is talking about the fact that the timeless notions implies eternal timeless laws, and this does not make sense from the inferentical perspective. Ie. there is no process finite in time, where you can infer thta the laws of nature are not evolving. Ie. the notion of timeless law does clash with an inferential perspective you expect from measurment theory.

Except in one special case - where you study subsystem of the universe. Here time does dissappear simply because it's easier to extract asymptotic behaviour.

Just try to explain, how a finite observer, by a finite process is to infer from experiment that the laws are eternal. Obviously that's not possible in any sensible way. So that mere concept is due to an illusion induced by the success of this when describing subsystems.

See

"On the reality of time and the evolution of laws"
-- http://pirsa.org/08100049

"Laws and time in cosmology"
-- http://pirsa.org/10050053/

I've went over those arguemtns several times and I've formed myself a clear opinon. At worst those are good thought provocing talks. Well worth listening to.

/Fredrik

 

[rogerl]

Whatever the fundamental theory is, it should explain Bell's Theorem or *instantaneous* correlations say 10 billion light years distance. What is the most promising approach. Timelessness or geometrylessness in the fundamental theory?

 

[czes]

Forget Time - Carlo Rovelli (2008)
http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rovelli_Time.pdf

 

[Fra]

Forget Time - Carlo Rovelli (2008)
http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rovelli_Time.pdf

This is a good contrast to Smolin's talk.

I'd encourage anyone to read/listen to BOTH, then make up your mind which is most sound :)

They represent two different perspectives.

/Fredrik

 

[rexrino]

I find some problems with Smolin's work, especially the ideas surrounding black-holes vacuuming up our universe and expelling it out into another universe (worm-holes). If that were true, we should see some kind of event in our cosmos, that represents matter being poured into our space (at least some type of energy radiation). Some could argue that that is exactly what happens with a big bang.

Looking at string theory, if two panes were to bang together, you would have a big bang. But what if the panes bang together as the pull between a black hole in one universe becomes so great it draws them together, they touch and "Bang". The question that comes to my mind is:
what is it in Universe(1) that is attracted to the black hole in Universe(2).

Some could argue that Universe(2) doesn't exist until the contents of the black-hole expulsion takes place. That is, U2 doesn't really exist until U1 fills it with the matter that black-holes convert normal matter into. Kinda like a compression algorithm that can be uncompressed on the other side of U1. My question is: what is the container that is U2?

I wonder if there is such a thing as normal space and infinite-space. That is, infinite space is a place of nothingness that normal space expands into.

Of course you would have to prove that infinity exists. This simple math does that:

0 + 0 = 0
If you have nothing, you cannot derive anything from that situtation ergo, nothing would ever exist.
Now, 1 + 0 = 1 with one meaning something.
This seems to imply that something (1) has always existed, or that all universes are contained within the fabric of eternity, which is without bounds. But, if you had eternity, you wouldn't really need string theory because there would be no need of panes of existence because eternity is unlimited in size and could contain all the matter to manage local matter systems, like a galaxy for instance.

Perhaps the cosmos is not expanding so much as randomly moving about in eternity(space?), due to constant collisions of galaxies, neutron stars, etc.

It's just an idea.

 

[Noja888]

I find some problems with Smolin's work, especially the ideas surrounding black-holes vacuuming up our universe and expelling it out into another universe (worm-holes). If that were true, we should see some kind of event in our cosmos, that represents matter being poured into our space (at least some type of energy radiation). Some could argue that that is exactly what happens with a big bang.

Time is required to demonstrate changes in space. Space is required to demonstrate changes in time. (I believe QM has exceptions in certain schools of thought)

Past the event horizon of a black-hole the 'space/time' of GR comes to a singularity. Does this signify that time does not 'flow' in this region of space beyond the event horizon? (Think Reference Frames - Bob watches Alice move slower and slower but never falls into the black hole) Would this be what the geometry of GR at a singularity is trying to tell us? That no time flows here perhaps?

Another pondering of mine (thought experiment/visualization) is that my 'normal' 3D reality sits upon the surface of a 4D sphere. With time inflating the 4D sphere - thus expanding the universe. Gravity through matter slows this inflation (flow of time) down through some sort of "frictional resistance". In the absence of matter the inflation (flow of time) can proceed uninhibited (dark energy?)

I am by no means challenging the status quo of QM and GR - but trying to create new ideas and concepts that may further us down the rabbit hole. 8)

 

[member 11137]

Whatever the fundamental theory is, it should explain Bell's Theorem or *instantaneous* correlations say 10 billion light years distance. What is the most promising approach. Timelessness or geometrylessness in the fundamental theory?

Why should we put time and geometry in opposition (either or)? Why can we not accept to think that the local variations of the geometry (the flow of the evolution) are giving us the pertinent tool to define a local chronology?

 

[rexrino]

Why should we put time and geometry in opposition (either or)? Why can we not accept to think that the local variations of the geometry (the flow of the evolution) are giving us the pertinent tool to define a local chronology?

Flowing where? What is the force that directs this flow?

 

[rexrino]

Time is required to demonstrate changes in space. Space is required to demonstrate changes in time. (I believe QM has exceptions in certain schools of thought)

Past the event horizon of a black-hole the 'space/time' of GR comes to a singularity. Does this signify that time does not 'flow' in this region of space beyond the event horizon? (Think Reference Frames - Bob watches Alice move slower and slower but never falls into the black hole) Would this be what the geometry of GR at a singularity is trying to tell us? That no time flows here perhaps?

Another pondering of mine (thought experiment/visualization) is that my 'normal' 3D reality sits upon the surface of a 4D sphere. With time inflating the 4D sphere - thus expanding the universe. Gravity through matter slows this inflation (flow of time) down through some sort of "frictional resistance". In the absence of matter the inflation (flow of time) can proceed uninhibited (dark energy?)

I am by no means challenging the status quo of QM and GR - but trying to create new ideas and concepts that may further us down the rabbit hole. 8)

Time is required to measure the change in space, like millimeters are required to measure the change in length. We measure velocity as a vector, having both change in direction and change in length. It hard for me to consider the expansion of the universe in that way, change in length with change in time. It's like trying to say that velocity is really change in direction + change in length + change in time or a 3 part vector.

I'm the same as you, trying to voice my questions in a way so someone smarter than me can get me the answer I'm looking for or tell my I'm moving in the wrong direction.

 

[member 11137]

Flowing where? What is the force that directs this flow?

The force? The dark energy which is causing the expansion of the universe.

Where? Ask God (with all my respect).

Best regards

 

[rexrino]

The force? The dark energy which is causing the expansion of the universe.

Where? Ask God (with all my respect).

Best regards

I havent' had much luck with questions about the cosmos directed to god. I hope you've done better.

Dark energy is a pretty dark subject at this time, especially if you try to link it in with the forces of nature.

I'm still looking for proof, which hasn't been explicitly demonstrated. I'm still open to the idea myself but don't know how to go about contrasting it to normal matter.

 

[negru]

Now, 1 + 0 = 1 with one meaning something.
This seems to imply that something (1) has always existed, or that all universes are contained within the fabric of eternity, which is without bounds. But, if you had eternity, you wouldn't really need string theory because there would be no need of panes of existence because eternity is unlimited in size and could contain all the matter to manage local matter systems, like a galaxy for instance.

Perhaps the cosmos is not expanding so much as randomly moving about in eternity(space?), due to constant collisions of galaxies, neutron stars, etc.

It's just an idea.

I'm impressed with the sheer amount of wisdom you are able to extract from such a simple formula. Have you considered the equation

2 + 0 = 2?

I'm anxious to know what you make of this one.

 

[czes]

What do you think about it:
The particle in General Relativity is localised in the spacetime.
The particle in Quantum Mechanics is not localised at all, the spacetime doesn't exist and there is a quantum information relation only.

 

[rexrino]

I'm impressed with the sheer amount of wisdom you are able to extract from such a simple formula. Have you considered the equation

2 + 0 = 2?

I'm anxious to know what you make of this one.

2 is simply two somethings combined together.

I goes without saying to the average child prodigy that:

if 1= n then n^n is simply the sum of all 1's necessary to accumulate to the value of n^n.


Mind you it is understood that hydrogen with only one proton is the bases for all the other chemicals in the known universe. By combining the simple hydrogen atom together into a mass where gravity can work its magic, you get all the other chemicals. We are assuming that there is an affinity between hydrogen atoms. Do you know that that affinity is?

I'm not saying that hydrogen has always existed <smile>;

but something has always existed. What it is is another question entirely.

1 something is a better starting place than nothing. This is what I'm saying.

What is the set of all nothing?

 

[member 11137]

I havent' had much luck with questions about the cosmos directed to god. I hope you've done better.

Dark energy is a pretty dark subject at this time, especially if you try to link it in with the forces of nature.

I'm still looking for proof, which hasn't been explicitly demonstrated. I'm still open to the idea myself but don't know how to go about contrasting it to normal matter.

With my (ironic) answer to your question:"Where?" I meant that nobody knows where the whole universe is going... So we are condamned to make hypothesis far behind the real capacities of our brain...

Is the existence of dark energy contested? No I don't think so. Just its nature stays unknown. Is the expansion of our universe contested? No I don't think so. What is expanding? is perhaps the question. As a matter of fact: the volume certainly is the basic answer.

Concerning the dissertation about ... + ... = ... just take care in which set you are calculating. For example in non commutative one you could also get 0 = 1 + 1 which, symbolically speaking, would mean that something can arise from nothing... if zero means "nothing".

Otherwise and to come back to your initial question: see the discussion "Connes Rovelli paper on... "

 

[zetafunction]

but can't we forget time or treat it as another geommetrical space coordinate ??

so we live in a 4-dimensional space with no time only SPACE

 

[member 11137]

but can't we forget time or treat it as another geommetrical space coordinate ??

so we live in a 4-dimensional space with no time only SPACE

First of all I am not a professional in physics = many people here can give quite better answers than me.

I think one must make a distinction between 1) what equations in mathematics seem to induce = all dimensions (inclusively the time dimension) are on the same level (a kind of equivalence) and 2) what physics, really allows.

Concerning the last point, I am not certain that the sensation to become older (the time) is equivalent to: I walk 1 mile in that direction. Why? Because I always need time to walk but I shall also be older even if I do not walk (I am at rest in my local frame).

 

[tom.stoer]

First of all one must distinguish between time, time and time. There at at least three times we can talk about:

1) coordinate time which is so to a lare extend arbitrary and physically meaningless; it is so to speak the 4th (timelike) dimension which could be absorbed in a re-definition of space; nevertheless it has some different properties than spatial dimensions, e.g. one cannot go backward in time

2) proper time which is measured by an observer (on his comoving wristwatch); it can be used as coordinate time for this specific observer; it is physical as it can be measured, but it is somehow "private" and two different observers will in general not agree

3) a kind of process time which sets an (external, macroscopic) time scale; a single photon or a single electron do not feel any time; they do not "get older"; a pion will not "feel" any time, but it can decay, so if you do not have a single pion but a collection of pions each pion itself does not feel aging, but it could "observe" other pions, count them, and see that their number decreases due to the decays; this is something like a prototype for process time (unfortunately pions cannot see, count, ...); a lonely astronaut could use his watch (or a collection of pions) as timescale; but even w/o an own watch his body sets certain time scales, e.g. his heartbeat, breath, hunger, aging and dying.

I hope you see the difference.

If one uses a formulation of canonical gravity "time" will disappear completey. But this does only mean that coordinate time (1) is unphysical. In order to specify a time in the sense of (2) you have to introduce a local system according which one can define proper time; that means there must be something that says "here", that "devides the universe" in the "local system" and "the rest". In order to specify a process time the system must be large enough to allow for decay and aging processes, and ist must be small enough to allow for a local interpretation (the aging and expansion of the universe is no reasonable process time for us :-) So the time we feel is due to the definition of selected regions of space with physical processes defining a process time. This time in the sense of (3) has nothing to do with the fundamental definition of spacetime but is an emergent phenomenon.

We do not yet have a theory unifying all known interactions / forces with gravity. As long as this theory does not exist we can simply write down Einstein's equations and ask where the different notations of time do come from. Formally this look like

G = T

where G is the Einstein tensor encoding information regarding geometry (gravity), and where T is the stress energy tensor encoding information regarding all other interactions.

(1) is entirely intrinstic to G, (2) emerges when one defines an object that moves on a the geometry defined by G, and (3) emerges from T.

 

[czes]

Thank you Tom for this clarification.
Does it mean that the "process time" in quantum mechanics has encoded a constant value of time (information) for each change, relation (interference) between quantum information (fundamental particles) ?

 

[tom.stoer]

To be honest, I haven't seen any QM calculation that "generates" a process time. I know that there are very simple models in quantum gravity where a non-gravitational degree of freedom (e.g. a scalar field) serves as "time"; this geos into the right direction, but it is by no means sufficient. You could e.g. google for "Ashtekar" and "Loop quantum cosmology". The above mentioned Rovelli paper should prvide some references and information as well.

In QM there is only the "t" in the Schrödinger equation which is (you can see this in relativistic quantum mechanics) a coordinate time in the sense of (1)

 

[czes]

Rovelli's paper "Forget time" is very interesting.
I have found in another paper an interesting equivalent between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity :
Tp / T(x) * Tp / T(y) = a Fg / Fe
where:
Tp * Tp - Planck's time squared = hG/c^5
T(x) , T(y) -Compton time of the oscillation of the particle x,y T=1/frequence = h/mc^2
due to Compton wave length of two interacting particles x,y (l= h/mc )
a – alfa=ke2 /hc = fine structure constant
Fg – Gravitational Newton's interaction Fg = Gm(x) m(y) /r2
Fe - Electrostatic Coulomb interaction Fe = ke2 /r2

If we derive from above that each relation of the non-local Compton wave causes a Planck's time dilation , their sum creates around a massive object with N=M/m particles a known gravitational time dilation
t(0)^2= (1-2GM/Rc^2)
Therefore I thought time is emergent just from the relation between non-local quantum information if each relation encodes 1 Planck time.

Excuse me I can't write in "tex".

 

[mquirce]

Czec. I was astonished by your post which is different from main stream. I write a post that was deleted . I am a lay man that do not merit to debate with scientist or physicist, but i think have the right to axpres my opinion (even invalid) when i see that somebody else has the same opinion.
Time eternal. Space without limit. Must be a particle of mater like Plank Mass but even it has the same unity are two different things : Mpl. = G*Mpl.^2 / (Rpl.*C^2) here in yhe left is plank mass in the right plank mater. The same fot el. common particles mx = G*Mpl.^2 / (rxcompton*C^2) . As i read your post there is somthing like this.
Don't be irritate please.

 

[rexrino]

With my (ironic) answer to your question:"Where?" I meant that nobody knows where the whole universe is going... So we are condemned to make hypothesis far behind the real capacities of our brain...

This is possibly true.

Is the existence of dark energy contested? No I don't think so. Just its nature stays unknown. Is the expansion of our universe contested? No I don't think so. What is expanding? is perhaps the question. As a matter of fact: the volume certainly is the basic answer.

Thought: if black holes are taking matter and energy out of our local space, wouldn't there be a contraction effect noted instead of an expansion -water level decreasing in container as the water goes down the drain?

Answer:
(1) Not enough black holes to register an effect?

(2) Matter is being rerouted back into the same universe (feedback loop for wormhole travelers. Could be that wormholes are one way streets).

(3) Black holes are local effect that don't effect the level of expansion. (See 2).

Concerning the dissertation about ... + ... = ... just take care in which set you are calculating. For example in non commutative one you could also get 0 = 1 + 1 which, symbolically speaking, would mean that something can arise from nothing... if zero means "nothing".

The equation has to be correct for the communicative property to apply over any set N.

I don't see where I stated that 0 + 1 = something different than 1 . I guess if you incorporate negative numbers, -1 + 1 = 0 would apply (a matter and anti-matter universe, collision).

If such a condition did exist, you have no information to reach a conclusion about weather they ever existed. The mass, energy, particles, wave structures (strings), all would be annihilated (Leaving a gravity-hole?)

Otherwise and to come back to your initial question: see the discussion "Connes Rovelli paper on... "

Maintaining ones grasp on reality is paramount if we are to derive substance in the study of the cosmos. It is so large and we have yet to determine its boundaries. For this reason, we need to keep hypothesis as simple as possible or it could expand out of minds reach.



I'll check it out if it has sufficient summaries. I have a tremendous "reading" workload.

 

[rexrino]

First of all I am not a professional in physics = many people here can give quite better answers than me.

I think one must make a distinction between 1) what equations in mathematics seem to induce = all dimensions (inclusively the time dimension) are on the same level (a kind of equivalence) and 2) what physics, really allows.

Concerning the last point, I am not certain that the sensation to become older (the time) is equivalent to: I walk 1 mile in that direction. Why? Because I always need time to walk but I shall also be older even if I do not walk (I am at rest in my local frame).

Yes, but if you were immortal, how much older would you really be? You are concerned about time because you feel you are somehow physically effected by it. Physically, your displacement is all that has happened. If you choose to measure that displace in units of time as well as distance, then it appears that time has somehow effected you but were you really effected by time in any fashion?

I'm not a professional physicist either. I'm just an old man that has thought about this stuff, without allowing the math to enterfer with my imagination for many years. Like Einstien said, He imagined he was riding on the head of a light beam...

I've checked out the links you gave me and it is so much gibberish... I actually read every pdf file on the site. "I'm a fast reader." And, I find that Michio Kaku is tied up in this nonsense... No wonder the young can't figure anything out. They need to steep out of the shadow of these self-interested mathematicians and let their imaginations soar.

 

[rexrino]

To be honest, I haven't seen any QM calculation that "generates" a process time. I know that there are very simple models in quantum gravity where a non-gravitational degree of freedom (e.g. a scalar field) serves as "time"; this geos into the right direction, but it is by no means sufficient. You could e.g. google for "Ashtekar" and "Loop quantum cosmology". The above mentioned Rovelli paper should prvide some references and information as well.

In QM there is only the "t" in the Schrödinger equation which is (you can see this in relativistic quantum mechanics) a coordinate time in the sense of (1)

Your a smart thinker.

Look at a sine wave... it is a representation of a periodic material change in state, or change in displacement. I If two water waves collide with one another, the forces of that collision combine to displace the water particles. They can be in a positive direction, giving you a tall wave or a negative one, where the difference in the forces of collision neutralize one another yielding no displacement or a small one. It' the same with an electrical wave. All we are really looking at... the real parts that are effected are the particles themselves or the force of the magnetic fields surrounding the electrons in the case of electricity waves.

Time is not a force that has impact on matter or electromagnetism. To say that gravity distorts space is to say that it distorts the matter contained in that space. Time will look as if it were effected also, because the ruler (time measuring stick) we use to measure the distortion is also distorted by the gravity. But, to the person taking the measurement it will look as if nothing has been distorted at all and their measuring stick is still just fine thank you very much. <smile>

Think of collision. Think of Transfer of force (summation of forces).

All this hoopla about time is really a result of the fact an electron suddenly jumps from one state of energy to another... the "quantum" jump, in an incremental way instead of a linear transition from one potential to the other. But... does it really? I don't believe in miracles. Something else is going on here and, because we can't figure it out, we develop a whole lot of math to fill in the void.

In electronics, we have a saying, there is no such thing as a true square wave...because a There is no such thing as "zero rise time". a point cannot have a potential of zero value and some other value (+) or (-) at the same time. So, in reality a wave form on an oscilloscope is actually "sloping" from one state of potential to the other. It doesn't make a quantum leap from place to place.

 

[member 11137]

Lee Smolin stated in Trouble with Physics (page 256):

"More and more, I have the feeling that quantum theory and general relativity are both deeply wrong about the nature of time. It is not enough to combine them."

<snip>

"We have to find a way to unfreeze time - to represent time without turning it into space. I have no idea how to do this. I can't conceive of a mathematics that doesn't represent a world as if it were frozen in eternity. It's terribly hard to represent time, and that's why there's a good chance that this representation is the missing piece."

-----
What is he talking about? Anyone got an idea, or share new papers or perhaps have a clue to an eventual solution?

Perhaps he is indirectly thinking about the work of Gödel.

 

[rexrino]

Nope...
There's a lot of loose talk about the confusion of time and it's relationship with space.

 

[Agent Lumino]

Hallo friends,
Could it be that the expansion of the universe is 4-dimensional and the radial expansion progress is equal to the speed of light?
I know, there is no way to measure the “speed” of time in m/s. But measuring will be possible, if a relativistic speed limit also exists in higher dimensions. Then we could measure the speed of time in m/q, where “q” is a maybe 5-dimensional time experience.
I have the imagination that our time experience is equal to the experience of a photon and its traveling direction. Photons cannot see where they are going to, but they “know” where they have been yet. Also they feel no time – as we know it. Time is standing still for photons. If the expansion of the universe had a relativistic progress, we could have an answer to the question, why we cannot see higher dimensions. (This could also be a solution for the rolled up dimensions in the string theories.)

I will give another argument by calculating the Hubble constant in a very easy way.
The expansion speed of the universe is defined by the Hubble-constant and is about 71 km/s per Megaparsec.
The NASA proofed this constant and published a value of 72 km/s per Megaparsec.

I assume, that the universe is closed and looks like a 4-dimensional balloon. The universe, as we know, is the surface of the balloon. The balloon is expanding and I assume that the radial expansion speed is the speed of light.
Then I can start to calculate:
If the radial speed is 300.000km/s (speed of light) the perimeter of the balloon increases with 2r*pi
2 * 300.000km/s * 3.14 = 1.885.000 km/s
If the universe exists since 13 billion years, the perimeter is now: 13 billion years * 2 * pi = 81.68 billion light-years or 25.000 Megaparsec, because 1 Megaparsec are 3.26 million light-years.
The Hubble constant can now be found, if one divides 1.885.000 km/s by 25.000 Mpsc.
These are = 75.4 km/s per Megaparsec.
I think that this is a strong indication, that our universe is closed and the radial expansion speed is the speed of light.

Please let me know if there is a sense in assuming a solution like this.
Agent Lumino

 

[rexrino]

How can we conclude that the universe exists for 13 billion years and how would this effect the equation if it were twice that or less? Would not the Hubble constant cease to be a constant in your equation?

 

[Agent Lumino]

Hallo Rexrino,
Thank you very much for your answer. I immediately started to calculate. It is clear that the Hubble-constant would decrease in the future. After another 13 billion years it would be the half of the value we measure today. And after four times – 52 billion years it would be a quarter of 75 km/s per Megaparsec. This includes that the Hubble-constant had to be more in the past. Half of the age of the universe it had to be 150 km/s per Megaparsec. The solution is a hyperboloid, which started with an infinite value and ends up with endless decrease. And it won’t stop anyway.
But the most important consequence of my idea is that the expansion of the universe does not depend upon the gravity of the summarised matter in the universe. The expansion must have the same character as a flashlight in space. Photons are departing in all directions. And they cannot reduce their radial speed even when they are interacting with each other.
Maybe my idea could be a solution for the problem with time. There are so many physical equations that help us to calculate our world. But yet we don’t know what time really is. Therefore I assume that the answer must be radical. Only a complete new point of view can solve this problem. It is definitely a radical idea, to assume that time is a relativistic journey. But I hope it is worth to discuss.
Thanks for your interest.

 

[rexrino]

good luck. you can contact me at: rexrino@moonstroller.com for personal comments about this subject if you like.

I understand your idea. But, light would not be able to leave a black hole. I believe that a neutron star emits large quantities of energy but it is perceived dimly, because of the gravity effect.

If light is effected by gravity, then we would expect some examples of this effect, which have been shown in the cosmos. Light bends around a large mass (because space is bent?)

A good question might be, is it possible for light to be put into orbit around a large gravitational mass. A better question would be, would we be able to see the effects of this event?

I sometimes wonder if light is a radial event or is it dispersive over a distance? That is, does the energy in a light beam grow smaller with distance?

If you pulse a flashlight, the pules can be measured with equipment and the energy of the entire pulse calculated. This is how we use light to transmit information.

The speed of light is measured in meters per second. The idea that a second is anything other than a measure of the distance integral conveys to me that time is nothing but information to describe the distance traveled by any object. But I lack proof.

It may be that a complete, new point of view will lead to an answer.

Maxwell had to travel quite a distance (In those days) to find the information that showed his formulations were correct. The information he found was evident in the equations of others but they couldn't or failed to make the connection.

 

[Trenton]

I read an article somewhere that satellites orbiting Earth behave as though the sun is in the position it is actually in rather than the position we see it in which is always 500 seconds out of date. I don't know if that is true or not but for arguments sake let's assume it is true.

The inference the article draw was that gravity was traveling much faster than light if not instantaneously. However this inference would only be valid if one were to assert that a gravitational field was the result of an exchange of bosons called gravitons. If gravity was just a field that did not require boson exchange, it would not be nessesary for gravity to travel faster than light.

I can't be sure what the maths mean but this seems to me to be the nub of what old Bell was banging on about. The difference between a pure field and one that is the statistical result of an astronomical number of boson exchanges.

It seems to me that some of the apparent instantaneous effects could be explained in these terms. However that is not all. Have you ever considered what shape (in 3 or 4 dimensions) a photon would have? Does it there for example, have anything that might be called a length? or is it just a point?

I tried to do this, without I have to say, much success. But one thought that kept returning was that it is very possible that apparent instantaneous effects could be the result of something undetected happening between the two locations? Is there any definite rational that excludes this possibility?

But to answer the question is QM/GR wrong about the nature of time? I don't know if QM is but GR might be. It has time stopping (infinite time dilation) at the event horizon (hence the name). But this is a region of space where the gravitiational potential (the cause of time dilation) is still finite (correct me if I am wrong and please provide proof).

 

[rexrino]

Interesting. I think we have a good topic to work on here. I'll start gathering information.

I know everyone is familar with magnetic induction. It is caused by the collapse of a magnetic field in a coil, resisting the flow of current in the coil. The magnetic field doesn't want to collapse.

Has anyone studied the condition of a magnetic field and the time it takes for it to change if, say, a metal rod were move towards it? The faster the better to measure the change in the field. In some way, I think magnetism and gravity exhibit similar field functions. With the magnet, the field is stationary or rather exists without change unless a stronger magnet or object (metal) comes in the same facility. With gravity, a mass coming into the system should change the gravity field as well.

Good post...

 

[Agent Lumino]

Hallo Trenton,
Hallo Rexrino,
Thanks for your arguments and motivations.
I think that the gravitational field is at first a reduction of time. If you live on a neutron star, you will measure time is going on more slowly than in other areas of the universe.
I once tried to construct an anti-gravitation bed - because I’m not really a friend of gravitation and neither is my wife. But very soon I realized that – irrespective of other problems - both of us would leave our universe, if we sleep in such a bed, because the timeflow is definitely connected with the gravitational field. And if we want to reduce this field, we had to leave the timeflow. Then we would lag behind the universe of our friends but never ever will catch it again. So I stopped this project!
For me our universe is a 4-dimensional balloon, which is expanding with the absolute possible speed – the speed of light. Although we must postulate a higher dimensional time, which is measured not in Seconds but in a new unit: “Crossonds” for instance. I think that photons have also a time experience, which cannot be measured by Seconds. Time as we know is standing still for photons, but photons might have a time-like experience based on their travel through space.
One of the most important questions in string-theories is: Where is the rest of the 11 dimensions? Why can’t we see them?
One answer could be that we are traveling with a relativistic speed through an at least 5-dimesional space and like photons we cannot see the fifth dimension, because it is standing still for us.
But time should also be influenced by quantum effects. That means that an electron doesn’t start from a Braun tube at an exact point of time, but it has a special period of time to be born. If this is true we only know the exact time of its birth after measuring it. And this includes the collapse of the probability function. Before this collapse it has no fixed birthday. So it exists between a special period and therefore it is understandable for me, why it can interfere with itself on a double-slit.
I assume that for photons there will be the same local unconsciousness with the difference that the period is a special distance in their moving direction.
Maybe that time-dimension is not understood yet. But for me I’m interested in how we can change our physics without wasting our well known and approved physics. The string theory seems very interesting for me, because our visible world is only a projection of the string oscillation.
Thank you all for your interest.
Andreas Habelt

 

[Trenton]

Magnetic field propagation is very easy to measure (not that I have done it). All it would require is a strong electromaget and a coil placed at a distance and a decent electronic timer. Switch the maget on and see how long it takes for a current in the coil to be detected. As I understand it magnetic fields travel at c as do electric fields.

No such simplicity exists for measuring the speed of gravity because large masses cannot be switched on and off quite as easily as large electric currents. All we can do is study orbits - and apply Ocam's Razor to how we interpret what we measure.

Ocam's Razor - That entities should not be multiplied beyond nessesity (I think that should be added but never mind) What all this means is that unless an entity (such as a graviton) is absolutely essential to explain an observed phenomenon, then it should be excluded.

My current view of gravitons is that they are worse than simply unessesary as they would need to travel faster than c in order to cause the effect I mentioned earlier regarding satelites orbiting Earth. As I mentioned then, I have no confirmation that satelites actually do act as described but I think they do because this would mean gravity was just a field rather than a series of interactions.

Although I have just used the term field I do accept the GR version that gravity is due to the 'curvature of spacetime' - although with the caveat that the word curvature is ambiguous. After all, things follow curved paths when falling because they usually have some momentum perpendicular to the line connecting their instantaneous position and the center of gravity. If you were on a body orbiting a black hole at a safe distance and fired a bullet at exactly the same speed but in the oposite direction of your orbit, the bullet would then fall straight at the black hole (no curves).

Now for QM: Is time influenced by quantum effects? Can anything in QM have a yes or no answer? Perhaps not. The only certainty is uncertainty of the Hiesenburg veriety. However this is not just true of the quantum world of atomic scales - it can be applied to anything.

You cannot simutaneously measure a property (eg position) and the rate of change of that property (velocity) of any entity of any size - without a degree of uncertainty. This stands to reason because to measure the rate of change you have to take two snapshots between which must be a non zreo interval - during which the rate of change may be non-uniform. Of course time dilation only serves to make life harder!

But while this applies to everything, at the atomic scale it is more dramatic. It is easier I think to consider everything as an oscillating string or wavefunction - which I why I keep wondering what topology a photon might have. However there is a clear divide between a wave that propogates in free space (light) and a wave that self-circles so that it forms matter.

All matter exists in a state of extreamis. One might think that there is a huge difference between being a particle in the Earth's atmosphere and being one in the center of the Sun - there isn't. One of the reasons we don't get more elements on the periodic table is because in the heavier elements some of the inner electons are traveling at highly relativistic velocities and have paths that lie partly within the nucleus leading to electron capture. However, even in lighter atoms the ultra high velocities and the atomic scale radius produce centrifugal forces on electrons that are inherently extreme - and this produces time dilation that is also extreme. No one knows what sort of speeds quarks might be moving at but these will doubtless be extreme also.

Time will be infuenced by quantum effects but how this all actually works is something of which I am quite uncertain.

 

[PAllen]

Everybody knows what time it is, but nobody knows what time is.

 

[marcus]

Everybody knows what time it is, but nobody knows what time is.

Peter Lorre had this to say about it in 1953:


First prize in a 2008 essay contest on "The Nature of Time":
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.3832

 

[unusualname]

Peter Lorre had this to say about it in 1953:


First prize in a 2008 essay contest on "The Nature of Time":
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.3832

http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3832 ('Forget time' - - Rovelli)

hmm, a big deduction inspired by a 1915 theory, maybe time might just be time and GR isn't quite right.

Just Sayin' ;-)

 

[marcus]

GR is almost certainly not right. What can we learn from it that will carry over to the next generation model of geometry?

GR is not right e.g. because it causes its own breakdown at the start of expansion. I think the focus of the theory is shifting to cosmology. What emerges to replace GR will be a quantum cosmology, and it will have a concept of time.

GR has no global or universal idea of time. The time coordinate does not correspond to anything one can measure and so is physically meaningless (purely conventional). Each observer threading through the spacetime can have his own idea of how to slice the spacetime caterpillar.

GR spacetime is like a path through the superspace of possible geometries of the universe---an evolving spatial geometry. But there is no one official universe time. Notice that in quantum mechanics continuous smooth trajectories do not exist. they are replaced by a path integral--sum over histories. When we finally get a quantum version of the GR story, spacetime as such may no longer exist, it may just be a sum over histories.

But in standard cosmology there is a preferred time. Because some uniformly distributed ancient matter is introduced, emitting ancient light, and there is a moment when the uniformly distributed light (CMB) was released. Standard observers can refer back to that and synchronize clocks. The Friedmann model runs on that time (sometimes called Friedmann time or universe time.)

I suspect that GR will probably be outgrown and replaced by a QC (quantum cosmology) which will resolve the singularity and introduce a new time reference moment. I think we are in a situation analogous to the 1950s before the observation of the CMB, when the "big bang" was just a conjecture---one of various competing models. Today we see various competing models which eliminate the singularity---the GR breakdown at start of expansion. Maybe one will survive observational testing, or maybe none, and something new will emerge.

 

[unusualname]

GR is almost certainly not right. What can we learn from it that will carry over to the next generation model of geometry?

GR is not right e.g. because it causes its own breakdown at the start of expansion. I think the focus of the theory is shifting to cosmology. What emerges to replace GR will be a quantum cosmology, and it will have a concept of time.

GR has no global or universal idea of time. The time coordinate does not correspond to anything one can measure and so is physically meaningless (purely conventional). Each observer threading through the spacetime can have his own idea of how to slice the spacetime caterpillar.

GR spacetime is like a path through the superspace of possible geometries of the universe---an evolving spatial geometry. But there is no one official universe time. Notice that in quantum mechanics continuous smooth trajectories do not exist. they are replaced by a path integral--sum over histories. When we finally get a quantum version of the GR story, spacetime as such may no longer exist, it may just be a sum over histories.

But in standard cosmology there is a preferred time. Because some uniformly distributed ancient matter is introduced, emitting ancient light, and there is a moment when the uniformly distributed light (CMB) was released. Standard observers can refer back to that and synchronize clocks. The Friedmann model runs on that time (sometimes called Friedmann time or universe time.)

I suspect that GR will probably be outgrown and replaced by a QC (quantum cosmology) which will resolve the singularity and introduce a new time reference moment. I think we are in a situation analogous to the 1950s before the observation of the CMB, when the "big bang" was just a conjecture---one of various competing models. Today we see various competing models which eliminate the singularity---the GR breakdown at start of expansion. Maybe one will survive observational testing, or maybe none, and something new will emerge.

What you write is eminently sensible, but I'd like to make one small comment on:

"When we finally get a quantum version of the GR story, spacetime as such may no longer exist, it may just be a sum over histories."

I think space itself is a probabilistic sum over possibilities, but I think that space must evolve in some definite ontological fashion in time, even if that evolution is fundamentally probabilistic (and so not exactly calculable by us).

Now I should probably stop pushing this viewpoint over and over on the forum, until a more definite statement is possible.

 

[Trenton]

I don't think it is meaningful to cast GR and QM as though they were competing theories of which one would triumph. Certainly GR has it's faults because of the singularity - which according to GR is the future for everything inside a black hole except for it being a future that never arrives. Also there is no explanation as to how a singularity might be disrupted, and without this there is no explanation for the big bang. Furthermore, the event horizon has properties that render it a singularity. This could be a show stopper for GR but equally, it could be the springboard for a more complete theory.

QM though is really about fundamental constants. We all know about c and things like the dialectric constant in a vacuum etc. There are others as yet unknown, that will explain why the particles (known and unknown) have the masses they have and the half-lives they have. QM will ultimately lead to grand unification and will explain gravity - But it will almost ceratinly need GR to do it.

As I was saying in my last submission, the role of time dilation at the atomic scale must be very significant because of centrifugal forces, that interestingly enough, produce G forces that make black holes look like microgravity. This time dilation I believe, will have a lot to do with why certain string oscillations work while others don't.

I have been looking for some good papers on time dilation under centrifugal force - but so far without success. If anyone could point me to one that simply contained the formula for calculating time dilation in a centrifuge I would be delighted.

The problem I am having is that in GR, time dilation (really spacetime curvature) is related to gravitational potential rather than gravity. I am keen to know more about this because I have also heard that light actually falls at the same rate as matter. These two statements seem at odds, particularly when one contemplates statements such as "light follows a curved path in the vacinity of a heavy object because it follows a geodisic in curved spacetime"

If I construct a device which can spin a long thin glass rod (say 1mm diameter), at just below the speed it would fly apart (easily 100 m/s), the G forces in the rod would be colossal (millions of G). Then using a laser to illuminate one end and a photcell at the other, there should be a deflection along the rod when spining that differs from that when not spinning. This would test the assertion concerning how light fell under gravity. If it does fall at the same rate as matter would (bear in mind the very short time the photons would have to fall), then this would suggest that light was not following the geodisic of curved spacetime or at least not following geodisic of curved spacetime due to gravitational potential.

Correct me if I am wrong but the grav pot in a centrifuge would be quite small even though the gravity produced would be crushing (this is why I need the formula). I think the grav pot would be related to how far objects would fly if the centrifuge failed - miniscule at 100 m/s.

Is anyone aware of any such experiment having been conducted?

 

[rexrino]

You should be able to find the material in any high school textbook.

 

[Trenton]

No such material imeadiately to hand - the only info I found on it was that grav pot in a centrifuge was related to the tangental velocity, which would be miniscule, whereas the G force would be about a million times that of Earth and enough to get a measurable deflection.

Are you saying such an experiment has been conducted and if so, what were the results?

 

[cosmik debris]

The problem I am having is that in GR, time dilation (really spacetime curvature) is related to gravitational potential rather than gravity. I am keen to know more about this because I have also heard that light actually falls at the same rate as matter. These two statements seem at odds, particularly when one contemplates statements such as "light follows a curved path in the vacinity of a heavy object because it follows a geodisic in curved spacetime"

There is no concept of gravitational potential in GR. The metric is the closest thing to the Newtonian potential but even so I'm not sure what your objection is here?