Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension

clock
Scientists propose that clocks measure the numerical order of material change in space, where space is a fundamental entity; time itself is not a fundamental physical entity. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons.
(PhysOrg.com) -- The concept of time as a way to measure the duration of events is not only deeply intuitive, it also plays an important role in our mathematical descriptions of physical systems. For instance, we define an object’s speed as its displacement per a given time. But some researchers theorize that this Newtonian idea of time as an absolute quantity that flows on its own, along with the idea that time is the fourth dimension of spacetime, are incorrect. They propose to replace these concepts of time with a view that corresponds more accurately to the physical world: time as a measure of the numerical order of change.

In two recent papers (one published and one to be published) in Physics Essays, Amrit Sorli, Davide Fiscaletti, and Dusan Klinar from the Scientific Research Centre Bistra in Ptuj, Slovenia, have described in more detail what this means.

No time dimension

They begin by explaining how we usually assume that is an absolute physical quantity that plays the role of the independent variable (time, t, is often the x-axis on graphs that show the evolution of a physical system). But, as they note, we never really measure t. What we do measure is an object’s frequency, speed, etc. In other words, what experimentally exists are the motion of an object and the tick of a clock, and we compare the object’s motion to the tick of a clock to measure the object’s frequency, speed, etc. By itself, t has only a mathematical value, and no primary physical existence.

This view doesn’t mean that time does not exist, but that time has more to do with space than with the idea of an absolute time. So while 4D spacetime is usually considered to consist of three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, the researchers’ view suggests that it’s more correct to imagine spacetime as four dimensions of space. In other words, as they say, the universe is “timeless.”

“Minkowski space is not 3D + T, it is 4D,” the scientists write in their most recent paper. “The point of view which considers time to be a physical entity in which material changes occur is here replaced with a more convenient view of time being merely the numerical order of material change. This view corresponds better to the physical world and has more explanatory power in describing immediate physical phenomena: gravity, electrostatic interaction, information transfer by EPR experiment are physical phenomena carried directly by the space in which physical phenomena occur.”

As the scientists added, the roots of this idea come from Einstein himself.

“Einstein said, ‘Time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure it,’” Sorli told PhysOrg.com. “Time is exactly the order of events: this is my conclusion.”

In the future, the scientists plan to investigate the possibility that quantum space has three dimensions of space, as Sorli explained.

“The idea of time being the fourth dimension of space did not bring much progress in physics and is in contradiction with the formalism of special relativity,” he said. “We are now developing a formalism of 3D quantum space based on Planck work. It seems that the universe is 3D from the macro to the micro level to the Planck volume, which per formalism is 3D. In this 3D space there is no ‘length contraction,’ there is no ‘time dilation.’ What really exists is that the velocity of material change is ‘relative’ in the Einstein sense.”

Numerical order in space

The researchers give an example of this concept of time by imagining a photon that is moving between two points in space. The distance between these two points is composed of Planck distances, each of which is the smallest distance that the photon can move. (The fundamental unit of this motion is Planck time.) When the photon moves a Planck distance, it is moving exclusively in space and not in absolute time, the researchers explain. The photon can be thought of as moving from point 1 to point 2, and its position at point 1 is “before” its position at point 2 in the sense that the number 1 comes before the number 2 in the numerical order. Numerical order is not equivalent to temporal order, i.e., the number 1 does not exist before the number 2 in time, only numerically.

As the researchers explain, without using time as the fourth dimension of spacetime, the physical world can be described more accurately. As physicist Enrico Prati noted in a recent study, Hamiltonian dynamics (equations in classical mechanics) is robustly well-defined without the concept of absolute time. Other scientists have pointed out that the mathematical model of spacetime does not correspond to physical reality, and propose that a timeless “state space” provides a more accurate framework.

The scientists also investigated the falsifiability of the two notions of time. The concept of time as the fourth dimension of space - as a fundamental physical entity in which an experiment occurs - can be falsified by an experiment in which time does not exist, according to the scientists. An example of an experiment in which time is not present as a fundamental entity is the Coulomb experiment; mathematically, this experiment takes place only in space. On the other hand, in the concept of time as a numerical order of change taking place in space, space is the fundamental physical entity in which a given experiment occurs. Although this concept could be falsified by an experiment in which time (measured by clocks) is not the numerical order of material change, such an experiment is not yet known.

“Newton theory on absolute time is not falsifiable, you cannot prove it or disprove it, you have to believe in it,” Sorli said. “The theory of time as the fourth dimension of space is falsifiable and in our last article we prove there are strong indications that it might be wrong. On the basis of experimental data, time is what we measure with clocks: with clocks we measure the numerical order of material change, i.e., motion in space.”

How it makes sense

In addition to providing a more accurate description of the nature of physical reality, the concept of time as a numerical order of change can also resolve Zeno’s paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise. In this paradox, the faster Achilles gives the Tortoise a head start in the race. But although Achilles can run 10 times faster than the Tortoise, he can never surpass the Tortoise because, for every distance unit that Achilles runs, the Tortoise also runs 1/10 that distance. So whenever Achilles reaches a point where the Tortoise has been, the Tortoise has also moved slightly ahead. Although the conclusion that Achilles can never surpass the Tortoise is obviously false, there are many different proposed explanations for why the argument is flawed.

Here, the researchers explain that the paradox can be resolved by redefining velocity, so that the velocity of both runners is derived from the numerical order of their motion, rather than their displacement and direction in time. From this perspective, Achilles and the Tortoise move through space only, and Achilles can surpass Tortoise in space, though not in absolute time.

The researchers also briefly examine how this new view of time fits with how we intuitively perceive time. Many neurological studies have confirmed that we do have a sense of past, present, and future. This evidence has led to the proposal that the brain represents time with an internal “clock” that emits neural ticks (the “pacemaker-accumulator” model). However, some recent studies have challenged this traditional view, and suggest that the brain represents time in a spatially distributed way, by detecting the activation of different neural populations. Although we perceive events as occurring in the past, present, or future, these concepts may just be part of a psychological frame in which we experience material changes in space.

Finally, the researchers explain that this view of time does not look encouraging for time travelers.

“In our view, time travel into the past and future are not possible,” Sorli said. “One can travel in space only, and time is a numerical order of his motion.”


Explore further

Physicists investigate lower dimensions of the universe

More information:
Amrit Sorli, Davide Fiscaletti, and Dusan Klinar. “Replacing time with numerical order of material change resolves Zeno problems of motion.” Physics Essays, 24, 1 (2011). DOI: 10.4006/1.3525416

Amrit Sorli, Dusan Klinar, and Davide Fiscaletti. “New Insights into the Special Theory of Relativity.” Physics Essays 24, 2 (2011). To be published.

© 2010 PhysOrg.com

Citation: Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension (2011, April 25) retrieved 21 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
11 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 25, 2011
while it is simple enough for even an arm-chair philosopher to ponder, from the late Gene Rodenberry of Star Trek fame I did learn alot about the heavens, logic, science in general.

I've known for some years that Time and Distance have no substance. Time and Distance are the same thing from different perspectives, measuring the same thing with different scales.

Finally, that you say that there can be no such thing as Time travel is a phenomenal admission of truth, I applaud it and you. To be able to time travel would require the establishing and choosing of an object with a known and absolute position. This is clearly an impossibility.

1. there are no stationary objects in Space. everything moves;
2. there are no objects traveling a straight vector;

thanks very much.

Apr 25, 2011
A good night's reading of Kant's Space and time [The first part of the Critique of Pure Reason, the 'Transcendental Aesthetic] is worth every word..... the structure that we use to think by is essential in the forms of space and time...

6_6
Apr 25, 2011
this is my favorite article so far, puts in words what I've always concluded is the most reasonable and sensible view. an interesting note - Genesis indicates the universe itself as being a time-keeper: "Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years."
Literally a universe sized clock where all the parts have their movements.

Apr 25, 2011
Whilst I'm not a physicist I do at least know that the Lorentz transformation requires time to be treated differently from the spatial dimensions, ie: Minkowski space *is* 3D + T.

Apr 25, 2011
In dense aether model of space-time with water surface the space dimension corresponds the direction parallel with water surface, the time dimension corresponds the direction perpendicular to water surface. It explains, why we can move in space easily, but not in time. And it illustrates too, why time always has an arrow (density gradient) assigned, whereas the space not. The removal of time from physics may solve some isolated problems, but it will bring a much more problems in another areas, so it's not advantageous from utilitarian reasons.

Apr 25, 2011
In AWT the structure of space-time gradient is composed of pair time antiparallel time dimensions. The objects traveling in time into past will collapse, those traveling into future will expand instead bellow 2 cm dimensional scale, above it the time arrow is reversed.

http://www.aether...part.gif

It means, for every phenomena existing in dimensional scale above the scale of observer (wavelength of CMBR ~ 2 cm) exists anti-parallel phenomena, for which the entropic time arrow is reversed. Above 2 cm scale the pressure of radiation is balanced with gravity and the seeming expansion of space-time in visible light is balanced with collapse of space-time in radio waves.

You can predict quite wide range of new phenomena with this model, for example we can expect, the radiowaves will exert a negative pressure of radiation.

Apr 25, 2011
I've always thought time is/can be more akin to saying it's, "the measurement of entropy" from on relative distinction/place to another relative observer.

Mathematically it comes across thusly, in energy equations, etcetera...

Apr 25, 2011
In AWT the picture of Universe will change pronouncedly, when you would observe it at different wavelength.

In visible light the light of more distant sources will attenuate faster, than it corresponds ISL and it becomes reddish. In microwaves these phenomena disappear and the Universe would appear as flat, transparent and huge, as possible - no gravitational lens and CMBR shielding and Sunyaev-Zheldovitch effect disappears.

http://www.tgdail...t-at-all

In radiowaves the gravity lens will switch their refractive index and the free space between galaxies will focus the EM radiation, instead. The background radio emission, which is the component smoothly distributed across the whole sky, will appear more brighter, than corresponds the distance of source. And the remote galaxies will appear larger, not smaller (as the classical model of space-expansion implies).

http://arcade.gsf...006.html

Apr 25, 2011
Hmm. I pondered that time didn't exist before the big bang because nothing could change. It is only with the expansion associated with the big bang could time exist, because the distance between any components mandated that time was required to move from one to the other.

Apr 25, 2011
"This is clearly an impossibility."

Clearly you missed Clarke's First Law.

Apr 25, 2011
I've posted this before and I'll post it again, seeing as this article says what I've been saying sortof --> time is the result between two distinct bodies of energy interacting, and on it's smallest scale in a universe that has 0 movement and is absolute 0, there is no time, no need for it. In this universe we are constantly flowing through the zero point field and it is this constant motion which is ultimately the driving factor for a dimensionless time that doesn't run fluid universally but can occur at varying speeds --> when you move faster time slows to accommodate all of that extra interaction between your bodies of energy and other bodies of energy. Even if you have empty space and a stationary photon, the space is moving all around it and thus time is necessary.

Apr 25, 2011
Regarding the entropic time definition we should realize, it's energy density and distance scale dependent. Above 2 cm scale all density fluctuations of vacuum tend to agglomerate into larger pieces spontaneously because of gravity - this is the domain of relativity theory. Bellow this size the CMBR fluctuations tend to disperse all objects into smaller ones, instead. This is the domain of quantum mechanics theory, which doesn't recognize the gravity and in which the wave packets of all particles expand into infinity. The definition of time arrow by spontaneous entropy arrow will therefore depend on the dimensional scale used and the entropy of the Universe as a whole will not change - it's observer dependent. A primitive observers will perceive the Universe smaller and primitive too, whereas the more complex observers will perceive it larger and more complex. The intelligent life occupies the 2 cm dimensional scale just because this scale provides the highest stability in CMBR field.

Apr 25, 2011
beelize, honestly I don't understand what the hell you are talking about and this 2 cm figure is something that sounds purely pulled out of thin air. This last post made me laugh, seriously you think intelligence can't occupy a space under 2cm, I bet you a quantum computer could fit on a chip that small and it could contain all the software and components necessary to create an artificial life form. Your words are science babble mashed together hence the 1 ratings you've gotten for this... whatever the hell it is. If I wanted bogus theories that are amusing reads I would go to a conspiracy site and find plenty of gems of truth to ignore amongst an infinite pile of crap.

Apr 25, 2011
..if you have empty space and a stationary photon, the space is moving behind it and thus time is necessary.
IMO Sorli's definition of time is silly and tautological. You cannot define the time as a numerical order of material change in space, because this order is defined with light (or another energy spreading) in time. In AWT the existence of time cannot be separated from existence of space. We can imagine it like density fluctuations inside of dense gas. If this gas would be completely homogeneous, then we could see anything from it. But at the moment, when we can observe something, because some density gradients exist in it, then the reality will become oriented: the transverse waves of light will spread along the longer side of gradients (and they will define the space dimension in such way), whereas the longitudinal waves will prefer the shorter one. The existence of gradient implies the violation of symmetry of reality and its breaking into time and space dimensions.

Apr 25, 2011
you think intelligence can't occupy a space under 2cm
This boundary is not sharp, but the probability of spontaneous evolution of quantum computers (not saying about more complex forms of intelligence) is highly improbable at the terrestrial conditions. The existence of stable quantum computers is dependent on the human care, which will provide the shielding and cooling. The compatibility with wavelength of CMBR is the reason, why the highest number of living species reaches just the size up to 2 cm (insect, plankton) and why human brains operate just with neurons of the same size. The coastal shape, the surface of clouds, the shape of trees and leaves etc. are most richer for this dimensional scale, too.

Apr 25, 2011
The article seems to keep talking about "motion" and "change" without time. The example of the photon moving one Planck length in four dimensional space. So does this bring in the necessity of particles as history lines and require strong determinism?

Just when I was getting used to having free will again.

If a photon moved a Planck length in 4D between point 1 and 2 and struck something in just the right way, could it reflect back to point ? Why not?

Apr 25, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 25, 2011
..the theory of time as the fourth dimension of space is falsifiable..
Frankly I don't understand this stance at all. What Mr. Amrit Sorli basically does, he's trying to replace the time formulation with his own spatial one - and after then he is saying, the formulation of time as another dimension of space is wrong. Every theory has its weak and stronger parts. For example the concept of extradimensions is the best part of string theory and the four dimensional definition of space-time is the strongest part of relativity theory. It's not surprising, Einstein was so upset, when Minkowski published it in 1910 - it actually put the relativity into another level.

Apr 25, 2011
So if the Planck length is the minimum distance that a photon can move, and the speed of light is constant, and light cannot escape the gravity well of a black hole, then it must be that gravity is creating units of space in the path of the photon at a rate faster than (or at least as fast as) the photon can hop to the next unit. The speed of light would still be the speed limit for motion, but space would be created (or destroyed) spontaneously, like some sor to quantum foam. Would that be what quantum gravity is about?

Gravity could also be thought of as dragging space into the black hole, but that would imply motion, which leads back to the speed of light being exceeded. Dragging is not necessary to get things to fall into the black hole. If gravity creates more units of space on the far side of an object in a gravity well, and destroys them on the near side, then space would act like a conveyor belt toward the center, without necessarily having any true motion of the object.


Apr 25, 2011
..the universe doesn't revolve around your ability to observe, it isn't observer dependent, it still is here long before anybody ever came along to look and notice something..
I'm saying, the wavelength of CMBR enabled to evolve human brain neurons of the same size, which makes the Universe symmetric around human observer size. The distance scale of most chaotic portion of Universe (the CMBR photons) therefore corresponds the distance scale of most complex portion of it (it's the human brain). I'm opened to admit the exception for your brain, though - if you insist on it.

Apr 25, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 25, 2011
I guess "creating" units of space is not right. If units of space are constantly popping into and out of existence on their own, then gravity could be defined as the tendency of units of space to persist. The stronger the gravity (i.e., the closer to a massive object), the less likely the unit of space will persist, so other objects will tend to remain close. The farther from a massive object, the more likely that units of space will persist.

Maybe that could account for dark energy; all you need is a lot of space between objects, which is what you have in intergalactic space, and even moreso between galaxy clusters.

Apr 25, 2011
If there is anti-matter and anti-particles, shouldn't there be anti-time?

Apr 25, 2011
what looks like things popping in and out of existence is just our most microscopic view of things and if we could see even further to smaller things we'd see that there are smaller forms of energy that make this all happen. Seriously things do not pop in and out of existence, that is an illusion caused by having a limited view of what is really happening. That is what your zero point field is all about. Who knows perhaps neutrino radiation has a huge role to play in the universes accelerated expansion, produced by the nature of fusion and fission reactions. Neutrinos are not inert there is something very important about the fact that they are so ghostly and can transition through matter with only very weak interaction. I would think that most of what there is to discover in particle physics are more and more such ghostly things but I can tell you that aether, is not one of them and never will be. If you wanna convince me show me one damn innovation this theory has produced?

Apr 25, 2011
Give me one thing this theory discovers that hasn't been already discovered by some other theory?
AWT is general theory and it doesn't predict well the particular phenomena (which are maintained well with particular theories). But the concepts of time and space are explained in it quite well. As an analogy of timeless and space-less universe can serve the underwater for surface ripples. Although such underwater is full of fishes, for surface waves it simply doesn't exist, because they cannot spread through it. It's too chaotic and disarranged for them. You can model the space-time formation in such environment with condensation of supercritical water vapor, for example. At the certain moment the stringy density fluctuations will emerge, which will enable the propagation of transverse waves at distance. On the picture bellow is an example of such space-time foam formed with condensing supercritical carbon dioxide fluid.

http://www1.chem....co24.jpg

Apr 25, 2011
Seriously things do not pop in and out of existence
Why not? Are you eternal or what? Actually most of phenomena and objects are temporary only - the only eternal stuff is the Universe itself in aether model. The exclusion of time from reality basically implies the statical Universe. I cannot imagine, how to model dynamical stuffs with statical ones.

Apr 25, 2011
If you wanna convince me show me one damn innovation this theory has produced
Just in this thread the following predictions of AWT are listed:

1) for radiowaves the Universe will exhibit blue shift
2) the gravitational lenses disperse the radiowaves
3) for microwaves the gravitational lens don't exist
4) the intensity of radiowave sources would violate the ISL in positive way
5) for microwaves the Sunyaev-Zheldowitch effect doesn't exist
6) the remote galaxies shrink with time, not expand
7) for radiowaves the pressure of radiation is negative

Which other theory predicts this? You should consider, Einstein predicted just the gravitational lensing and he become famous immediately. What should I expect at the case of confirmation of these effects? Seven Nobel prices or what? I'm not saying, I'm genius - but the AWT is not so silly, as you're pretending here all the time.

Apr 25, 2011
What is being suggested about time must also then hold true for 3D space.

Dimensionality is applied incrementalism, regardless of which dimension we speak of. All dimensions are measures of relative motions. This a purely a function of mind in relation to reality. Reality without an observer can only be discussed theoretically, same as Reality with one.

Non-dimensional Reality with infinite dimensions experienced by mind.

All phenomena are "real" experiences of mind using conceptual dimensionality to order experience. A self-sustaining causality loop we cannot escape for the rather obvious reason that we could not experience otherwise.

For those who don't understand the necessity of the observer, I ask how there can be relative measures without? With a purely hypothetical referent, imaginary baselines and such, it still requires someone to hypothesize. With so called "real" or "physical" referents, these have to be selected as the basis for all subsequent applied dimensionality.

Apr 25, 2011
Ah! Welcome back Aether-Wave Theory!

Apr 25, 2011
"Non-dimensional Reality with infinite dimensions experienced by mind" reveals non-locality/superposition/spooky actions as a matter of observer/sensory/bias/limit.

Apr 25, 2011
The time and space concepts are highly symetric. The wide class of animals (dolphins, bats, insects) are using longitudinal waves of sound instead of transverse waves of light and they're navigating through space-time with time intervals instead of space intervals. And their brains are quite comfortable with it. Even some blind people can navigate through space-time via time intervals. The space-time symmetric world is therefore not so distant from our reality, as many people believe.

http://www.youtub...iFMF4DHA

In aquatic ape hypothesis the people lived near water like dolphins during some time, so they evolved the good ability of sonar navigation.

Apr 25, 2011
For observations to proceed, we will have to examine the observer. Of course, that's what we've been doing all along, just unawares...

Apr 25, 2011
Seriously things do not pop in and out of existence, that is an illusion caused by having a limited view of what is really happening.
The helium atoms in vacuum are doing eternal motion in the same way, like the pollen grain in water by Brownian motion (as the result, the cooled helium never freeze at room pressure - it's macroscopic effect independent to observer). Many other phenomena (Casimir force, for example) have their exact counterparts in material environments. So I don't think, such phenomena can be explained just with our limited view. The conclusion is, the vacuum around us is physically moving and we are swimming in it like fishes in water or better to say, like the quantum vortices inside of superfluid - just its incredible density disallows us to observe it directly.

Apr 25, 2011
AWT is general theory and it doesn't predict well the particular phenomena (which are maintained well with particular theories).
Your whole "theory" is meaningless. You've never explained how to use it to derive anything. It's quite apparent you simply CLAIM everything is a result of the aether (only after the facts are established, otherwise), without bothering to explain why and how your "theory" supposedly works.

The sad part is the less knowledgeable and less experienced readers fall for your tricks and (at least for awhile) mistakenly believe you have some expertise, You are a fraud and a con artist, without conscience or shame.

"Anyone who thinks they're important is usually just a pompous moron who can't deal with his or her own pathetic insignificance and the fact that what they do is meaningless and inconsequential."
- William Thomas


Apr 25, 2011
You've never explained how to use it to derive anything.
Just in this thread the following predictions of AWT are listed:

1) for radiowaves the Universe will exhibit blue shift
2) the gravitational lenses disperse the radiowaves
3) for microwaves the gravitational lens don't exist
4) the intensity of radiowave sources would violate the ISL in positive way
5) for microwaves the Sunyaev-Zheldowitch effect doesn't exist
6) the remote galaxies shrink with time, not expand
7) for radiowaves the pressure of radiation is negative

Which other theory predicts this? Consider the point 1) for example - this is how the waves are dispersing at the water surface. The waves of wavelength larger than the capillary waves are dispersing toward longer wavelengths, the waves of shorter wavelengths are shrinking their wavelength even more:

http://www.aether...ples.jpg

Why the light waves couldn't behave in the same way?

Apr 25, 2011
"Anyone who thinks they're important is usually just a pompous moron who can't deal with his or her own pathetic insignificance and the fact that what they do is meaningless and inconsequential."
- William Thomas

"..When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him..."

Jonathan Swift

Frankly, the citations aren't the best way, how to (dis)prove something. Which phenomena violates the dense aether model of vacuum in your opinion?

Apr 25, 2011
In the InterPositional model, lambda is superimposed with the density acceleration factor timescale (DAFT) resulting in radiation balance with the cross space vector across all 4 dimensions except near the dual singularities (+/-) which resonate with only the green bosons as predicted by the stringless axiom.

Apr 25, 2011
You are such a moron.

1) for radiowaves the Universe will exhibit blue shift
"if radio waves are shifted into the ultraviolet part of the spectrum, we still say that the light is redshifted "

http://coolcosmos...ift.html

2) the gravitational lenses disperse the radiowaves
"Strong lenses have been observed in radio and x-ray regimes as well."

http://en.wikiped...nal_lens

3) for microwaves the gravitational lens don't exist
"The basic reason for the small amplitude of this effect is that gravitational lensing preserves surface brightness density. In the case of discrete sources, this sort of effect can result in magnification, but it's not something that will induce anisotropies in a uniform background."

http://home.fnal....ect.html

Need I go on?

Apr 25, 2011
Finally, that you say that there can be no such thing as Time travel is a phenomenal admission of truth, I applaud it and you. To be able to time travel would require the establishing and choosing of an object with a known and absolute position. This is clearly an impossibility.

1. there are no stationary objects in Space. everything moves;
2. there are no objects traveling a straight vector;

thanks very much.
What you said up until time travel sounded good. Stick around for fifty years and you will be proven wrong about time traveling into the past.

Apr 25, 2011
.."if radio waves are shifted into the ultraviolet part of the spectrum, we still say that the light is redshifted - shifted toward lower frequencies"..
So shift to ultraviolet part of spectrum is the shift toward lower frequencies? Wow...

OK, where's the boundary of the "red-shift" concept, after then? Where is the wavelength of the "red"? If infrared waves are shifted into the ultraviolet part of the spectrum, can we still say, that the light is redshifted?

Apr 25, 2011
.."if radio waves are shifted into the ultraviolet part of the spectrum, we still say that the light is redshifted"..
OK, where's the boundary of the "red-shift" concept, after then? Where is the wavelength of the "red"? If infrared waves are shifted into the ultraviolet part of the spectrum, can we still say, that the light is redshifted?
Moron. What's this got to do with your "prediction?" You're just trying to distract from the fact that I just showed everyone how stupid you are.

Your "predictions" are WRONG and you're a MORON.

Apr 25, 2011
In regards to entanglement, would it be one photon occupying two locations on the same time point or would two photons sharing the same time point disassociated with position ... is Schrödinger's cat dead or alive anywhere at any time?
This article doesn't do much to express non-Newtonian physics as I see.

Apr 25, 2011
The speed in which things change does slow down if we change faster.
(just trying to say it without using 'time')

I don't see how they plan to explain the speed of time based on your relative speed.

I don't buy it.


Apr 25, 2011
This article doesn't play well with Schrödinger's cat.

Apr 25, 2011
Which phenomena violates the dense aether model of vacuum in your opinion?


I'm sorry, but you haven't mathematically defined your aether wave theory, so who knows what violates it? That's like asking what observation violates string theory... Impossible to answer because string theory is not rigorously defined.

Apr 25, 2011
but you haven't mathematically defined your aether wave theory, so who knows what violates it?
Mathematic is based on formal logics. If you have theory defined logically, their logical deductions cannot violate it or any math, which is built on this logical framework later. For example, the order of Venus phases in heliocentric model is difficult to formulate mathematically, nevertheless it still provides the clear prediction and the way, how to falsify the geocentric model.

For example, string theory is using Lorentz symmetry postulate (of relativity) and the existence of extradimensions. Which it the logically flawed combination, because the extradimensions would manifest itself just with Lorentz symmetry violation. So we can say safely, string theory is fringe theory and it cannot lead into distinct solution, because it's based on the logically inconsistent postulate set. And you needn't to derive any equation for being able to recognize it.

Apr 25, 2011
but you haven't mathematically defined your aether wave theory, so who knows what violates it?
Mathematic is based on formal logics. If you have theory defined logically, their logical deductions cannot violate it or any math, which is built on this logical framework later. For example, the order of Venus phases in heliocentric model is difficult to formulate mathematically, nevertheless it still provides the clear prediction and the way, how to falsify the geocentric model.
All you're saying here is you have nothing to stand on - as there is no math (and there certainly isn't any "logic") to your "theory!"

Why do you insist on continually making such a fool of yourself?

"Anyone who thinks they're important is usually just a pompous moron who can't deal with his or her own pathetic insignificance and the fact that what they do is meaningless and inconsequential."
- William Thomas


Apr 25, 2011
Wow, this one has certainly stirred the pot!

Isn't time what we percieve as the expansion of the universe?

If the universe was not expanding, it wouldn't exist. It's an effect caused by motion, not actually a dimension.

Article is very interesting!

B2

Apr 25, 2011
Moron. What's this got to do with your "prediction?" You're just trying to distract from the fact that I just showed everyone how stupid you are.
If the shift toward ultraviolet part of spectrum is still the shift toward longer wavelength (as your source implies) - then yes, I've to admit, you proved I'm moron in logical way.

Apr 25, 2011
Isn't time what we percieve as the expansion of the universe? If the universe was not expanding, it wouldn't exist. It's an effect caused by motion, not actually a dimension.
Unfortunately the time is not what we are perceive as the expansion of the Universe. But we can define the time with entropy and if entropy of Universe is wavelength/distance scale dependent (as AWT implies), then the entropic time arrow at general scale doesn't exist in the same way, like the space. Which corresponds the notion of infinitely dense aether, which is so stochastic, no wave can spread through it in the same way, like the surface waves cannot spread in underwater. Such aether is experimentally undetectable, after then - although it could be still full of fishes and dolphins or whatever else... Such insight still doesn't differ from dispersive perspective at the water surface: at the sufficient distance every causal ripple disappear in the underwater noise.

Apr 25, 2011
I wonder what Dr. Who would say about this....

"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff."
One of my favorite, all-time sci-fi quotes. From the "Blink" episode. My favorite sci-fi episode of all sci-fi shows.

Apr 25, 2011
If the universe was not expanding, it wouldn't exist. It's an effect caused by motion, not actually a dimension.
If we would prove, the Universe is collapsing instead in the long-wavelength spectrum, will it prove, we don't exist? In AWT the expansion of Universe is dispersive effect of vacuum fluctuations. If these fluctuations would disappear, we wouldn't observe anything, not just time. Apparently the existence of CMBR noise is more fundamental, then the existence of entropic time in the same way, like the existence of water is more fundamental, than the existence of water surface (in supercritical water no surface exists).

Apr 25, 2011
.. as there is no math (and there certainly isn't any "logic") to your "theory!"..
The dispersion of ripples at the water surface cannot be described with formal math in deterministic way - nevertheless it still has some logics in it. The physicists are ignoring the emergent multiparticle phenomena systematically just because of the absence of reliable models - but it doesn't mean, these phenomena doesn't exist. We exhausted nearly all meaningful ways, how to describe universe in deterministic way, so I'm trying to draw inspiration from these indeterministic ones.

Apr 25, 2011
If the shift toward ultraviolet part of spectrum is still the shift toward longer wavelength (as your source implies) - then yes, I've to admit, you proved I'm moron in logical way.
Okay, my first reference had it backwards (even though it's from caltech!).

A blueshift is any decrease in wavelength (increase in frequency); the opposite effect is referred to as redshift.

http://en.wikiped...lueshift

But this doesn't change the fact that your prediction is wrong.

Radio galaxies redshift:

"The Spitzer High Redshift Radio Galaxy Survey"

http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.1385

So you're still a moron.


Apr 25, 2011
This is totally consistent, as far as I can tell, with the cosmology of Alfred North Whitehead, as explained in his masterwork, Process and Reality. I still think that guy had it figured out, read it if you can.

Apr 25, 2011
.."The Spitzer High Redshift Radio Galaxy Survey"..
I'm quite sure about red-shift regarding the distributed radiowave background. But I'm not so sure regarding the negative refraction of radiowaves with gravitational lens. We should realize, the radiowaves are spreading in inverse space-time, so that their refraction with black holes is negative from perspective of these black holes - but from our perspective it still appears positive. After all, the same effect could explain the positive rest mass of antimatter at the high energy spectrum. At the water surface the celerity curve doesn't go through inversion, just through the infimum. The math will not save you from sign inversion, if you haven't robust logical model on the mind.

http://hyperphysi...ngth.gif

Apr 25, 2011
The dispersive model of Universe expansion is quite apparent for distant galaxies in Hubble deep field, which appear much larger, than the galaxies in our proximity.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.4956

In this case the mainstream physics recognized quite correctly, they appear larger, because their light is blurred with the CMBR noise in the same way, like the distant lights observed through fog. The question only is, why the red shift isn't explained with dispersion in the same way?

But recently we are observed many well developed galaxies in the Hubble deep field, which excludes the possibility, such galaxies could evolve during Big Bang. If we have galaxies older than the visible part of Universe and the red shift, then the tired light model is the only feasible explanation.

Apr 25, 2011
This is totally consistent, as far as I can tell, with the cosmology of Alfred North Whitehead, as explained in his masterwork, Process and Reality.

The atemporal universe concept of A. Sorli or Whitehead is not new in physics at all. These atemporal ideas we can find in work of J.A. Wheeler, D. Bohm, J. Barbour, P.Yourgrau, Dennis A. Wright, P. Lynds, Ron Larther and many others. But I'm still missing the testable predictions with atemporal approach. The explanation of Zenos paradox is not enough, because we have other interpretations, which are explaining it as well and they even lead into testable predictions (compare the quantum Zeno's effect)

http://en.wikiped...o_effect

We can say, whole the quantum mechanics is basically atemporal, because the immediate values of wave function aren't observable directly from outside of quantum objects. Therefore in quantum world the atemporal model of universe is of much larger relevance, than in relativity world.

Apr 25, 2011
There's one huge difference between space and time. I cannot change the speed I travel in time, and until someone can, there is no way time can be categorised as spacial.

Apr 25, 2011
i really enjoyed this article. this is what science is about. One might gather that they are saying time is a human tool. They gave a solution that reminds me of doing proofs in geometry class, and that is the way real facts work.

Apr 25, 2011
I cannot change the speed I travel in time
Relativity theory says, you can - well, relatively. You just shouldn't be lazy and you should move a bit. If you're lazy, you should visit a deep mine at least.

Apr 25, 2011
i really enjoyed this article. this is what science is about.
A. Sorli has been downvoted regularly at PhysOrg forum just with the people, who are visiting PO most often by now.

Apr 25, 2011
..t has only a mathematical value, and no primary physical existence..
Space s suffers with the same problem. We can measure the volume of saucer, yes - but what will remain, if we remove the vessel? I can paraphrase easily, we aren't measuring distances, but the sequence of objects existing in time. If one of objects disappears during measurement, then the whole distance measurement has no meaning and the space remains undefined. Space quantity has its meaning only as a dual quantity of time.

Apr 25, 2011
Tesla agrees. Will this take other 100 years discussion?
Can someone imagine a clock inside a clock? Yes. But they are 2 Clocks and not one Right? Space has a lot of clocks. Observers exist in their own Space Dimension with their own clocks but they can sync with other clocks. Let them exist in their own Space Dimension at a given clock frequency and let them travel without Time in Time.
How does this Sound? :)

Apr 25, 2011
No time - only now. I think the universe can see that we finally get it, that time is just an illusion. I bet the unified theory gets a little easier without the time "wrench-in-the-works".

Apr 25, 2011
Thank god. Can we stop talking about time travel now?

I've been arguing for years that our universe does not include any time component. Instead, we care about ; or the difference between two observed states of the universe. Our universe is 3D+.

Apr 25, 2011
These people are too smart for their own good. So time is fake? or is it to much for me to wrap my head around.

Apr 25, 2011
This article must sound awfully familiar if you've read my comments on time in other threads. I also got low marks from all you physics types. You don't need to be a physicist to have insight into the truth, in fact it might even prevent you from seeing some truths.

All I can say is I told you so.

Apr 25, 2011
Here is what I said in another thread:
'Big Bang simulated in metamaterial shows time travel is impossible'

As I've said before and received low marks for:
Time travel is impossible. Physics understanding of time leaves much to be desired and is probably wrong. Now is simultaneous everywhere, and there is only now. The passage of time is purely perceptual and relative, measured by benchmarks. Ours are the speed of chemical reactions and any changes we perceive in the passage of time anywhere is just a change in the speed of our benchmarks, not a change in time.

This article shows that physics is starting to learn a bit about time.


I've also said: there aren't lots of dimensions as string theory requires, time is not the 4th dimension, you can time travel to the future but only by existing in every intermediate instant, wormholes may exist but will only allow spatial travel not time travel and the universe is a sphere

Apr 25, 2011
More on beelize54's stupidity:

the radiowaves are spreading in inverse space-time,
What the heck are you going on about here? Are you suggesting time moves backwards for radio waves? How could we detect them then?

4) the intensity of radiowave sources would violate the ISL in positive way
"In free space, all electromagnetic waves (radio, light, X-rays, etc.) obey the inverse-square law"

http://en.wikiped...pagation

5) for microwaves the Sunyaev-Zheldowitch effect doesn't exist
What now? The SZ effect is all about microwaves.

"The SunyaevZel'dovich effect is the result of high energy electrons distorting the cosmic microwave background radiation through inverse Compton scattering,"

http://en.wikiped...h_effect

6) the remote galaxies shrink with time, not expand
Really? That's SO-O-O dumb! Maybe you think you can put one in your pocket?

cont...

Apr 25, 2011
7) for radiowaves the pressure of radiation is negative
What does this even mean? Are you suggesting radio waves are negative energy now?

So much for you predictions...

My prediction is: You will continue to write mindless drivel about aether. Let's see who is right.

Apr 25, 2011
Congratulations on the article, Amrit. I'll have to add my two cents though:
Humanity treats time as a linear progression from past to future because it is foundational to the narrative function that is the basis of serial cause and effect rationality. The problem is physically modeling it as such. It is not that the present moves from past to future, but that the changing configuration of what exists, turns the future into the past. We don't travel the fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. The present is the constant and it is the events which come and go. Physically, past and future do not exist, because the same energy is just changing configurations. As an effect of motion, time, rate of change, is similar to temperature, level of activity.
Quantum mechanics uses an external, absolute clock because it admits simultaneity and so the process goes from past simultaneous configurations to future ones.

Apr 25, 2011
Relativity models time as part of the four dimensional geometry, in which points in space and time exist relative to one another and there is no absolute time.
If we were to eliminate the external clock from QM and just consider time as the dynamic, it is the collapsing of future probabilities which leads to current actualities. While all input into any event exists prior to its occurrence, the lightcone of this input only comes together at the point of occurrence. So while all physical laws deciding the outcome are deterministic, the total input cannot be known prior to the occurrence, so it is still probabilistic. Even if there were a method of faster than light communication to gather knowledge of all input prior to an occurrence, then the same faster than light potential could exist for information affecting that outcome and so the problem would be repeated.

Apr 26, 2011
Ah come on guys. If some scientist wants to stack events and not measure the time between them, that's fine with me. However, I need 8 hours of rest every night.. and we'll still be able to measure the 'age' of materials by the determining the amount of decay in certain of the elements that exist within them.

Apr 26, 2011
"The universe doesn't revolve around your ability to observe, it isn't observer dependent, it still is here long before anybody ever came along to look and notice something."

^Talk about an unfalsifiable belief...

Apr 26, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 26, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 26, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 26, 2011
I cannot change the speed I travel in time, and until someone can,
You can. Go really really really fast. Then you travel slower in time than those you left behind.

Changing the direction you travel in time is another and if you had said that I would have rated you five instead of a one.

Ethelred

Apr 26, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 26, 2011
Whilst I'm not a physicist I do at least know that the Lorentz transformation requires time to be treated differently from the spatial dimensions, ie: Minkowski space *is* 3D + T.


I was thinking the same thing -- all the useful results from Minkowski space come from treating the time and space coordinates differently.

Apr 26, 2011
I agree Lorentzian contraction isn't "real" because even approaching C the object doesn't locally perceive any change in time or physical contraction. From our low velocity inertial frame we perceive contraction and spatial deceleration because like 2D stick figures that can not perceive 3d displacement, we can not perceive 4d displacement. beyond .707C the object appears to slow down while contracting faster. locally both frames still measure C, normal energy density and no time dilation because these can only be revealed by relative measure. The biggest consequence may not be at the astronomical scale and increased energy density for acceleration or equivalently gravity wells but at the ano scale where Casimir supression causes lower energy density. Here we can find an explanation for condensed gas like deuterium ice or fractional hydrogen because now we are loading gas into larger "volumes" of space than should exist given exterior dimensions - paralell parking gas on the time axis

Apr 26, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 26, 2011
A good night's reading of Kant's Space and time [The first part of the Critique of Pure Reason, the 'Transcendental Aesthetic] is worth every word..... the structure that we use to think by is essential in the forms of space and time...


Yes,.... he defined 'phenomenal reality' as that conceptualized,... i.e subjected to a-priori intuitions of mind, ...space, time, causality. An intuitive understanding of reality necessarily implies that is has been conformed within this conceptual structure. This may be an issue wrt intuitive understanding, because unconceprualized reality (noumenal reality),... may not contain these a-prior subjective artifacts of the mind, yet observations still must be made consistent for science to make predictions. Enter Bohr, who in effect rediscovered Kant as the essential point of the Copenhagen interpretation.

Apr 26, 2011
To me, what we are used to calling "time" is a ratio comparing two instances of change. In an example, one of them is the rotation of a second or minute hand on an analog clock, and the other is the movement of a runner along a track. We say the runner covered a quarter mile in a minute, but really we are comparing the distance of 1/4 mile with the distance between minute markings on the clockface. Where is the time? It's not being measured - just two measurements of spatial dimensions only.

For more of my thoughts on this:
http://fractalica...onos.htm

Apr 26, 2011
Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates.
Anybody else picture Christopher Reeve going back to save Lois Lane when they read this comment? Funny stuff.

@Ethelred:
I cannot change the speed I travel in time, and until someone can,

You can. Go really really really fast. Then you travel slower in time than those you left behind.
Changing the direction you travel in time is another and if you had said that I would have rated you five instead of a one.
What about Godel's CTLs? Although I guess you aren't really changing direction as much as pushing forward back. Hmmm, I'm going hungry.

Apr 26, 2011
They're spreading like the tachyons
Are you kidding me? Tachyons are (highly) hypothetical FTL particles which generally mean there's an instability in your theory.

"The appearance of tachyons is a potentially lethal problem for any theory"

http://en.wikiped...ensation

And you didn't answer the question: "How could we detect them then?" ...as we detect the CMBR but tachyons are undetectable.

The CMBR consists of ordinary thermal radiation (like the hot air in your brain).

their speed will decrease, whereas the waves of longer wavelength will move faster
Idiot. Electromagnetic waves move at one speed relative to any observer (the speed of light).

IMO the photons of radiowaves are dispersed fast in the CMBR field
Define, "fast."

so they're behaving like the unstable expanding tachyons
Yeah, there's an "instability" here alright (sarcasm).

Apr 26, 2011
the very distant galaxies appear extraordinarily large in general
Idiot.

"The faintest galaxies visible with the Hubble Space Telescope were only a few billion light years from us when they emitted their light. This means that very distant galaxies look much larger than you would normally expect as if they were only about 2 or 3 billion light years from us"

http://www.atlaso...ift.html

And your reference was written by a schoolteacher and a geologist (not cosmologists).

the short wavelength photons are interacting with CMBR photons more
Drivel. Photons generally don't interact, except at very high energies (gamma-gamma physics).

These pairs are fermions
Idiot. The CMBR is thermal radiation (photons).

The GZK effect is responsible for it
Idiot. The GZK is in regards to high energy cosmic rays, not the low energy CMBR.

http://en.wikiped...in_limit

Apr 26, 2011
It's not only about Sunyaev Zel'dovich effect, but about integrated SachsWolf effect
Now you're just covering up your SZ blunder, but it's nice to see you did a little actual research. Now, read them and let me know if you see anything about your tachyons in the papers you referenced...

...No? Imagine that!

everything what we can observe/detect are the surface ripples
This is an example of a hyper-dimensional point of view. Your water spider is not in situ with the waves, but is above the waves. Therefore, your analogy fails.


Apr 26, 2011
So while all physical laws deciding the outcome are deterministic, the total input cannot be known prior to the occurrence, so it is still probabilistic.
Isn't this equivalent to assuming hidden variables in - for instance - radioactive decay?

I wonder whether the the conceptual problem isn't non-linear, chaotic systems. There is the same statistical behavior, based on a lack of clear reductionistic linear cause and effect, but change in scalar input, such as energy, complexity, instability, etc. being a factor.

Apr 26, 2011
Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates.
Anybody else picture Christopher Reeve going back to save Lois Lane when they read this comment? Funny stuff.


Is time the basis of motion, or motion the basis of time?
If you want to derive time from motion, all you really need is change of configuration, but how do you derive motion from time?
Time is deduced from measurements of motion. What exactly is time? Entropy? Change? Duration? Fourth dimension?
We perceive the present as moving from past events to future ones, but we also perceive the sun as traveling across the sky. It took awhile to understand how this process worked. It should be noted that epicycles were extremely mathematically precise. The problem was conceiving a physical explanation for why they were so effective.
So all I'm saying is that the present doesn't move, the events do.

Apr 26, 2011
And all I am saying is that Superman went back in time man!!!

But to your point, huh? Relativity wreaked havoc on time. Godel created a consistent solution within the EFE where CTL's could exist, and further, that one could travel one of these loops with the proper technology. "Hey, here's my past!"

In order for these researchers to be correct they need to address time in general relativity, specifically the implication that CTL's can exist in a consistent solution to the EFE.

@uba: Unfortunately Zephir can't be so easily dismissed. Good try though. (On the fermion point, I believe he is calling the particle-antiparticle pairs fermions not the CMBR photons. But he talks in circles so who knows.) I am anxious to see his replies.

yyz
Apr 26, 2011
@uba, Some good posts here; just a brief note:

"http://www.atlaso...ift.html

And your reference was written by a schoolteacher and a geologist (not cosmologists)."

The "Atlas of the Universe" site was (AFAIK) created and maintained (at least up to 2006) by Richard Powell, a British astrophysicist: http://www.atlaso.../me.html

Pretty cool site, too.

ZephirAWT-beelize54 wrote:

"But recently we are observed many well developed galaxies in the Hubble deep field, which excludes the possibility, such galaxies could evolve during Big Bang. If we have galaxies older than the visible part of Universe and the red shift, then the tired light model is the only feasible explanation."

Even though these observations have been explained to him, in some detail, here is yet another claim of objects in the universe OLDER than the universe.

Go figure.

Apr 26, 2011
I tried to add my work here which indicates that Time is a dimensional thing necessary for the mind to evolve

functionsofnature.com

check it out.

Apr 26, 2011
Time t cannot be dimension because according to the formalism
X4 = ict, time t cannot be X4. Time t is only a component of X4 that we obtain with clocks. With clocks we measure numerical order of change in space: this is time t.

Yours Amrit

What is Space-time ?
http://www.youtub...QBG2eouQ

Apr 26, 2011
time....the basics

Understanding Time
functionsofnature.com/time1.html

Apr 26, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 26, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 26, 2011
And all I am saying is that Superman went back in time man!!!... Relativity wreaked havoc on time....

The math describing relativity is accurate. The problem is when we attach a physical description to it and come up with warping spacetime, wormholes, blocktime, etc.
The math behind epicycles was also quite accurate. It was just when they tried to develop a physical theory to explain it and came up with giant cosmic gearwheels.
Ask yourself, when you pour a cup of coffee and eventually drink it; did you travel some meta-physical dimension from pouring it to finishing it, or did the event of your pouring it recede into the past, as you eventually consumed it?
Is there some physically real dimension of time, along which the present moves, or is it a changing configuration of what exists, such that each event recedes into the past, as the configuration of what exists changes? If you allow change in the present, then measures of duration are relative to physical context.

Apr 26, 2011
The math describing relativity is accurate. The problem is when we attach a physical description to it...
What are you talking about? We have, so far, demonstrated General Relativity to be an accurate theory to predict and explain observations we make in the physical world. If you don't "attach" it to the physical world it is just a set of equations.

Now, if you are referring to the problem with finding the physical "cause" of relativity, that is where if these guys are right we would need to adjust GR since it allows for CTLs and the like.

The rest of what you say is just babble.

Apr 26, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 26, 2011
I'm with rwinners. Replacing "time" with "change" is purely cosmetic. So if the previous state of the Universe was X0, and the new one is X1 obtained by the change function F with X1=F(X1)... Applying this recursively, don't you implicitly obtain a state-space model with X[t]=F(X[t-1])?

You're just replacing God's loop with infinite recursion. I sure hope the Universe's call stack is huge! Unless it features some form of tail-recursion optimization, which is... you guessed it, a loop.

Apr 26, 2011
I was kidding but the main point is that a total ordering of events/change is equivalent to an independent variable of time.

I understand thought that the concept may be more useful in cases where you can follow a chain of events forward and end up where you started -- closed time-like curves and the like -- but I thought existing theories of manifolds were already able to cope with that (being no expert on Riemannian geometry and its cousins).

Apr 27, 2011
@Pyle:

Unfortunately Zephir can't be so easily dismissed. Good try though.
Yeah, I know. I've seen others try and likewise fail. That's why I think he's a chatbot. I suspect that not even a completely insane person could learn as little as he has in the years he's been posting here. I was just venting some long held frustration. I really liked knocking down his "predictions" (it wasn't very hard to do).

(On the fermion point, I believe he is calling the particle-antiparticle pairs fermions not the CMBR photons.
I suspect as much too, but the CMBR (that we detect) is entirely made of thermal radiation (photons). If he wants to prove their source is ZPE, he's going to have to prove it locally.

But he talks in circles so who knows.)
Aint that the truth!

I am anxious to see his replies.
Why? It's just more of the same. When I really stump him, he just ignores those parts and carries on as if his errors don't exist.


Apr 27, 2011
@yyz:

Some good posts here;
Thank you.

The "Atlas of the Universe" site was (AFAIK) created and maintained (at least up to 2006) by Richard Powell, a British astrophysicist:
Right. That was my reference, not Zephir's. But I can see how you might get confused by the way I put the text together. The quote above the atlas link was from the atlas. My sentence below it referred to an earlier post of Zephir's.

Pretty cool site, too.
I love the atlas as it's well done, and layman accessible.

Zephir's stupid reference (written by the schoolteacher and geologist) was this one:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.4956

Even though these observations have been explained to him, in some detail, here is yet another claim of objects in the universe OLDER than the universe.
Right. That's why I'm hoping my responses to his "predictions" will slow him down a little. They're reference-able and absolute proof his "theory" is useless and meaningless.


Apr 27, 2011
Every hyperdimensional theory...
This is just more proof you're a moron.

"Hyperdimensional physics is not taught in any recognized institution of learning anywhere in the world."

http://en.wikiped..._physics

Of course, it's standard, i.e. mainstream science compliant explanation of CMBR dispersion.
To which particle/antiparticle pairs do you refer?

It seems, I'm the only person on the world, who actually understands space-time, extradimensions and tachyons in this moment.
That's because you're the only one living in your own little world.

Rational arguments simply don't work here.
How would you know? You've never tried one.

The math describing relativity is accurate. The problem is...
I gave you every chance to explain the value of your "theory" and explain how it works. You admitted your "theory" was useless! And, explain that it works by using other theories!


Apr 27, 2011
It depend on
It's: It depends on.

Did you see the little 's' I added to "depend?" That's because that's proper grammar. Have you ever thought to learn proper grammar? ...no?

Not only are your posts void of any real science, they're indecipherable gobbledygook, as well.

Apr 27, 2011
Its interesting that the Vesta AWITBS sockpuppet didn't even last one day. I read it, gave it the highly deserved one, looked at the profile and there weren't any posts. All I have to do right now is post this and refresh the page and I will have made a post about a nonentity.

Except that the cheater will still be here under another name. I guess he was under the delusion that no one knew what was going on since we had yet to have another sockpuppet war with the rat bastard.

He behaved himself for months and now he has THREE different names on this one thread. That is what we get for thinking he might have changed.

So whichever moderator that banned VestaZ deserves a cheer. Of course we would like to give THREE cheers for three bannings. But beelize54 is still here and ZephirAWT is still here with rubbish about wave on water and the usual ludicrous claims of being a genius because he is picked on while proving with each post that he is just plain wrong.

Ethelred

Apr 27, 2011
what looks like things popping in and out of existence is just our most microscopic view of things and if we could see even further to smaller things we'd see that there are smaller forms of energy that make this all happen. Seriously things do not pop in and out of existence, that is an illusion caused by having a limited view of what is really happening. That is what your zero point field is all about.
...
but I can tell you that aether, is not one of them and never will be. If you wanna convince me show me one damn innovation this theory has produced?


stealthc, I thought you were replying to my post about units of space being created/destroyed, but then you said this thing about aether, so I'm not sure. I do not bother to read most of the impenetrable aether stuff.

Anyway, I am a complete layman in physics and math, but I get that the popping in and out is more metaphor than real. At that level, though, it works to get the concept across.

yyz
Apr 27, 2011
@uba

Apologies for my "Atlas of the Universe" mixup & thanks for setting me straight.

But yeah, I've seen him ref the Unzicker-Fabian paper multiple times (myself and others here have pointed out some of its flaws to on several occasions). What's interesting is his occasional practice of referring to some exotic, dense theoretical paper in PRL or ApJ and such and claim that it backs up some wild claim of his (this while he has already admitted that this knowledge of mathematics, especially at these levels, is lacking). Better yet, sometimes they refute his claims!

Great to hear VestaZ is history. Usually when Zeyphir's posts are getting pounded rather thoroughly, a few new sockpuppets appear to parrot his claims. This is (sometimes) followed with a period of angry posts ('your're all ignorant trolls' etc.) and then, occasionally, some blessed silence. Here's hoping for *blessed silence*. :^)


yyz
Apr 27, 2011
Typo - (this while he has already admitted that *his* knowledge of mathematics, especially at these levels, is lacking)

Apr 27, 2011
Bravo uba! Bravo Ethelred! Bravo yyz!

@uba - regarding his replies, although fleeting (Bravo moderator!) , weren't they precious?. You deserve some credit for quoting them before they were lost forever. ;)

Apr 27, 2011
I have an idea for a time machine. It comes from my lack of understanding on what antimatter time reversal could mean. Here it goes:

Instantly convert a human into antimatter inside a vacuum chamber. I have no earthly clue as to /how/ that could possibly be done, but let's just say it's possible in principle (feel free to critique the feasibility, though). The object now travels back in time. Since parity is reversed, could it also move "backwards" in space, thus following the past trajectory of Earth through space?

Inside the vacuum chamber, put a portable, opposite, version of the device in the chamber so the time traveler can reverse the process and "stop" traveling backwards and "enter" its new "present time".

Even if this were all possible in theory, I can't imagine how the object could move backwards in time any faster than time normally proceeds. So, the further back you want to go, the longer you have to wait, I guess. Also, once travels stops; annihilations???

Apr 27, 2011
I'm with rwinners. Replacing "time" with "change" is purely cosmetic. So if the previous state of the Universe was X0, and the new one is X1 obtained by the change function F with X1=F(X1)... Applying this recursively, don't you implicitly obtain a state-space model with X[t]=F(X[t-1])?

You're just replacing God's loop with infinite recursion. I sure hope the Universe's call stack is huge! Unless it features some form of tail-recursion optimization, which is... you guessed it, a loop.


Dear Sir,

we are not replacing time with change,
we are showing time we measure with clocks is numerical order of change.

Yours Amrit

Apr 27, 2011
DingDongDog

I looked at your website. Are you serious? Or is it intentional word wuze? I ask because it IS word wuze. You are using words without any fact based meaning attached to them at any time. "ZPE spin momentum singularity" is about as meaningless a noise as I have seen on this site. Even the AWITBS crap has more relevance to reality.

Words exist to communicate about facts and ideas. When they are detached from the facts or the original ideas they were created to communicate about they no longer have any meaning. For instance

Spin momentum singularity has NO meaning at all in a single point. Spin in the sense of angular momentum only has reality in comparison to the rest of the universe. Without OTHER objects there is no angular momentum. GR shows this and so far the evidence supports this.

Please try to attach your concept to FACTS so they can have some meaning. Spinning out meaningless words just to fill space is a waste of time or change in terms of this article

Ethelred

Apr 27, 2011
You imagine sitting with your son or daughter on the sofa and discussing on time. As a physicist you are aware you sit inside a quantum vacuum made of out QS volume of Planck. Inside Volume of Plank there is no change and so no numerical order of change. Change and numerical order (time) start at scale of Planck. In quantum vacuum before, now and after exist only in a sense of numerical order, means duration of an event is exclusively a mathematical quantity. From this perspective your life is longer than the life of your child but only in a mathematical sense. From this perspective universe age has only a mathematical dimension. In Princeton Einstein and Gödel has been discussed walking back home about universe without time.

Apr 27, 2011
In dense aether model of space-time with water surface the space dimension corresponds the direction parallel with water surface, the time dimension corresponds the direction perpendicular to water surface. It explains, why we can move in space easily, but not in time. And it illustrates too, why time always has an arrow (density gradient) assigned, whereas the space not. The removal of time from physics may solve some isolated problems, but it will bring a much more problems in another areas, so it's not advantageous from utilitarian reasons.


Fish can move through Water-space the same way that Heavenly-objects and space-ships can move through Space-space.

As for Time, we do move in Time (positive increments only) but not fast enough to get anywhere quickly.

Time is an element of the vector[] to determine the relative position of one object to another. It cant be absolute bc we dont know where we are; we have no knowledge of what is where.

Apr 27, 2011
Ethelred if you have better solution for time let us know, be aware that according to the formalism X4 = ict time t is not X4.

Apr 27, 2011
Are you claiming to be Dingdongdog or one of the many AWITBS clones? Otherwise what the hell are you replying to?

Ethelred

Apr 27, 2011
idknow
An experiment which proves duration of an event is not a physical quantity. You walk on the street 3,6 km. You need 1 hour to pass distance of 3,6km. Distance is physical quantity, duration is not because you do not walk in time; time is only a numerical order of your walk. 1 hour is 3600 seconds. Each step takes 1 second. 3600 seconds is a number that shows you numerical order of your motion on the distance of 3,6km. Same is with the fish moving in water.
We do not remove time from physics, we just give it right meaning based on experimental facts.

Apr 27, 2011
@Eth: Amrit Sorli is one of the authors of the paper. Do a Google Scholar search to look at some of his work. Based on what I read and his profile here I think this might be him.

@Amrit: Three questions.
(1)What are your thoughts on CTLs being allowed in GR as shown by Godel?

(2)Do you still believe, and if so how do you support? (ref 58J-2010-04-xx-01):
The process of continuous creation of particles in outer space increases the presence of mass in the universe, ends expansion and starts contraction.


(3)Also, regarding gravity, without gravity waves, does your theory lead to FTL gravitational effects?

So you know, I have a real problem with the two times in GR. My belief (intuitive only) is that CTLs are an artifact of the incompleteness of GR and that an enhancement of the theory is needed. (Godel pun intended, though everyone hates it when I do it.)

Apr 28, 2011
This post is a mix of stuff but is mainly in reply to Pyle but it inherently deals with Amrit.
@Eth: Amrit Sorli is one of the authors of the paper.
I didn't really care. I had not said a single word to him or about him. I was trying to find out why he thinks otherwise. He PMed me before that strange reply to my reply to Dingdong. Dingdong seems to living in his own special world. I am going to copy that reply to the other thread he is infesting.

I thought Amrit was an co-author but these are not his first posts here as is the case most of the time that a co-author chimes in.

AmritSorli
Member since: January 28, 2011, 9:48 am

His website
http://www.timele...rse.net/

It has a header image that does remind me of DingDongDog's website and that is not in his favor. Neither are quite the same as Electric Universe fans but there is an unfortunate similarity of abstract imagery.>>

Apr 28, 2011
From the website
For us, human beings, this means: the universe is an eternal here and now wherein time measured with clocks is merely a numerical order of change.
I don't see any value of simply replacing time with change. Change can't occur without time or time can't occur without change, though I am not sure about the latter. If there is no difference in the math except the labels why the effort to claim there is no time?

merely a numerical order of change.
Vs merely a numerical order of TIME. One is a meaningless replacement and the other fits human thinking.

Pyle if you saw my posts on MultiVerse and Math concepts you will note that in those time is just a numerical order. Which I find disturbing but I can live with it since it explains why something instead of nothing.

I think it is silly to replace the word TIME with CHANGE for no increase in understanding, or an improvement in the math or any predictions proceeding from the idea.

Ethelred

Apr 28, 2011
Pyle, I think I figured out just what the hell you mean by CTL. Closed Timelike Loops which apparently is usually referred as Closed Timelike Curves. I thought CTC require exotic matter of some kind. Such as a naked singularity.

Ethelred

Apr 28, 2011
What time is it?

Apr 28, 2011
And now for Amrit who seems to have been wanting this, I have no idea why he did but here goes:
idknow
Well neither do I understand that non word. I recommend rereading before posting and using a spell checker. I write in Notepad++ and I have the spell check plugin installed. The dictionary is old and often annoying but it does help and it extensible. It no longer bugs me about 'MultiVerse' for instance.

An experiment which proves duration of an event is not a physical quantity.
That is just playing games with words. Neither space nor time are physical quantities if you want to go that route.
You need 1 hour to pass distance of 3,6km. Distance is physical quantity
Saying it does not make it so. The same exact reasoning or rather bald statement works for time.

More and I hate the 1000 character destruction of discourse.

Apr 28, 2011
'You need 1 hour to pass distance of 3,6km. Time is physical quantity'

Playing games with words is a bad sign. Words describe facts for the purposes of communication. If all you can do is change the words you are not dealing with facts and are trying to use Proof by Definition to AVOID possibly inconvenient facts.

'Time is physical quantity, distance is not because you do not walk in space; position is only a numerical order of your walk through time.'

See what happens if you just replace words instead of dealing with facts?

'We do not remove position from physics, we just give it right meaning based on experimental facts.'

And again a simple replacement of time based vs your position based thinking shows that you are simply playing word games.

More

Apr 28, 2011
Time and Space are DIMENSIONS. The math using those dimensions WORKS. That no one understands time fully is a result of it simply being a property of the Universe just as Space is. We don't understand the why of space either but we have an intuitive ability to deal with BOTH despite that, probably because we evolved under those conditions. That Time and Space are interlocked in SR and GR is not intuitive because we cannot travel in time with same freedom as we do in space.

Either way they are just dimensions. Changing the labels without something of value coming from it is silly.

Ethelred

Apr 28, 2011
This is an old argument.

"Two contrasting viewpoints on time... One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence... The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure... within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled."

http://en.wikiped..._physics

Personally, I subscribe to the former view. The reason being; the only numerical sequence of events time is really tied to, is the speed of light. That is, every other sequence of events is relative to the speed of light, as observed locally.

Apr 28, 2011
Fundamental unit of time Planck time is derived from the photon motion, see our article: http://physicsess...rized=no
there is no a single experimental data time has physical existence. Do not understand me wrong, I do not say as Barbour: "time is an illusion", for me time exist but only as a math quantity.

Apr 28, 2011
there is no a single experimental data time has physical existence.
I disagree. I think time dilation proves time is a fundamental property of space.


Apr 28, 2011
I think time dilation proves time is a fundamental property of space - in which way?

Apr 28, 2011
I think time dilation proves time is a fundamental property of space - in which way?
Time is relative.

Apr 28, 2011
The fact, time is relative implies, the time is not a fundamental property of space - what's wrong on this statement?

Apr 28, 2011
Sorry everyone, I was a bit rushed yesterday and quite vague if you weren't me. Yes, by CTLs I meant Closed Timelike Loops, or Curves I'll use CTCs going forward. Godel showed that a universe was possible that was consistent with GR yet contained these CTCs where one could revist their past. Subsequently the exotics have been linked to CTCs, but my understanding was that Godel universes are just rotating with some special distribution of normal mass. Red shift data seems to indicate we don't live in a Godel universe.

Anyway, this idea of time being a numerical order of change is nice, but it doesn't deal with relativity so it seems pretty 19th century, as everyone has been saying. uba nailed it I think.

@Eth: regarding Amrit:
I had not said a single word to him or about him. I was trying to find out why he thinks otherwise.
My thought is Amrit was rushing to Zephir's aid according to the fringe theory honor code. Similar to a dog owner feeling kinship to another's dog.

Apr 28, 2011
btw, When your paper is cited 27 times in other papers that generally means good things. Unfortunately when all 27 citations were made by the authors of said paper it signals something else entirely.

Apr 28, 2011
Time is exactly the order of events: this is my conclusion
I don't understand, how the physical quantity defined in such way could be quantified. And because we can measure the time quantitativelly, it means, this definition is incomplete at best... :)

Apr 28, 2011
I disagree. I think time dilation proves time is a fundamental property of space.
No.
Time is relative.
No.
The fact, time is relative implies, the time is not a fundamental property of space - what's wrong on this statement?
Lots.

Those statements are wrong because Time is a property of SPACE_TIME not space. Time is not relative to speed because it is space-time. A single property with four dimensions.

There's only one user (with a lot of nicks) who exhibits this very special mastership of the comma rules.
Yes. Its the AWITBS guy. Zephyr. No doubt about it. He is an idiot. He proved in this one post.

Sorry this the only reply I have time for till I get back from work. Around midnight local. Disneyland daylight savings time. Not Disney World. The original.

Ethelred

Apr 28, 2011
Those statements are wrong because Time is a property of SPACE_TIME not space. Time is not relative to speed because it is space-time. A single property with four dimensions.
Mr. Semantics steps in it again. Nevertheless...

I'm with uba on this one. Time is relative. I don't think there is confusion in this statement. Yeah, yeah, yeah: time, space, space-time. Distance is relative too. So there Ethelred, thpppt! The measurement of spacetime, albeit length or duration, is relative to the frame of the observer.

Correct me if you want, but because GR works, the article's theory is bunk until they address it.

@Eth: btw, I loved your correction of "idknow" directed at Amrit. It was a commenter's nick, not a statement by AS. Funny stuff.

Apr 29, 2011
In physics time is a mathematical tool which help us to describe physical phenomena. Time is not relative, relative is velocity of material change. And "relativity" starts with massive particles; light has the same speed in all inertial systems, so no relativity by light, see our coming article "The now insights into the SR" - Physics Essays - AIP.

Apr 29, 2011
Mr. Semantics steps in it again. Nevertheless...
Bullshit. Semantics are what I try to avoid. This is not mere semantics. Space-time is very different way of looking at the Universe from idea of time being separate dimension from space.

I'm with uba on this one. Time is relative.
I am with Einstein on this one. It is all one thing.

So there Ethelred, thpppt!
Julie Andrews. And that is NOT a non-sequitor.

The measurement of spacetime, albeit length or duration, is relative to the frame of the observer.
Movement in Space-time has a fixed total. More movement in one means less in the other. Not thinking about it this way may be what is causing you guys to argue about it being relative or not. The total movement in all four dimensions is always the same. And yes it is relative. If nothing else movement in space-time is relative to the Universe as a whole. But you always move in space-time not just one dimension.

More

Apr 29, 2011
Correct me if you want, but because GR works, the article's theory is bunk until they address it.
Not really. GR works NOW. The rules might have been different in the first fractional moments of space-time. Most physicists are certain that the quantum rules were different IF there was BB. In Brane theory I suppose that would be different.

What I was trying to do is get people to think about space-time as a whole and not separate elements. Sometimes if you can change point of view you gain in insight. Sometimes you start haring off into the wilderness and never return. See Oliver K Manuel for an example.

More

Apr 29, 2011
I think the article is spitwadding. Interesting but not very meaningful at the moment and I suspect nothing will ever come from it. Besides bringing a bunch of Cranks out and Amrit's site looks more that a bit like a Crank site. It wouldn't be the first time a Physorg article was based on the ideas of a Crank. Oliver K. Manual was the central figure in one that I found while doing a search on him. Yes, there is a Physorg article on the Sun having an neutron star at the core.

Deep Impact data won't make a dent, scientist says
July 1, 2005
http://www.physor...899.html

And not one comment was made. Perhaps they weren't allowed in 2005. Heck he has TWO articles.

Scientist says neutron stars, not black holes, at center of galaxies
December 1, 2005
http://www.physor...658.html

More

Apr 29, 2011
@Eth: btw, I loved your correction of "idknow" directed at Amrit. It was a commenter's nick, not a statement by AS. Funny stuff.
Oops. I had just received a PM from Amrit and I thought he was responding to my question right above it. When I ran my draft through the spellcheck most of the spelling errors were his. So I thought that was just one more. Oh well maybe he will try Notepad++ anyway. It really does help using a spellcheck. Now if only it would tell me leave out words. I can see them easy the next day but its bloody hard for me when I am writing the post.

Ethelred

Apr 29, 2011
I predict this theory is correct (or at least much more correct than current accepted theory) and something WILL come of it.

Apr 29, 2011
n physics time is a mathematical tool which help us to describe physical phenomena.
In physics time is something we use because we experience literally every instance of our existence.

Time is not relative, relative is velocity of material change.
No. First it is speed, a scalar, and not velocity, a vector. Second both speed through space and time are relative to observers or the Universe as a whole or your point of origin if it is YOUR speed that you are dealing with.

And "relativity" starts with massive particles;
Well anything with mass OR without mass.

; light has the same speed in all inertial systems,
Inertial or accelerating.

so no relativity by light,
Tell that to a photon in the process of leaving a Black Hole boundary area. It will undergo relativistic redshift.

Relativity is NOT limited to SR. GR effects EVERYTHING including light.

Ethelred

Apr 29, 2011
Now if only it would tell me leave out words.
Yeah there I missed two words in a row. They were in my head but they never reached my fingers.

Should be

Now if only it would tell me -WHEN I- leave out words.

I didn't even do it on purpose and I was LOOKING for the damned mistake. I do it so bloody often. Its not a new problem for me either, that is my brain isn't dissolving. I have been doing this since I started on Maximum PC's Comport in 2000.

I am tempted to buy Dragon.

Ethelred

Apr 29, 2011
all theories that imply multidimensional dimensions (as for example string theory) are not falsifiable on experimental level because in all experiments we use 3D instruments. My research group is now developing 3D model that will connect GR and QM; Planck volume is 3D....this is the starting point.

Apr 29, 2011
pulling out of strong gravity light change frequency (gravitational red shift) but not velocity

Apr 29, 2011
Tell me something I didn't already know.

The redshift effect is still relativistic and NOT Newtonian.

It the Universe is more than 4D, space-time IS 4D not 3D, then any instruments we make are inherently more than 4D. The key is making instruments that can detect that. We can detect the curvature of space for instance. That is likely either occurring in a yet one more dimension or there is some kind of granularity of space and those grains are of variable size.

PMs are for personal discussions. I told you that already. This is not a personal discussion so quit trying to take something that should be public private. It is a complete waste of time for everyone here.

Want to discuss how to avoid that surprised look you have in your photo on your website then I can see that as being something to deal with privately. The science should stay here in public.

And I do have an answer to the photo if your interested.

Ethelred

Apr 29, 2011
The Tortoise paradox does not account for time in a correct manner - Achilles is not being granted the sufficient PERIOD of time needed in order to pass the tortoise. IMO this is a simple and straightforward explanation - it would have been a paradox if Achilles under the given conditions was capable of overtaking the tortoise !

That said: - In order better to understand the concept of timeless Universe - IMO it should be stressed that Timeless Universe must refer to "Noumenal World" out from which "Fenomenal World" is being "extracted or interfered with" by human mind and translated into this vivid impression of a "Real Physical World". In this perspective Noumenal Universe is timeless - and time can be defined as the order of material change in physical world - HOWEVER nothing is being said about how to define MATERIAL CHANGE ! What is changing ? IMO it is the mind (the observer) that integrates the "timeless events". This implicate that Time become a mind-related quality.

Apr 29, 2011
Temporal and Atemporal View in Physics
The existing temporal view in physics sees material changes taking place in space-time as a fundamental arena of the universe where time, past-present-future, is seen as the fourth dimension of space-time. This temporal view is the result of experiencing material changes within the framework of linear time, past-present-future, which is the fundamental psychological model of the mind through which an observer experiences the material world. In universe there is no linear time as a dimension of space. Quantum space is 3D (Planck Volume is 3D) and time t is a numerical mathematical order of material changes in a 3D space. This atemporal view is closer to the real physical world as the temporal view. It gives us a more adequate picture of physical reality; it is based on the observer that is conscious of his/her psychological time.

Apr 29, 2011
Here is a Zen Koan for physicists: ETERNITY = NOW
mind can not solve that
consciousness yes
by discovering inner psychological time
in a few years this view on time will enter "main stream".

Apr 29, 2011
It gives us a more adequate picture of physical reality; it is based on the observer that is conscious of his/her psychological time.


Then explain why GPS satellites work /perfectly/ when they compensate for 3D+T spacetime.

Apr 29, 2011
Amrit, thanks for responding. Sorry for my first comment not being so serious, as I did not anticipate you would take part in the discussion; though I'm glad you did.

I'd like to ask you one question. I get that you regard time as an ordering and not an axis through which particles travel. But locally, from the point of view of a particle and in its vicinity, taking that ordering of events that it encounters (t1 < t2 < t3...), shouldn't that total ordering implicitly define a field?

http://en.wikiped...ed_field

And so, conceptually it defines a space, a 4th dimension.

The question of whether such a dimension is "instanced" and fixed already (static Universe) or whether our Universe's rules destructively "update and replace" space as events happen is more of a metaphysical one (ie, "implementation details") and can't possibly be answered, so I don't mean to go there.

Apr 29, 2011
idknow, you wrote: "Time and Distance are the same thing from different perspectives, measuring the same thing with different scales."

Can you elucidate? Consider human conception. Prior to the conception, ovum and sperm occupy two unique spatial locations (non-coincident). The sperm could pass through a specified location (at one time). And, the ovum can pass the same location earlier (or later). While within parents, the two cannot occupy the same location simultaneously (without a consequential mess). Yet, once fertilized, the two do occupy the same location.

The distance between each of the ovuma and sperm (and the location of interest) can reduce value magnitude to zero. But, while in the two parents, the zero distance cannot be simultaneous. At fertilization, they do. I argue that distance is not the same as time, and time is independent of it. The 3D+T does exist as 4D universe. [I postulate another dimension - thought. Encompassing reality or fantasy, time separates.]

Apr 29, 2011
We have, so far, demonstrated General Relativity to be an accurate theory to predict and explain observations we make in the physical world. If you don't "attach" it to the physical world it is just a set of equations. Now, if you are referring to the problem with finding the physical "cause" of relativity, that is where if these guys are right we would need to adjust GR since it allows for CTLs and the like. The rest of what you say is just babble.

I guess I tuned out after this, but the conversation continues. We still exist in the present, but the earlier posts are fading into the past. The present doesn't move along some external dimension, it simply changes form and those areas with higher levels of activity change faster than those areas with lower levels of activity. Acceleration and gravity will slow rates of change. Probability precedes actuality. Future events become past events. This effect of time is relativistic, but it is still contained by what is physical.

Apr 29, 2011
Time is not an external dimension. It is the change of what exists.

Apr 30, 2011
yes there might be a link here, universe has its own numerical order (time), that we measure with clocks.

Amrit, thanks for responding. Sorry for my first comment not being so serious, as I did not anticipate you would take part in the discussion; though I'm glad you did.

I'd like to ask you one question. I get that you regard time as an ordering and not an axis through which particles travel. But locally, from the point of view of a particle and in its vicinity, taking that ordering of events that it encounters (t1 < t2 < t3...), shouldn't that total ordering implicitly define a field?

http://en.wikiped...ed_field

And so, conceptually it defines a space, a 4th dimension.


Apr 30, 2011
Regarding calculations of relative rate of clocks in GPS we have to impact: one of SR and one of GR. Special Relativity predicts according to formalism (2) that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 µs per day. A prediction by General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away. As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation according to the formalism (3) predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 µs per day.
The combination of these two relativistic effects means that the clocks on-board of each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 µs per day.
(formalism (2) of Selleri t'=t per Lotentz factor, form (3) see literature). All this can be described in 3D space.

Apr 30, 2011
Temporal and Atemporal View in Physics
There is little in physics above the quantum level that is not dependent on time. Even at the quantum level there is time. There just isn't an arrow of time at that level. So far nothing you have said is in anything except word replacement.

This temporal view is the result of experiencing material changes within the framework of linear time, past-present-future
And the fact that the math works.

which is the fundamental psychological model of the mind
Nonsense. The mind is biological and chemical. It functions according to the laws of the Universe and it evolved to fit those laws. Psychology is the study of the mind and NOT a process of the mind.

In universe there is no linear time as a dimension of space.
Nonsense. The math that uses that idea WORKS.

Quantum space is 3D (Planck Volume is 3D
Or 10D or 11D or whatever is the working flavor this week.>>

Apr 30, 2011
time t is a numerical mathematical order of material changes in a 3D space
Or the changes take place in time. Either way T is part of the equations and they work. Calling a 'numerical mathematical order' does not change that. The order is still the same thing as what we call time. It is silly to try to avoid using a perfectly functional word UNLESS there is something to gain from it. You have failed to show what is gained with your change of terminology. I know what is gained from considering time as a numerical order in my thinking and I have posted it here before. DO YOU know what is gained in YOUR thinking?

This atemporal view is closer to the real physical world as the temporal view.
Possibly but you have yet to show WHY it is.

It gives us a more adequate picture of physical reality
The math is still the same. I went over the concept before. Many times. Long before this article. The world still works out as having time to those that live in it.>>

Apr 30, 2011
it is based on the observer that is conscious of his/her psychological time.
Which is poor thinking. Psychological time is quite different from measurable time. How could not have noticed that something seem to take longer than others despite taking the exact same time by actually measurement?

Here is a Zen Koan for physicists: ETERNITY = NOW
Here is reality for Koans. There aren't for reasoning. They are for STOPPING reasoning so it doesn't get in the way of meditation. Usually they are STUPID ideas like the Sound of One Hand Clapping. Eternity does NOT equal now.

mind can not solve that
It just did. It was nonsense.

consciousness yes
Same thing. Or rather in humans consciousness and mind are just two words we use for the functioning of the brain. They are emergent properties and there is really no difference between the two words.

by discovering inner psychological time
You discover the way the brain works when it is focused vs bored.>>

Apr 30, 2011
in a few years this view on time will enter "main stream".
Many idiotic ideas have entered the mainstream. Astrology is just as silly as the idea that the mind or consciousness is somehow independent of the brain.

Fuzzy thinking is not science and treating time as a product of a spiritual mind instead something that a CHEMICAL brain experiences is pretty fuzzy thinking.

All this can be described in 3D space.
Not quite. Space-time is what it is described in. They are about time and space and therefor 3d space is insufficient. And in a 5D space-time gravity supposedly falls right out of the math. Which is why 5 or more dimensions are so popular in efforts to link quantum physics and GR.

Ethelred

Apr 30, 2011
Ethelred,
It's a question of whether time is a dimension along which events exist, aka. blocktime, or is time the rate of change, due to constant activity.
The difference is that in the first, the events and this dimension, are the constant, while the point of the present moves along them. With the second, the present is the constant and it is the events which coalesce out of probabilities and are replace by the process, such that it is the events going future to past.
While the entire basis of history and cause and effect logic are the direction of past to future, in order to create a physical theory to explain it, relativity uses the correlation of distance and duration to argue space and time are equivalent and the present is an illusion. While QM uses an external absolute change of instant measurements. The result is by projecting a deterministic past onto a probabilistic future, they end up in multiworlds.
On the other hand, if time is simply a collapse of probabilities, as the

Apr 30, 2011
physical reality evolves and is the future becoming the past, it retains the present as fundamental and allows physical laws to determine the course of events.
Also it retains free will, because if time goes past to future and we only exist at the moment of the present, then we can neither change the past, or affect the future, but if time is an effect of motion, then our input is integral to the events being created.

Apr 30, 2011
Your opinion on time?


A. Time measured with clocks is the fourth dimension of space. Space and time are physical realities in which we live.


B. Time measured with clocks is merely a numerical order of changes that take place in space. We live in space only, not in time.

Vote here: http://www.timele...erse.net

Apr 30, 2011
Your opinion on time?
My opinion is that NO ONES opinion is relevant to the way reality functions.

Time measured with clocks is merely a numerical order of changes that take place in space. We live in space only, not in time.
This is still living in time. A numerical oder of change that fits the physical laws of our universe is indistinguishable from time. It is not in our head that light has specific frequency of oscillation per unit of numerical order.

A and B are indistinguishable. Though A, as stated has the advantage of fitting GR and B is simply the product of you not understanding that a numerical order of change is still the same as A and thus the only thing wrong is your insistence on avoiding SR and GR which have space-time.

Now I must point out that you are evading what I say and ask.

It is silly to try to avoid using a perfectly functional word UNLESS there is something to gain from it.
What is gained? Please stop avoiding the question.

Ethelred

Apr 30, 2011
Ethelred all follows out of:
A numerical order of change that fits the physical laws of our universe is ((indistinguishable) (from)) time.

Apr 30, 2011
It is hard to make any sense of these comments when speculations such as CTLs, gravity waves and tachyons are treated as fact. Then for the conversation to degenerate into attempts to validate absolute velocity as a factor in time dilation as opposed to acceleration within gravitational fields just blurs any cognitive reality. Perhaps this article could be classified as a study in abstract zen philosophy and we can then re-focus our abilities on brewing better beer.


Apr 30, 2011
Time as a seperate dimension is not a Newtonian concept.

In the ancient world philosphers considered time as it's own dimension, with the notion that there is a beginning of time and an end of time.

This was well before Newton.

Given the fact that Newton was also an avid Bible scholar, he may have even gotten many of his ideas from the Bible.

Apr 30, 2011
Forgive my ignorance.

Time is not a spatial dimension, but a merely a transitory value assigned to objects moving in relation to each other in spacial dimensions ?


Apr 30, 2011
No Q_C. If anything I wonder how much Newton would have achieved if physics was his real interest, not his side hobby. I shudder to think what he would have accomplished had he not wasted 90% of his time trying to predict the future via the bible. Despite all that Newton achieved I still have to consider his mind wasted.

Apr 30, 2011
AmritSorli if you agreed with that your idea is indistinguishable from the usual idea of time then your idea has noting to offer us. It adds nothing. Clearly YOU can't think of anything it adds since you have ignored the question several times now.

Why ever did you decide to bother me in the first place? I had not said one thing to you when you PMed me? That is another question you have ignored several times.

Ethelred

Apr 30, 2011
QC,
The foundation which any social organization requires is a group narrative. Polytheistic societies were generally competing groups of people, owing allegiance to differing ideals, as well as recognized powerful outside forces. Those most focused on one deity proved far more political effective. There is a necessary tendency for such identifications to become increasingly hermetic and deny any reality that is not also centered around their deity. That such belief systems develop idiosyncrasies is not a bug, but a feature, as it separates true believers from those harboring doubts. The original form of crowd control, to get people pointed in and marching in the same direction. Remember that it was Constantine deciding that the cross made a very good war totem which transformed Christianity from a popular anti-authoritarian cult to an official state religion.

Apr 30, 2011
Hi common idea is time is physical, time is dimension of space.
Our idea is time has only math status, time is a mathematical numerical order of change in space.

For me difference is essential,
if you do not see difference here, fine for me.
Yours Amrit

AmritSorli if you agreed with that your idea is indistinguishable from the usual idea of time then your idea has noting to offer us. It adds nothing. Clearly YOU can't think of anything it adds since you have ignored the question several times now.

Why ever did you decide to bother me in the first place? I had not said one thing to you when you PMed me? That is another question you have ignored several times.

Ethelred


Apr 30, 2011
For me difference is essential, if you do not see difference here, fine for me.
Which testable predictions your interpretation of time provides? I.e. why we should care about it?

Apr 30, 2011
in all experiments time t we measure with clocks is numerical mathematical order of change.....you do not need to care, feel free to think time is 4th dimension of space....tell me only one experimental data which proves time is 4th d of s

For me difference is essential, if you do not see difference here, fine for me.
Which testable predictions your interpretation of time provides? I.e. why we should care about it?


Apr 30, 2011
There is no space without time, as much as there is no time without space. Those two are inseparable, and represent not two, but ONE physical entity - which is being refferenced to as "space-time" by some.

When you travel through space, you also travel through time, and vice-versa. And as much as you can not travel a negative distance, you neither can travel "back" in time.

Everything in the Universe is in constant motion - there is no such thing as an "absolute standstill". Even though some of the outcomes of classic GR and using its maths might suggest otherwise - the problem is mostly not within the concept, but with its application. You have to treat space and time as one entity, and only then you can understand that the actual absolutes (zero/infinity) will actually never be reached. At least not within a sub-group of the absolute (the Universe).

And as such, I also have to jump on the boat which suggests that there is no separate entity "time". If, then only space-time.

Howgh

Apr 30, 2011
Those statements are wrong because Time is a property of SPACE_TIME not space.

...

Bullshit. Semantics are what I try to avoid. This is not mere semantics. Space-time is very different way of looking at the Universe from idea of time being separate dimension from space.

I am with Einstein on this one. It is all one thing.

I think it's rather implied when one is discussing time in relativity, one is discussing spacetime. So excu-u-use me for failing to use the "official," Ethelred approved jargon. :)

What I was trying to do is get people to think about space-time as a whole and not separate elements.
Which is what I was doing by stating "time is a fundamental property of space." In other words, space and time go hand-in-hand (hence: "spacetime").


Apr 30, 2011
I think time dilation proves time is a fundamental property of space
- in which way?
The concept that time is merely measuring a numerical sequence of events, does nothing to explain time dilation.

As the speed of light constant is a fundamental property of spacetime, and clock rates are inextricably tied to the locally observed speed of light in a vacuum, time itself is a fundamental property of spacetime.

Otherwise, processes which change numerical sequences of events (like heating, or freezing), or even change the propagation speed of light (like through various materials), would have an effect on locally observed time.

http://en.wikiped...ow_light


Apr 30, 2011
tell me only one experimental data which proves time is 4th d of s
Again: Time dilation. Time dilation proves time is as much a fundamental part of spacetime, as is the speed of light constant.


Apr 30, 2011
When you travel through space, you also travel through time,
I couldn't have put it more succinctly than this, myself.

The implication is: Without time, the concept of the six degrees of freedom essentially becomes meaningless - hence 3-D vector space itself, becomes meaningless.

"Geometrically, the degrees of freedom can be interpreted as the dimension of certain vector subspaces."

http://en.wikiped...m_vector

Apr 30, 2011
Whether time is a 4th dimension is not rocket science. I can prove it philosophically right now.

If there is NO motion, or if the Universe is motionless, then there is no time. Therefore, time is simply a bi-product of motion and not an independent entity.

Solved.

Apr 30, 2011
Whether time is a 4th dimension is not rocket science. I can prove it philosophically right now.

If there is NO motion, or if the Universe is motionless, then there is no time. Therefore, time is simply a bi-product of motion and not an independent entity.

Solved.
Wrong. If there is no motion, there wouldn't be a universe to begin with.

Apr 30, 2011
I always thought time was assumed to be a physical dimension and always thought everyone else looked at it that way in modern physics. I ave stated as such to physicists without being corrected, so I do not understand what is new in this paper.

Apr 30, 2011
I always thought time was assumed to be a physical dimension... so I do not understand what is new in this paper.


Very simply, it doesn't matter whether time is a physical dimension or not. It wouldn't turn the world of physics upside town if it wasn't. Very very little in physics depends on time. Even though some equations use time, those equations don't depend on time; they could replace time with something else or rather more frequently make due without time at all. "Time is simply an illusion derived from motion. If nothing could move, there would be no time. Of course, human beings being creatures of evolution could argue time goes on even if there is no motion, but this is a contradiction for time implies change and without motion there can be no change. Therefore, time is simply the bi-product of change, and not an independent entity."

Eric Laferriere

Apr 30, 2011
@ubavontuba

You need to exercise your imagination, for it is as good as a horrible reader unable to imply or properly understand a statement and insult others just for the sake of it.

Apr 30, 2011
@marraco

Correct. Geometry is what accounts for all differences from any entity to another entity. Whether they be objects, forces etc... Geometry is what makes unlimited creation possible. The universe is geometry. Never though of it that way, but it becomes more and more evident the more I contemplate about it.

Apr 30, 2011
Chiefly of interest in these findings, IMO, is the fact that some barriers to certain types of phenomena will be removed -a good example being the possibility of Quantum-entangled states being able to transmit information over large distances --instantaneously, in fact-- as the idea of FTL travel will cease to have any relevance as a fundamental impossibility. No time = no theoretical limit to velocity.

I'm sure there are plenty of other assumed impossibilities that will be possible with this new understanding, but that example came to mind first.


Apr 30, 2011
@eric96:

You need to exercise your imagination, for it is as good as a horrible reader unable to imply or properly understand a statement and insult others just for the sake of it.
How is my response to you an "insult?" Do you think everyone, who simply disagrees with your point of view, insults you? Really?

Arrogant much?

All I did was take your stated concept of time to the logical extreme. Is it my fault your own logic fails in the extreme? I think not.

And in reply to your derogatory PM:

"Anyone who thinks they're important is usually just a pompous moron who can't deal with his or her own pathetic insignificance and the fact that what they do is meaningless and inconsequential."
- William Thomas

Apr 30, 2011
With spacetime, the aspect of space being considered is distance. Yes, any motion across distance requires duration, but another aspect of space is volume. We generally accept that space cannot exist without containing some amount of energy, so it would have to have a temperature. Such as the temperature of the CMBR at 3.7k. If you use ideal gas laws, temperature and volume are inversely proportional; Reduce the volume of a given amount of gas and the temperature rises proportionally. By the logic of spacetime, wouldn't temperature be another parameter of volume? Yet we don't talk about spacetemperature. Why not? Yes, they are fundamentally related, but we recognize there are differences.
The reason we equate time with space is because we really don't understand time, so we equate it with motion through space. It defines our life, yet seems ethereal. The future is unknown and the past seems both objectively precise and subjectively fragmentary. Is it coming, or going?

Apr 30, 2011
Very very little in physics depends on time. Even though some equations use time, those equations don't depend on time; they could replace time with something else or rather more frequently make due without time at all.
I disagree. Even though many physics equations don't include time, it's almost always implied - as no physical process or interaction can occur without time.


Apr 30, 2011
Everything we know about the universe is just geometry.
I disagree. The universe is dynamic.


Apr 30, 2011
The universe is geometry.
Correction: The shape of the universe, at any given moment, is a question of geometry. However the processes of the universe, which are the forces and interactions which shape the universe, are time dependent.

Apr 30, 2011
FTL travel will cease to have any relevance as a fundamental impossibility. No time = no theoretical limit to velocity.
Yeah. As soon as these guys develop a practicable FTL drive, I'll recant my position and agree with their definition of time.

Good luck with that.


Apr 30, 2011
Perhaps Amrit is not aware this is not new.
I already pointed out that this is an old argument, yet Amrit argues like he thought it up himself.

Generally, I agree with Ethelred's suggestion that this appears to be little more than and argument over semantics. However, if there is some particular value to thinking of time in this way, I'd certainly like to be made aware of it.


Apr 30, 2011
@ubavontuba you missed the part where I said you didn't know how to read, and to comment without grasping the said concepts is rude and insulting. I don't even think your crasp the concept of time. Probably some old douche bag, who has nothing better to do then to post 10 000 comments about whatever comes to his head upon seeing 3 words.

Apr 30, 2011
@eric96:

you missed the part where I said you didn't know how to read,
Right. This is an ad hominem and therefore unworthy of comment.

and to comment without grasping the said concepts is rude and insulting.
So redefine the concepts. What part, or parts, do you feel need clarification?

I don't even think your crasp the concept of time.
You're right. I don't think "my crasp" the concept of time either.

Probably some old douche bag, who has nothing better to do then to post 10 000 comments about whatever comes to his head upon seeing 3 words.
And, another immature ad hominem.

Do your parents know you're out of bed?

If you have a valid argument to make, make it - and quit with the baby tantrum.


Apr 30, 2011
My only problem with this is that it doesn't seem to be testable at all. How can we come to such a conclusion if it cannot be tested?

May 01, 2011
The same argument holds for space. Will space with no particles and no radiation still 3 dimension space ?


May 01, 2011
It was my understanding that time travel into the future is real and has been experimentally verified.

May 01, 2011
Numerical order of material change is the only way we observer experience time. I don`t support this idea because the same argument holds for space. Indeed, will space free of particles and radiations be a 3 dimensions space ?

A proper definition of time shouldn't have motion in it.

Since we observer can only experience time through motion:

For an observer observer, time is a derived from position change; dt = dx/v

For an observed ( a clock) space is derived from time change dx = vdt.

May 01, 2011
Which kind of experiment/observation could disprove the fundamental existence of time?


Think of the moment just past that you spent reading the quote above. Think of the moment you are in, as you read this, and think of the moment about to transpire as you read further. It is not abstract -- we speak of "one minute ago" and "one minute from now" as if they are real physcial dimensions of flowing time. Moments we can't go back to or can't yet have, even though separated from them by miliseconds. But try to pinpoint the very instant when the future flows through the present and becomes the past in your reading of this paragraph. You can't do it. Science can't do it. Yet you will agree that this is a linear sequence of words with a beginning and an end. We succumb to the illusion that the reading of the final word in this paragraph is still in the future, and that the reading of the first word in the paragraph is now in the past.

May 01, 2011
It was my understanding that time travel into the future is real and has been experimentally verified.


This is the notion that an astronaut traveling near the speed of light would age more slowly than those at rest on earth -- proven by experiment with atomic clocks on spacecraft. But it's one-way, and not really "travel."

Back-and-forth travel to the future is impossible, because there's no "future" to travel to. By whatever means, slowing down the aging process just allows one to stay young longer in the present -- the same present in which others age more rapidly. This already happens with the disease progeria, in which the aging process is accelerated. If you met a progeria-stricken child when he was one year old and only saw him again when he was eight but had aged to eighty, would you say you'd traveled to the future? How would this be any different than when a spacetime traveler returns to earth after fifty years to find he's still young and his son is an old man?

May 01, 2011
Great article, I really found time a hard concept to understand. This makes allot more sense to me.

May 01, 2011
you can travel in space only and time is a mathematical numerical order of your motion, clocks "tick" in space only, not in time, see my video
http://www.youtub...QBG2eouQ

It was my understanding that time travel into the future is real and has been experimentally verified.


This is the notion that an astronaut traveling near the speed of light would age more slowly than those at rest on earth -- proven by experiment with atomic clocks on spacecraft. But it's one-way, and not really "travel."

Back-and-forth travel to the future is impossible, because there's no "future" to travel to. By whatever means, slowing down the aging process just allows one to stay young longer in the present -- the same present in which others age more rapidly.