reply to this thread

show all replies (7 not shown)

hide replies

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

note: This is from a article I posted on my blog in 2010.

The greatest problem with current physics theories is that they consider time as if it were a property of physical reality.

Time is a relational concept which is made to allow us to compare events with periodic and cyclic systems; in other words, clocks. But time has time any more effect on reality than the clocks that are...

view entire post

note: This is from a article I posted on my blog in 2010.

The greatest problem with current physics theories is that they consider time as if it were a property of physical reality.

Time is a relational concept which is made to allow us to compare events with periodic and cyclic systems; in other words, clocks. But time has time any more effect on reality than the clocks that are used to measure it? The fact, when you think of it, clocks don't really measure time.

Take an event consisting of the fall of an object from a point to "a" to a point "b". When we say we measured the time it took for that event to happen, what we actually did is count the number of cycles (seconds, or fraction of seconds for instance) from when the object was dropped from "a" and stopped the count when it reaches point "b". So we don't actually measure time. What we do is simply count the number of cycles the clock's mechanisms go through over the course of the event.

There is no reason why time should be anything more than a relational concept, a useful relational concept I admit, but only a concept. Yet time, physicists will argue, is necessary to the study of nature.

Every process, every event, transformation or phenomenon appears to happen in time. Without time, it is believed, the Universe would be static. Worse, there would be no Universe at all. What we fail to understand is that affirming the necessity of time is like saying that the atoms in the Universe could not exists without the number systems we use to count them. The argument is akin to the solipsistic argument that reality cannot exist without an observer (which is something many quantum-physicists actually try convince us of).

So let's make things clear for a start. Planet Earth, the solar system, our galaxy, our Universe existed before there were people to observe them and before the concept of time, which is a construct of the observers, was invented.

So what does it mean that time really a relational concept? What it essentially means is that there are no physical interaction between a phenomenon and the number of cycles of the periodic system we may compare it to.

You'll notice that I didn't say there is no interaction between the phenomenon and the periodic mechanism. What I said is that there is no interaction between the phenomenon and the abstraction that is a number. That said, there is a very simple test to determine if a notion is a property of physical reality or if it's merely a concept. The test is one of necessity.

For the sake of argumentation, let's assume that time is a fundamental property of physical reality. If time is a fundamental physical property of reality, then the existence of time must be an axiom essential to any theory of physical reality. What this implies is that it should be impossible to describe any physical phenomenon without the use of time. Impossible! Are you sure?

A principle of strict causality which describes physical phenomena as sequence of events related through causality doesn't require the concept of time. Even concepts such as motion and speed can be described without ever using concept of time.

In fact, the only indication that time may be physical is the effect of time dilation. Time dilation is the inevitable consequence of two axioms: the constancy of the speed of light and the continuity of space. But it can be shown that if space is discrete,than there is no need to resort to the concept of time dilation to explain the constancy of the speed of light.

Then, if time is not an essential axiom, it follows that time is not a fundamental property of physical reality. As a consequence, time is nothing more than a relational concept.

In my opinion, we need to make a distinction between reality and representations of reality by models or concepts. I think we're confusing the two when it comes to time.

view post as summary

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

I would address specifically to the so called “The time problem” and of course to this article “Killing time”.

I am going to be as concrete as possible; if you read the article you will realize why it can’t be shorter. Mainly theoretical physicists are the most interested in “the nature of time” and they like to believe the subject is inherent to...

view entire post

I would address specifically to the so called “The time problem” and of course to this article “Killing time”.

I am going to be as concrete as possible; if you read the article you will realize why it can’t be shorter. Mainly theoretical physicists are the most interested in “the nature of time” and they like to believe the subject is inherent to physicists and you will see it’s no so.

I will follow with an advice of somebody than most physicists in the world respect, Albert Einstein. “The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking. It is for this reason that the critical thinking of the physicist cannot possibly to be restricted to the examination of the concepts of his own specific field. He cannot proceed without considering critically a much more difficult problem, the problem of analyzing the nature of everyday thinking.

Our psychological experience contains, in colorful succession, sense experiences, memory pictures of them, images, and feelings. In contrast to psychology, physics treats directly only of sense experiences and of the “understanding” of their connection. But even the concept of the “real external world” of everyday thinking rests exclusively of sense impressions” “Ideas and Opinions” Einstein, pg.283 y 284, ISBN Nº 440-04150-150.



I think this should be read slow, understanding each and every word of his thought about mind functioning, some times is as important as mathematics formulas.

To make possible to comprehend this article, first you should believe possible that “The problem of time” can be solve. Second let the mind freer to the understanding of new things, for this, we should say that

“time” has no definition, no empiric meaning, also can’t be sense by any of our senses or by any man designed artifact, nobody can make a description or recognize “time”. To make clearer this article we should keep in mind the last three lines through all the reading.

If was any other word with those characteristics we immediately would say “time does not exist”.

why we don’t say that, because since pre-Socratic Heraclito ,and after Socrates Plato and Aristoteles 2600 or 2300 years ago we are measuring what we call “time” and as physicist Sean Carroll said being quote by Lee Smolin "There is no question that time exists—we use it everyday," If we give this, as a reason of “time” existence. How he can be sure that exist, if he don’t know what it is? The Carroll reason is, that he think he use it every day. Certainly for use, he meant measuring the so called “time”. How he knows that what he is measuring is “time” and no something else? like movement ?

Everybody knows movement, it has definition, empiric meaning. Everything with physical existence moves, from a galaxy to a subatomic particle. Movement origin is very much older and certain that “time”. If the big-bang, happen, there was movement, life is possible because movement, our brain metabolism, which moves, is our mind that consider all movement we know of, that surround us. How we are not going to measure movement? We did it since the beginning of written history, but thinking that we were measuring “time”.

People think that with the clock movement we measure “time” and with it, comparatively we measure every other movement, change and transformation. A clock, to be one should have a “constant”, “uniform” movement, if it is not so it’s not a clock.

The physical prove that we measure movement with movement consist that with a clock “constant” movement we measure fractions of “constant” earth rotation movement represented by clock dial numbers, as the hour, these are the reasons that this are “movements units” and no “time units”

New duration definition: It is the period of change and transformation that movement allows and men limit.

Then the so called “time” is movement .When we think we are measuring “time” we are not conscious, that in fact we are measuring movement, as we always did, we do and we are going to keep doing it. Knowing this does not change any physic law. We have to remember that classic physics, relativity and quantum mechanics were created, developed and physicist keep working with them with out the need to know of “The nature of time”, but knowing that “time” it is not a mysterious thing, but movement, a quality or property of everything with physical existence, we know that we can related it to anything of physical existence.

Not only is needed to quantized general relativity to the goal of the “the theory of everything” but we also can understand conclusions of general relativity like “that velocity and gravity slows time” in GPS (imagine an analogical clock) the satellite one slows respect it’s similar on land why? because the satellite clock inertia, because it’s speed slows clock parts movement, slowing it’s functioning respect the one on land, what slows it is not “time”, but it’s functioning

Gravity slows the clock in the valley respect it’s similar on top of the mountain, because the first one is affected for more gravity than the other, gravity slows clock parts functioning it is not the “time” than slows.

Since Heraclito to Einstein passing through Newton men always ask themselves, What it is time? to reach reality, they should ask themselves What we are measuring? And quite easily they would find out that was movement. All the other things that can be made knowing this it would make this to long.

Time probably is a remnant word which represented a very important concept for men that mankind forgot it’s meaning as Einstein pre-scientific concepts. Héctor Daniel Gianni



E-mail: hectorgianni38@hotmail.com

view post as summary

reply to this thread

Quantum Gravity and Doublethink

QUANTUM GRAVITY IN PERSPECTIVE, LMU Munich, 31st May - 1st June 2013: "The search for a theory which would unite the insights of general relativity with those of quantum theory, a theory of quantum gravity, has now lasted the better part of a century. Although a number of promising candidate theories have emerged (string theory and loop quantum gravity being...

view entire post

Quantum Gravity and Doublethink

QUANTUM GRAVITY IN PERSPECTIVE, LMU Munich, 31st May - 1st June 2013: "The search for a theory which would unite the insights of general relativity with those of quantum theory, a theory of quantum gravity, has now lasted the better part of a century. Although a number of promising candidate theories have emerged (string theory and loop quantum gravity being the most prominent), a large array of conceptual, formal and methodological issues are still unresolved. The increasingly fractured nature of the field – with long standing and well publicised disagreements over the premisses, goals and criteria for evaluation relevant to a 'theory of quantum gravity' – might be seen as one significant factor impeding progress. (...) INVITED SPEAKERS: Nazim Bouatta (Cambridge), Richard Dawid (Vienna), Johanna Erdmenger (Max Planck Munich), Sabine Hossenfelder (NORDITA), Claus Kiefer (Cologne), Brian Pitts (Cambridge), Dean Rickles (Sydney), Nicholas Teh (Cambridge), Chris Wuthrich (UCSD)"

Einsteinians are going to extract career and money from this "search for a theory which would unite the insights of general relativity with those of quantum theory" for yet another century although they all know that "the root of all the evil" is the absurd special relativistic time, a direct consequence of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:

Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation of common-sense ideas about time. Different observers, moving at constant velocity relative to one another, require different notions of time, since their clocks run differently. Yet each such observer can use his "time" to describe what he sees, and every description will give valid results, using the same laws of physics. In short: According to special relativity, there are many quite different but equally valid ways of assigning times to events. Einstein himself understood the importance of breaking free from the idea that there is an objective, universal "now." Yet, paradoxically, today's standard formulation of quantum mechanics makes heavy use of that discredited "now." Playing with paradoxes is part of a theoretical physicist's vocation, as well as high-class recreation. Let's play with this one. (...) As we've seen, if a and b are space-like separated, then either can come before the other, according to different moving observers. So it is natural to ask: If a third event, c, is space-like separated with respect to both a and b, can all possible time-orderings, or "chronologies," of a, b, c be achieved? The answer, perhaps surprisingly, is No. We can see why in Figures 5 and 6. Right-moving observers, who use up-sloping lines of constant time, similar to the lines of constant t2 in Figure 2, will see b come before both a and c (Figure 5). But c may come either after or before a, depending on how steep the slope is. Similarly, according to left-moving observers (Figure 6), a will always come before b and c, but the order of b and c varies. The bottom line: c never comes first, but other than that all time-orderings are possible. These exercises in special relativity are entertaining in themselves, but there are also serious issues in play. They arise when we combine special relativity with quantum mechanics."

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

"Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to differ. (...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says."

Pentcho Valev

view post as summary

reply to this thread

reply to this thread