For the alternative theorists:

Write4U

There is no question. Time is, events may be(or may not be, either way the time still exists). They really have nothing to do with each other's existence, but there is influence between them.

No, it isn't. Spacetime is what our Universe consists of. Energy, matter, events or speed are things which occur within spacetime. Math is a construct, as is the measurements we make of time dependent processes. The Universe existed before we invented the math to describe it, as time existed before we made our first clocks to measure it with. Is the measurement of a board that board itself? Can you build a house out of those measurements(not boards, just the measurements)? Or do you describe the boards with the measurement and build the house out of the actual boards? The same situation pertains to time. There can be no events without already existent time and space in which to occur. No time/space, no events, not the other way around.

Time could not care less if you can or do assign it a value. In fact time exists whether you even can do any experiment at all. The only time you are assigning a value to is the time the experiment took, not the existence of time everywhere. You're still having a problem in thinking that the map you made creates the territory, that you think the territory doesn't exist until you draw a map of it and/or that the map IS the territory, none of which are true.

True. And the past no longer exists, though you can see some of it in a telescope. There is actually only the now, and that now is travelling in a dimension of time every bit as real as any spacial dimension. In fact, you(or any other observer)can not NOT travel in the time dimension. Like lightspeed, each observer sees his own time as invariant, it always ticks at the same rate, it is only between frames that time dilation is seen. Even in a frame travelling at .99c time passes for the passengers at exactly the same rate, it is only when they look out the window that effects are seen. Time is different from the three spacial dimensions in that we(and the whole Universe)can only travel in time in one direction. That is because entropy is a downhill slope, the Universe started at or very, very close to zero entropy and it only increases over time(in general and on average, there can be local decreases at the expense of other areas increasing and in the Quantum it appears short hops to the past are possible), the direction it increases in is toward the future. You cannot unfry an egg. Personally, I think the inside of a BH is the only place travel to the past is possible, that each short circuits directly to the Big Bang(the only White Hole we have found)through a wormhole, but that's just speculation.

The Universe does not require us to "speak about it" to exist. A spacetime event is a description, you're still talking about the map, not the territory. Your "creation of a time frame" is only a description of a certain section of a continuous stream of flowing time, not a description of that flowing time. And your measurement did not create the thing being measured(a certain portion of the whole time the Universe has experienced), it just describes which particular section or duration you're speaking of. Yes, you must specify a point in space and time to describe a spacetime event, but you describing it has nothing to do with it's existence, I don't know where that came from. Again, time exists, whether or not there are events by which we can measure it's passage, it is as important and fundamental as space. That's why Einstein called it spacetime, it is the stage on which all events occur, it is there even when the lights are out and the stage empty.

"In their paper, Sorli and Fiscaletti argue that, while the concepts of special relativity are sound, the introduction of 4D Minkowski spacetime has created a century-long misunderstanding of time as the fourth dimension of space that lacks any experimental support. "

That is just wrong. Not only has every prediction of Relativity been experimentally confirmed(including length contraction and not directly yet with gravity waves)but it describes the real behavior of the Universe to a very high degree.

So their conclusion...

"In this view, space and time are two separate entities."

Is wrong as well, "clocks run slower at high speeds due to the nature of Minkowski spacetime itself as a result of both time dilation and length contraction." As confirmed in every accelerator on Earth and every Cosmic Ray hitting the upper atmosphere. Even the length contraction of protons near lightspeed has been confirmed. They are just wrong.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks for responding, I am truly curious and not trying to be a troll.

Is that how you wish to put it?

Time for what? Does Time have a purpose? Does Eternity without physical change have a purpose? Is that not why the "static universe" concept was discarded?

IMO, Time is a construct, like Mathematics. Physical objects could not exist without either. They are "required" cosmological properties or Potentials, which "allow" or "restrict" physical change. The type and amount of "change" can only be measured through these languages.

So there was spacetime before there was spacetime? Did the BB create the Universe, or did the BB occur inside spacetime? I know that we are inside our spacetime manifold. But is Time also outside it?

No, that's just "frames of reference", I believe.

I would rephrase that to read "the creation of a time frame is a chronological description of a single or a series of events from a certain point of observation"

Without space time does not exists. Without change Time is a latent but permissive condition that allows physical reality to become explicated. It has no physical properties and is non causal, but it only becomes actively (measurable) into existence with change.

I'll stay out of that one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Write4U,

As you understand, Grumpy is talking and giving information and advice from a mainstream perspective. Since this is an advisory thread for alternative theorists, I expect it is OK to give alternative opinions here if not too much detail is involved

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

My opinion concerning your statements is also not mainstream like your opinions.

I agree with you that time is a construct of intelligence, as well as mathematics, but disagree that physical reality could not exist without an intelligence to perceive it, unless I misunderstood you. Change IMO solely defines time. Without change, accordingly, time could not exist.

The measurement of time requires a measuring device, a clock of some kind, to measure changes within or related to the clock as synchronized (timed) with events outside the clock.

This seems appropriate.

your quote:

Yes, Without space there would be no distinction between matter to distinguish or measure time.

I would change your quote to this: Without change Time would not have a meaning which would allow our reality to be explicated. IMO without change of any kind time could not be realistically defined.

As Einstein explained, time varies from one time frame to another depending upon an objects relative motion and the position of the object relative to the center of the gravitational field that encompasses it. So time is not absolute, it is relative. IMO Time is one of the simplest of man-made concepts. And of course the disclaimer is that most theorists think otherwise

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Far be it for me to argue against mainstream science. Fact is that I have very little if anything to contribute to mainstream science, except tidbits of information. But fundamental concepts of the structure and function of the universe are less well defined and more open to speculation. I realize that no matter how one describes their "experience" of reality, it has to agree with mainstream science. GR and QM is the dual test that must be satisfied.
But every scientists drools at the contradiction inherent in the particle/wave theory and why "c" seems to be a physical speed limit, don't they? To theoretically go where no one has theoretically gone before (except in sci-fi

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This is why I like Bohm's narrative and trust his arguments rested on qualification and competence in the required knowledge.

I do not assign a motivated intelligence to mathematical functions.

I agree that an observer has little impact on the mathematical function of the physical world. We just learned the language; tick tock tick tock

Seems such a condition would result in a quantum "singularity" containing the potential energy to build a universe. Implicate.

I agree.

 

forrest noble

"Change IMO solely defines time. Without change, accordingly, time could not exist."

Since when is definition equivalent to creation of the thing defined? If you measure a house, defining it in exquisite detail, are you in fact creating it? Why is time(in your opinion)different? Events only make time visible, measurable and able to be defined just like flower petals make the atmosphere visible, measurable and able to be defined. This is not a reasoned position.

Einstein said that any TIME-DEPENDENT PROCESS no matter how irregular, serves to DEFINE time. A fried egg is a perfectly good clock, you cannot unfry an egg, so it also is a perfectly good indication of the arrow of time in the Universe.

I really don't know why the difference between what it means to define something and what it means to create that being defined is constantly misunderstood only in the case of time, it just does not make logical sense and I don't know why any serious student of physics cannot tell the difference. Time exists, whether events EVER occur or not. It has to exist BEFORE any event can occur. I have to ask you the same question I asked RC, what mechanism causes time to slam to a full stop from it's fastest rate(least dilation)when the last erg of energy leaves? What is the least amount of energy necessary before it goes back to it's maximum rate(least dilation)from non-existence? We know that the more energy in a section of spacetime, the slower time will pass(the more dilation)when observed from outside that frame(lightspeed and Event Horizons dilate time infinitely, according to a graph of all observations extended to the endpoints), and that the less energy in a section of spacetime the faster(less dilation). So what mechanism changes that reality when the last speck leaves? Is there a cosmic lightswitch the last bit flips which turns time off? That's just silly, you would not accept measuring a house as creating a house and the house would still be there even if you live elsewhere and know nothing about it. Why do you try to apply the same faulty reasoning to time?

Grumpy:shrug:

 

Write4U,

I don't get your meaning here. An "alternative theorist" could be defined as someone who understands mainstream science but disagrees with it concerning one or more hypothesis or theories. IMO modern physics (since Einstein) is theoretically wrong in many ways. This does not necessarily mean the math of the theories are wrong; it may be just the conceptual aspect of the theory that is wrong.

I consider Quantum Mechanics a prime example. The math and statistics are the foundation of the theory, with over 80 years of observations and measurements that has resulted in the best system to calculate and predict outcomes in the quantum world. On the other hand there is no theoretical consensus as to why quantum mechanics is valid. For this their are primarily 4 major hypothesis that try to explain quantum outcomes in words/verbal logic, and a great many lesser-know versions. All use the same math of Quantum Mechanics.

Another example IMO is General Relativity. The equations of GR seem valid within solar system distances but there is no indication of warped space based upon universe-scale observations to date. So far the observable universe appears to be flat. This, of course, does not preclude curved space at even larger scales but there is no evidence for it so far. The foundation of Special Relativity would be wrong if there is a preferred background field by which relative motion can be determined. Such proposals have been dark matter, a Higgs field, quantum foam, gravitons, a force field such as gravity, etc. or a luminiferous aether that is gravity centered.

Particle theory also could be fraught with theoretical misconceptions such as particles carrying so-called forces such as the Strong Force, the Weak force, electromagnetism, and gravity (the concept of gravitons as force carriers.)

IMO there are many problems with mainstream physics today unrelated to one's experience of reality, that I expect will be changed in the coming years. And again the disclaimer: Although most mainstream theorists would disagree with my theoretical points discussed above, some have also hypothesized outside consensus theory themselves from time to time.

 

That is the one of the wrongest things I have seen here. There are many dramatic examples of warped space, e.g., Einstein rings.

This is a horrible mis-reading of the "flatness" of the universe. The "flatness" of the universe is a feature only of the largest scales. Below these scales, there are many instances of curved space. In fact, it is measuring this curvature that, in part, contributes to the measurement of overall flatness.

 

Grumpy,

There is a theoretical difference. For you, as well as most mainstream theorists I think, time is its own separate entity in the whole of reality. In my view time is just a concept that must be understood and defined by intelligence. According to this theory, time, like math, is a conceptual creation to enable measurement or calculations to predict or plan outcomes but has no separate existence in reality. Time is a way to measure a rate of change/ relative motion which would accordingly be the underlying aspect of reality that time measures.

I agree concerning the arrow of time. But I prefer my wrist watch as a better measurement of the rate of time, or time passed

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Einstein rings exemplify the bending of light by gravity. Newton also predicted the bending of light by gravity, and Newton's model did not involve warped space. However Einstein's predicted calculations of observed bending of light was better than Newton's calculations based upon observations.

Sorry, I am not following you on this one. ".....measuring this curvature that, in part, contributes to the measurement of overall flatness" does not make sense to me concerning an explanation of mainstream theory.

 

It also predicts that there will be time delay along the path of such curvature. This has also been observed.

There is no theory without spacetime curvature that also accounts for existing observations. Do not substitute your fantasy for contemporary science.

I'm sure that, given the ignorance you have displayed, it does not make sense to you.

Measurements of cosmological properties that involve anisoptropies in the CMB involve measurements of the warping of space in the early universe and in the regions between us and the origin of a given region of the CMB.

 

I try not to challenge any established theory. I try to reduce concepts to their fundamental properties. It helps me visualize the concept. I usually find no need to learn the math, as long as I understand the function.

I have no problem with the concept of GR (he fundamental fact that events are perceived differently by every observer, depending on their relative position to the event. I realize that the consequences of this are profound, but just the realization that we all experience reality differently is sufficient for me. Looking at yourself in a mirror demonstrates GR very simply, as does the Doppler effect. I try to understand the function and its scientific explanation in narrative form.

I have no problem with the concept of QM (the fundamental fact that real objects travel as quanta or reality would be one big blur. This is clearly visible in photography.

I like that.

But Time is a toughy, because its existence depends on change and time has no properties of its own. So we need to define change before we can define time.

 

forrest noble

Understood and defined say nothing about the existence of time, only your ability to measure it. And the Universe evolved over time long before intelligence came along. That is not reason, it is ignoring the observed fact that intelligence only found time, they did not invent it.

Grumpy

 

Grumpy,

"...it is ignoring the observed fact that intelligence only found time, they did not invent it."

On this matter we can amicably disagree. As I said before, many or most theorists I think would agree with your perspective of time.

 

Write4U,

I have lots of disagreement with theories in modern physics but very few people are interested in alternative opinions or have ever studied alternative theories for me to have discussions with. I understand since it is hard enough to learn and understand the mainstream Physics theories.

cheers

 

Time needs no intelligence of any kind. We did not invent it, or find it, or able to seperate it from any action that produces change. We did not find time, we discovered that change always requires a period of time, so we made (egg)timers.

Time is a result of an (any) dynamic action. When we measure it, it becomes the record of "duration" of an event. Time is not causal. It has none of the required causal potentials (energy, momentum, acceleration, etc) necessary for causality. It cannot exist by itself, it is a result (measurement) of an (inter)action of space or matter.

 

Write4U

Time is not a result of any action, your record is only your measurement of the real time, it is a model you create of the real dimension of time. A measurement is not the same thing as that which you are measuring. Time exists as part of the spacetime manifold within which all events occur. If the Universe was completely empty time would flow undisturbed at it's maximum rate, which(in a completely empty Universe)would be an absolute time rate. Since our Universe is not completely empty, time is a relative thing, because all events cause time to dilate(slow down), therefore there is no absolute time rate, all rates are relative to the energy in the frame(speed, matter). Time and space are fundamental, they exist because the Universe exists, events, matter and energy are not universal, they are local and may or may not happen, the Universe(spacetime)continues to exist either way. It DOES exist, whether events are happening that allow you to measure it are occurring or not, you are fundamentally wrong in your view of time.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Write4U,

Yes, I think that all of us commenting recently agree that the perception by intelligence does not change reality. The question, I think, is really based upon how one understands and defines the concept of time. The questions involved I believe are: Could time have preceded the universe or is time just a comparative measurement of change and motion that along with dimensional-measurement can be used to measure the rate of "change" or "motion?"

 

forrest noble

That is a false dichotomy, time started(for our Universe)at the beginning of the Big Bang. Whether time-like properties pertained "before" time came into being then is a complete unknown(and possibly unknowable). The Big Bang was a point of zero or very near zero entropy, the Universe has been running "downhill" ever since(IE through all the time that has passed), in a very real way the level of entropy is a measurement of the overall time that has passed in the Universe as a whole. Entropy always increases in closed systems(the Universe is a closed system), so the amount of time increases. Always. Time is a dimension every bit as real as the 3 spacial dimensions. It does not come into being because you found a clock. You have just found a way to measure it.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I agree that this is mainstream theory.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

In other words, it's the theory which best explains the sum of all phenomena, proposed by experts, and universally held to be the best explanation to support the best evidence, As opposed to several minority views and alternative theories, also proposed/suggested by experts, but which are considered inferior. Unlike crank proposals we see all the time, which are mere pseudoscience and don't even measure up to "inferior" since they aren't even close to being called "theory".

Therefore the emphasis on "mainstream", and distancing yourself from it, is ludicrous. Be honest. Just admit that you have no clue.