Russ' comments about the time problem

No. You quoted the post, so clearly you know where to find it. I'll not spoon feed you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, here I can teach you something. To get quantum gravity, you quantize the Einstein fields equations (those that govern GR) and they make the Wheeler de Witt equation, the fundamental theory of gravity in the context of quantized GR.

So no, it's not an issue. You just didn't understand it, like I said.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, clearly what you said it in total ignorance of what is happening in General Relativity to get timelessness. I've shown above the error of your ways. You should drop it now if you have any sense.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I can't even imagine what here would be worthy of a formal debate. BlackHoley doesn't like some things about modern physics, but won't clearly explain what they are, so all we have is a collection of what are basically nonsense catchphrases, such as "there is no time in GR".

 

Again, you can't hold a debate. You have a skewered understanding of how timelessness fits into GR. Your under the delusion it has nothing to do with it. I've told you, it has everything to do with it and you won't accept you were wrong.

 

Well, as i said, the apparent solution would be a formal debate which would hinge entirely on facts and not on wants or opinions. That, or the two of you keep squabbling about it and accomplishing little to nothing, since it seems at the current pace neither of you stands a snowballs chance of changing the others opinion.

 

Kitt when you get the time, could you look at this post as well

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141306-Timeless-vs-Time/page5

Grumpy is calling everything I say out as BS without offering any evidence. This constant arguing just because they can is wearing out any quality of any discussion on the subjects.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to... but Russ isn't up for it.

 

Here's the problem (and a possible solution), BlackHoley: YOU are the one who came here claiming to have ideas, so any such debate would necessarily start with you explaining one (For example: "there is no time in GR"). And if you haven't done it yet here, then there is no reason to expect you to do it somewhere else. There's nothing stopping you!

 

Trust me, I have explained that numerous times... even just a few posts ago. I told you why the universe doesn't have a true time evolution. It just doesn't sink in does it with you?

 

That's a different claim, not that you explained that one either. Unless, of course, that different wording is your acknowledgement that "there is no time in gr" was incorrect?

 

Actually, time falls out of physics several different ways. I won't go into them all, but two that are highly relevant to all my claims, is that time falls out of General Relativity in two main ways:

1) The evolution of the universe is not governed by a time evolution; instead the general theory of relativity is manifestly Covariant and this gives rise to the ability to perform diffeomorphisms - this is the same as saying that the laws of relativity have to be the same in every coordinate frame. The evolution of system then really arises as a symmetry of the theory - as Markopoulou explains ''it isn't a true time evolution.''

2) When one takes a quantum gravity approach, by quantizing the general relativistic equations you get back what is called the Wheeler de Witt equation which describes the universe with a universal wave function \(\Psi\) but it doesn't depend on time!

These are two ways time falls out of general relativity. Sure, special relativity talks about moving observers and this makes use of subjective time, what we find it that there is no true external time, as Newton once defined it.

 

Though I should make clear that 1) and 2) are also related in fact, they imply each other.

 

So when you said "there is no time in GR", is what you really meant that a different theory (quantum gravity?) can be derived from GR that doesn't include time?

 

You keep asking this question and I keep telling you the same answer, I said no! I said general relativity is manifestly timeless, this isn't some popular ''side theory.'' This is how general relativity is, hence why it is called a problem.

 

If GR is itself timesless, then why was your response about quantum gravity and not about GR? Could you try again to answer the question, without referencing other theories?

You do recognize that the GR time dilation equation is GR and includes time, right? How do you reconcile that? Can you remove time from the equation while keeping it functional?

Also, could you please provide a reference to the Markopoulou quote.

 

My patience is wearing thin. I have explained this to you: I talk about quantum gravity because you get the quantum gravity equations by quantizing the GR equations. This isn't a botch job, it's part of general relativity that when you quantize them, it leads to a Schrodinger like equation which isn't governed by a time derivative.


Do you understand this? This means timeless uses the framework of GR. You quantize GR to find timelessness, or at least, one version of it. It cannot get simpler.

 

I think we should be on the same page by this point: yes, I agree that if you quantize GR you might get an alternative to GR that is timeless.....but that clearly indicates that GR itself is not timeless, right? Only this yet to be invented/accepted alternative to GR, right?

 

Almost on the same page. It isn't ''an alternative'' as covariance is inherent within modern general relativity. Einstein called it ''his trouble with coordinates.''

You can shuffle space coordinates without the use of a time parameter... what I believe is that the Wheeler de Witt equation, which also predicts timelessness from a quantum gravity aspect are all underlying the same phenomenon.

Let me summarize so you don't misinterpret me. What I am saying is that timelessness appears to be inherent in GR, not only when we quantize it, but also in respect to the laws of Covariance which treats the laws of physics the same in every coordinate frame. The evolution of the universe is translated not with a time variable, but through a symmetry of motion.

 

"I believe"?
"Appears to be"?
"You can"?

Why the hedging? Has what you suggest not been done already? If GR is already timeless, you shouldn't have to guess and predict. You should be able to just show it to me. If we start flipping through a random GR textbook or set of course notes, will it describe a GR that doesn't include time or will it show GR with a 4-D spacetime geometry?