The Illusion Of Time - The Fabric Of The Cosmos

[danshawen]

Time dilation is different EVERYWHERE. That is part of the reason that reversing it is impossible. It violates the nature of the stationary quantum field responsible for entanglement, and which gives rise to the way unbound energy becomes bound into matter. Simply exceeding c is not going to cut it. Entanglement already does this.

 

[wellwisher]

wellwisher:

As I noted in another thread, you have made several errors.

First, clocks orbiting the Earth actually run faster than clocks on Earth.

Second, when clocks return to Earth they once again run at the same rate as clocks on the ground, so there is no permanent change in the rate (time) of the clock. The elapsed time is different from the time measured by clocks that stayed on Earth. And so is the elapsed distance travelled. So, it is wrong to say that time was affected but space was not. Misleading, too. But then, you don't really know what you're talking about when it comes to relativity, do you?

Third, there is no preferred reference frame in time or space.

Where you guys all seem to go wrong is the clock begins its journey on the earth. The clock is built on the earth and we send it to space on a rocket. The rocket is given energy for propulsion. The proper base reference for this experiment is the earth; control. This is not about relativity, but proper experimental design so we can interpret any hard data properly.

When the clock returns to the control center, we notice it is an increment of time ahead, even though the pace of the clock becomes the same as the control once it reaches the earth. That increment ahead is permanent and will not spontaneously reset itself, like the pace of the clock. It stays say 1 second ahead.

If measure the clock size in our control center, there is no permanent increment of size change that is conserved, even though the calculations say it was slightly larger. There would be no hard proof of concept, if we based proof exclusively on space and a permanent change in distance. It is only because of the permanent incremental change in time, which does not reverse, do we know relativity is there.

If we started this experiment in space, where we manufacture and launch the clock from space, to earth, then space will be the control. In this case, the clock will run slower and a permanent increment of lost time will appear when it returns to space. But again no permanent size change. We cannot tell anything happened based on its final size. When it comes to direct lab proof, space-time is not exactly symmetrical. Time is the only proof.

Physics tends to think in terms of wavelength which implies distance/space. Since there is no permanent change in space/size of the clock, no matter which control reference you use, this could lead to the assumption of relative. But if we run control experiments from earth and then from space, the permanent time increment, goes in different directions. This is not relative but can be correlated to placement of the control.

The universal red shift is defined in terms of relativity and wavelength, but this is not exactly supported by space clock experiments, since distance is reversible and leaves no trace between references. What does change; lag or lead, is time. Since the speed of light is constant, a permanent change in time/frequency is what drags the wavelength along as a passive variable. The experiments shows distances reverse and only time change lingers an increment, when two reference meet and the pace becomes the same.

 

[danshawen]

James R was right, Wellwisher.

 

[Aqueous Id]

It says nothing of the sort. Quantum entanglement was known to Einstein, even though it is not currently considered a part of relativity theory. It should be, because the "now" of entanglement is the same to all observers. Furthermore, this is as invariant as the speed of light.

What does this have to do with relativity? If "now" designates the moment an Earthbound twin reaches age 29, then the fast-moving twin in the Paradox of the same name can not possibly declare a contemporaneous birthday for herself.

To be invariant, EVEN c must have a counterpart that is stationary in QFT.

I have no idea what you mean.

The aether is not a candidate for this relation.

There is no aether.

You are correct as far as QFT currently goes. The Ehrenfest paradox was resolved (by me) in another thread. An offshoot of this resolution is that time dilation is infinite for the energy that is bound inside of a particle of matter. ANY particle of matter. Just as it almost is for a photon traveling at c in a vacuum.

To me you are speaking the language of fringe science, at best. I merely stated that the word "particle", unless otherwise suggested by explanation or context, usually refers to a "point-like" object. And I wasn't thinking of QFT nor do I yet see the relevance. Maxwell's equations put the static charge on a macro-scale object at its surface, not its interior.

All matter (and antimatter) is created from energy events involving photons of slightly higher energy than the combined masses.

That is confusing at best. If two particles collide (interact) then they do so with an exchange of momentum (energy, loosely). I have no idea what this has to do with your notion of an "energy event". I was referring exclusively to particle-to-particle interactions, per the Feynman diagrams. I said this merely to answer your belief that "backward moving time is impossible. Case closed."

Somehow, this idea has been forgotten. But if time is frozen in a particle RIGHT NOW, then in order for it to travel backwards in time, it must revert to energy, even if that occurred 13.7 billion years ago, it will happen in the wink of an eye if the reversal of time is successful.

That makes no sense. Feynman merely suggests that particles are travelling in the forward and reverse arrows of time. That was all I was attempting to discuss.

The answers for both of your Cite? questions is relativity theory. I'm not making this stuff up.

If you have technical stuff to propound, please bring it forward. Otherwise no one can possibly engage you in dialogue about your ideas. No I really have no idea what you are trying to say.

We don't have very much further to go.

I have no idea what that means. Do you intend to discuss this topic or not? If so, how do you reconcile Feynman's use of a negative-going timeline with your idea that the forward moving arrow alone is a "case closed"? That was all I was trying to elicit from you.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Greene's aiien at the other end of the universe riding a bicycle AWAY from the Milky Way will NEVER see anything from our distant past. He's riding his bicycle the WRONG way.

Here you misunderstand the Lorentz factor. There is a square on the velocity term which makes the sense on v irrelevant. Further, it's a projection which only has one "sense". It ranges between zero and the "length" (absolute value, Euclidean distance, or magnitude, if you prefer) of the dimension that is sourcing it (being projected).

You can argue that there is a possible negative pair of roots to the radical, but I wouldn't for a minute ask you to explain what that means, esp. if you insist that the domain for all spacetime is constrained to positive time and positive length (a single quadrant) for which we must dismiss the negative root.

What kind of stupid version of science, or anything else is that supposed to represent? That isn't relativity theory.

No, Einstein's 1905 paper clearly identifies the Lorentz rotation, and it clearly squares the v term, so, yes, Dr. Greene is on top of his relativity. And please note, he completed his undergrad in 1984 at Harvard and his PhD in 1986 from Oxford (age 23 or so). Pretty astounding, no?

 

[paddoboy]

The Illusion Of Time - The Fabric Of The Cosmos
This documentary challenges our traditional questions about time such as; does it flow in one direction or does it flow at all? Does everyone experience the same now? Is time travel possible? Will time come to an end?

I have already commented re my thoughts on time and the opinions of some experts, but the main thing to be taken from your questions is that there is no universal now. That is proven.
Will time end? That one I did miss.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-time-end/
n our experience, nothing ever really ends. When we die, our bodies decay and the material in them returns to the earth and the air, allowing for the creation of new life. We live on in what comes after. But will that always be the case? Might there come a point sometime in the future when there is no “after”? Depressingly, modern physics suggests the answer is yes. Time itself could end. All activity would cease, and there would be no renewal or recovery. The end of time would be the end of endings.

This grisly prospect was an unanticipated prediction of Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which provides our modern understanding of gravity. Before that theory, most physicists and philosophers thought time was a universal drumbeat, a steady rhythm that the cosmos marches to, never varying, wavering or stopping. Einstein showed that the universe is more like a big polyrhythmic jam session. Time can slow down, or stretch out, or let it rip. When we feel the force of gravity, we are feeling time’s rhythmic improvisation; falling objects are drawn to places where time passes more slowly. Time not only affects what matter does but also responds to what matter is doing, like drummers and dancers firing one another up into a rhythmic frenzy. When things get out of hand, though, time can go up in smoke like an overexcited drummer who spontaneously combusts.

 

[danshawen]

Here you misunderstand the Lorentz factor. There is a square on the velocity term which makes the sense on v irrelevant. Further, it's a projection which only has one "sense". It ranges between zero and the "length" (absolute value, Euclidean distance, or magnitude, if you prefer) of the dimension that is sourcing it (being projected).

You can argue that there is a possible negative pair of roots to the radical, but I wouldn't for a minute ask you to explain what that means, esp. if you insist that the domain for all spacetime is constrained to positive time and positive length (a single quadrant) for which we must dismiss the negative root.



No, Einstein's 1905 paper clearly identifies the Lorentz rotation, and it clearly squares the v term, so, yes, Dr. Greene is on top of his relativity. And please note, he completed his undergrad in 1984 at Harvard and his PhD in 1986 from Oxford (age 23 or so). Pretty astounding, no?

Will the alien riding the bicycle EVER arrive at the past by riding a relativistic bicycle AWAY from it? Minkowski rotation made more sense, but not really by very much. What if you could instantly change his location so that he is instead approaching us, keeping everything else except the relativistic rotation the same?

Space IS time, not related to time by complex numbers and the Pythagorean Theorem. Energy propagation in a vacuum at c is not even close to a complete description of the behavior of time, time dilation, entanglement, or relativistic QFT.

 

[paddoboy]

No, Einstein's 1905 paper clearly identifies the Lorentz rotation, and it clearly squares the v term, so, yes, Dr. Greene is on top of his relativity. And please note, he completed his undergrad in 1984 at Harvard and his PhD in 1986 from Oxford (age 23 or so). Pretty astounding, no?

I must remind you of something Aid.
Most of your posts are interesting and valid and correct in the claims they make.
Most people also on this forum use the "like" button for its correct purpose to indicate that he/she agrees with a certain post.
danshawen on the other hand makes a mockery of this and for reasons known only to himself, uses it in a derisive and facetious fashion.
Another "good friend" of mine also does the same thing.
It explains why I'm top of the list in the numbers of likes.
Just thought I would mention that in case you are puzzled.

 

[danshawen]

It explains why I'm top of the list in the numbers of likes.

You are at the top of the list because you are that good, paddo. This is not sarcasm; I recognize your value here, and not just because of accumulated 'likes'.

I am not adverse to giving likes to what most people would consider negative reviews of what I write. I have no pressing need for anyone here or anywhere else to agree with me. I value honest opinions in either direction. If their responses give me pause to rethink my own assumptions, so much the better. Science actually works best when it's iterative, and conflicting or dissonant ideas are not completely filtered out by established science. Even the best established science fails extension at some point.

I'm also not adverse to chatting with someone like Eugene, whose views on many topics are very different from my own in many respects. It doesn't make him necessarily wrong to disagree with me, G-d knows. Strong religious beliefs do not necessarily negate a natural curiosity and a talent for doing good science.

 

[paddoboy]

You are at the top of the list because you are that good, paddo. This is not sarcasm; I recognize your value here, and not just because of accumulated 'likes'.

I am not adverse to giving likes to what most people would consider negative reviews of what I write. I have no pressing need for anyone here or anywhere else to agree with me. I value honest opinions in either direction. .

No, I'm certainly not that good, not by any stretch of the imagination. But this isn't about me.
And if I am wrong about you I apologise. But one other is playing [or has played that weird game] as I have described.
He for the sake of peace in our time will remain nameless at this instant.

 

[paddoboy]

I'm also not adverse to chatting with someone like Eugene, whose views on many topics are very different from my own in many respects. It doesn't make him necessarily wrong to disagree with me, G-d knows.

I see his well worn, over the top, evangelistic approach and the obvious agenda it includes, as rather anti science in its objective.

Strong religious beliefs do not necessarily negate a natural curiosity and a talent for doing good science.

Agreed. And strong religious beliefs do not lessen a person's worth in my opinion. My wife is a deeply religious person in the true sense of the word.
And we all remember George La-Maitre and the BB don't we, which the Catholic church [of which I belong unless they have excommunicated me without my knowledge] also now accept along with evolution.
But from that point, they seem to depart from science.

 

[The God]

If so, how do you reconcile Feynman's use of a negative-going timeline with your idea that the forward moving arrow alone is a "case closed"? That was all I was trying to elicit from you.

Feynman simply suggested that diagrams can be explained if you consider positron as electron moving in reverse time. The proposition that Anti particle can be treated as one moving back in time, has not found any acceptance as such. So mere reference to Feynman does not open the case, its neither closed as far as research is concerned. I wonder if time reversal can be localised if at all. It will certainly pose a serious issue to the spacetime concept, and if human beings can create the Time reversal somewhere somehow, then it is quite likely that it must be happening somewhere in the nature (vast universe), what would be the fabric of such spacetime and its positive vicinity, well unimaginable as of now.

 

[danshawen]

Feynman simply suggested that diagrams can be explained if you consider positron as electron moving in reverse time. The proposition that Anti particle can be treated as one moving back in time, has not found any acceptance as such. So mere reference to Feynman does not open the case, its neither closed as far as research is concerned. I wonder if time reversal can be localised if at all. It will certainly pose a serious issue to the spacetime concept, and if human beings can create the Time reversal somewhere somehow, then it is quite likely that it must be happening somewhere in the nature (vast universe), what would be the fabric of such spacetime and its positive vicinity, well unimaginable as of now.

Asimov elaborated Feynman's conception of time reversal by antimatter in a short piece ('I'm looking over a four leaf clover'). Dirac, who predicted the existence of the particle we call a positron, apparently had similar ideas.

In a sense, unravelling each other as they manifestly do is evidence of local time reversal, AS THEY ABRUPTLY GO BACK TO THE STATE FROM WHICH THEY ORIGINALLY FORMED. And it quickly becomes as if no time had passed between the time they were created and the time they were annhialated. But because the Standard Model has for the most part chosen to ignore the singularities involving time in favor of calculating probabilities, this understanding has evidently been missed.

In another thread, together we resolved the Ehrenfest Paradox (also known as the relativistic merry -go-round). The twin paradox works as well for a large circular trajectory in which the younger twin is never in an inertial reference frame with respect to the older twin who is not accelerated at all. An observer riding the tip of a rotating relativistic second hand undergoes time dilation such that his atomic wristwatch will not agree with someone at rest with respect to the face of the clock. They will not agree on the time it takes to complete one revolution, nor the circumference of the face of the clock, nor even the value of the Euclidean constant Pi which appears in the general relativity field equations as though it were not observer or motion dependent. As it spins nearer and nearer the speed of light, time slows down as it does for a linear trajectory, and for the twin riding the second hand, the time required to complete but a single rotation stretches to infinity. Time does not actually stop for energy that is bound, nor may it ever actually achieve a translational speed of c while bound, but another process, entanglement, takes over to keep bound energy in that state. Unbound energy may be governed by this process as well, on a scale of time much grainier than the coarse one relativity uses to describe the bulk transport of bound or unbound energy.

Acceleration does not mean the same thing for bound energy propagating in a similar manner as it does for unbound energy. Time dilation is the same in both cases. Energy that is bound may experience Doppler shift resulting from any additional energy of motion, but this is spread in all directions rather than the way it works for unbound energy.

These are the understandings that are missed by tossing out time as a working variable in the Standard Model, and also why it cannot be reconciled with relativity theory.

Whole reversal of time in all frames of reference at once would mean that all bound energy simultaneously gets unbound, because time does not pass within particles of bound energy. Unbound energy would need to reverse its direction of propagation. If you think that relativity even comes close to describing the intricacies of how time itself may behave when reversed, or how to effect time travel into the past, think again. Time runs at different rates everywhere, and only the instant (NOT A TIME INTERVAL) of NOW and time's arrow is common to any of them.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Will the alien riding the bicycle EVER arrive at the past by riding a relativistic bicycle AWAY from it?

What does direction of travel have to do with time dilation?

Minkowski rotation made more sense, but not really by very much. What if you could instantly change his location so that he is instead approaching us, keeping everything else except the relativistic rotation the same?

v is the relative velocity in the Lorentz relation. As you see, the answer is the same whether v is positive or negative.

Space IS time,

No, space is space, of units "meters" (cubic meters) and time is time (of units "seconds"). Both are relative, and inversely so, which makes your claim all the more impossible.

not related to time by complex numbers and the Pythagorean Theorem.

No, space and time (in relativity) are related by the Lorentz transformation. It's a coordinate transformation (projection) of a rotation (in this case hyperbolic). This has little or nothing to do with the Pythagorean theorem, and your reference to complex numbers seems to deny the relationship between hyperbolic and standard trig functions, which you are not going to disprove no matter how hard you try.

which is nothing more than the product of 4 individual standard rotations, substituting the hyperbolic functions for the standard trig functions.

Energy propagation in a vacuum at c is not even close to a complete description of the behavior of time, time dilation, entanglement, or relativistic QFT.

Time and space don't "behave". Nor did anyone say that lightspeed is completely defined by anything. That being said, there is reason to conclude that lightspeed (geometric mean of the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of the vacuum) can be attributed to the statistical lifetimes and and densities of Fermion pair creation/annihilation:

http://www.physics.utah.edu/~lebohec/Speed_of_light/QuantumVaccumAsOriginOfC2013.pdf

and as you see the permittivity and permeability are similarly "created".

 

[Aqueous Id]

Feynman simply suggested that diagrams can be explained if you consider positron as electron moving in reverse time. The proposition that Anti particle can be treated as one moving back in time, has not found any acceptance as such. So mere reference to Feynman does not open the case, its neither closed as far as research is concerned. I wonder if time reversal can be localised if at all. It will certainly pose a serious issue to the spacetime concept, and if human beings can create the Time reversal somewhere somehow, then it is quite likely that it must be happening somewhere in the nature (vast universe), what would be the fabric of such spacetime and its positive vicinity, well unimaginable as of now.

That argument seems moot in light of the fact of Fermion annihilation/creation pairs. To "pop out of existence" is certainly consistent with "leaving realtime" just as "popping into existence" comports with "entering realtime".

 

[danshawen]

which is nothing more than the product of 4 individual standard rotations, substituting the hyperbolic functions for the standard trig functions.

And the missing proof that time and space are related by trigonometric functions? No light cones, please. These are simply redundant statements of the same geometric relation without proof.

Hint: there is no proof; it is simply the kind of math least likely to be questioned when it was offered as science on a level with relativity, which has as much proof as you wish.

 

[Aqueous Id]

I must remind you of something Aid.
Most of your posts are interesting and valid and correct in the claims they make.
Most people also on this forum use the "like" button for its correct purpose to indicate that he/she agrees with a certain post.
danshawen on the other hand makes a mockery of this and for reasons known only to himself, uses it in a derisive and facetious fashion.
Another "good friend" of mine also does the same thing.
It explains why I'm top of the list in the numbers of likes.
Just thought I would mention that in case you are puzzled.

Ah, so for every system of statistical measurement, there is a hacker out there gumming up the works. I remember that he was kind of nutty, but I think he is really pushing the envelope now.

 

[Aqueous Id]

And the missing proof that time and space are related by trigonometric functions?

Only in terms of relativity, I said. Proof:

http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf

No light cones, please. These are simply redundant statements of the same geometric relation without proof.

No, your misunderstanding is from failing to take a course in Linear Algebra. Again, it's a projection of a rotation. See the text above for discussion.

Hint: there is no proof; it is simply the kind of math least likely to be questioned when it was offered as science on a level with relativity, which has as much proof as you wish.

Hint: you must first master the basics before you can proclaim that academia has it wrong. (This math is freshman/sophomore level, not considered deep at all.)

 

[Aqueous Id]

It is simply the kind of math least likely to be questioned

That is about the dumbest thing I have ever seen posted. The math of projections is not mysterious at all. Here is a typical class presentation:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~pathomas/hypercubepages/rotationandprojection.html

Incidentally, I had to solve this for an actual system (flight simulator containing avionics displays) and discovered I could make it work "in real time" (on what was then a relatively slow computer) (though one of the fastest of that era) by pre-calculating a huge table (for fine grained angles of pitch, yaw and roll of the aircraft) and storing it in advance.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Time dilation is different EVERYWHERE.

Nonsense. Look again at what Brian Greene meant by "a slice" of the spacetime continuum. Time dilation is the same everywhere that the frame of reference is co-moving (i.e, "the same"). Consider the GPS satellites. Those in the same orbits must necessarily experience the same amount of time dilation, regardless of WHERE they are. And time on Earth (at sea level) is everywhere the same. And so on.

That is part of the reason that reversing it is impossible.

Actually, it is quite easy to reverse time dilation, such as would happen when the space shuttle would break orbit and begin re-entry. Of course here you have to compare the competing effects of gravity and spacecraft speed (upon dilation). Reversing the arrow of time is another thing; I was merely trying to stimulate dialogue about the backwards arrows in Feynman's diagrams. A fresher subject might be the "temporal" reversals that take place with Fermion pairs.

It violates the nature of the stationary quantum field responsible for entanglement, and which gives rise to the way unbound energy becomes bound into matter.

Oh, so are you going to explain entanglement in a relativistic setting? That's going to be hard if you haven't yet mastered Linear Algebra.

Simply exceeding c is not going to cut it. Entanglement already does this.

Entanglement has nothing to do (per se) with propagation speed, not until you start tying it to the natural causes, such as in the paper on Fermion pairs. Your point about entanglement is understood - however I think that may better be expanded in a thread on entanglement. (The philosophical question here is whether anything is being "emitted" which accounts for this "action at a distance". Not necessarily so! That's why I think it's irrelevant here.)

Somehow we got away from the topic: that Brian Greene produced a very good visual demonstration of relativity in his program "Fabric of the Cosmos". Now I propose that we discuss what he meant by "fabric of the cosmos".