Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 122
Like Tree10Likes

Thread: The Fully Relativistic Spacescape

  1. #1 The Fully Relativistic Spacescape 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    It's hard to call this my ''theory'' because the essential idea's have been in place for many years. The only thing new I personally add is a model: A new way to think of the universe as a spacescape; I do however add one new feature to an already existing model of relativity that Julian Barbour has been forwarding for decades, to Machian relativity, to find a full a theory will have to involve physical locations in space - this can only be done by taking world lines of all the systems in the universe (holistic) and their interactions. This will make Machian Relativity (considered by some the most difficult of all relativistic theories, compatible with GR. We will also reason why Minkowski space-time is not compatible with GR. I may need to split the posts up as this work is very very long.




    The Fully Relativistic
    Space-Scape






    ABSTRACT


    In this work, we will show you how Newtonian time (a time which flows) can only be called into question in this paper. Instead, we will argue there is no evidence an external time for the universe and the flow of time is in fact an illusion; we will argue it has only existed so long because of a fanciful idea that science clung onto since Minkowski proposed it, a little after Einstein published his special theory. What we will find in this work, is that Einstein most likely didn't think time was fundamental and was aware that his general relativity predicted static time for the universe. Time falls out of general relativity in three ways, one way is by describing evolution as a symmetry of the theory, one is directly from the Wheeler de Witt equation and the third is that GR really says you cannot think of time without matter. To satisfy a proper understanding of time, we must conclude that if GR is telling us global time doesn't exist then it cannot be fundamental to the universe and the evolution within it. However, local time can exist because it is emergent, it is induced when the universe becomes cool enough to allow matter to appear (Higgs Mechanism). In this sense, time is emergent when matter appears in our universe. We will also investigate mathematical tools to see how viable it is to describe a theory of timeless physics.






    And in the beginning: There was the definition of time




    This will not be an easy paper to simply write out and explain, it will probably take about several reads to understand it as well. The problems are numerous and in this paper, I must tackle these issues efficiently. First of all, we need to define what time is. Newton, the father of classical physics defined time as:


    Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time ...''


    And concerning absolute space, he said


    Absolute space, in its own nature, without regard to anything external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses determine by its position to bodies: and which is vulgarly taken for immovable space ... Absolute motion is the translation of a body from one absolute place into another: and relative motion, the translation from one relative place into another.


    Thinking time flows equably without any reference to anything external, means that time flows relative to the human being. This ''flow of time'' has been in physics literature for a very long time and the conclusions are startling. And though there is nothing external which we can say is in any reference to time, means that any mathematical we use in our equations, assume immediately without any evidence that there is an external time present without the observer.


    We of course, do not believe in any absolute space or time in the context Newton implied them. In Newton's picture, the universe was a pure vacuum with no quantum activity. In the quantum picture, time doesn't even have a flow. In relativity, there is no true ''flow to time'' either, because fundamental to it is the relativity of simultaneity which argues all events actually happen side by side... time itself was an illusion.


    Now, this external, intrinsic flow to the observer, which seems to extend from past to future... isn't actually the way modern scientists think about time at all [1] - If time really existed in the quantum sense it would instead be sharp beginnings and ends, fleeting moments of existence which are not continuous. This is the quantum picture of time.


    The relativity of space says it is continuous. Minkowski (Einstein's teacher) extended his relativity principle to say space-time is continuous also as a fourth dimension of space. (1)


    The quantum picture of time at first differed with the relativity of time. But sooner or later, the mistakes would show.... Minkowski space was probably based on faulty principles including the idea that time is continuous or discrete... it turns out that time probably doesn't exist at all (this still leaves open the question of whether space is fundamental, maybe something I will tackle in a future paper) (2). Minkowski when he extended Einstein's idea's made time as a fundamental property of the universe. When Paul Dirac was asked about he thought, he said he was ''inclined to disagree to think that four dimensional unity was fundamental.''


    Einstein had a bit of a schizophrenic nature on time concerning ''some'' comments over his career, but I think it's clear Einstein never considered time fundamental within physics. He was definitely more than aware that his very own GR which is hailed to this day through experimentation was essentially timeless. After Minkowski had published his theory on four dimensional space, Einstein was known later in his years to comment that the mathematicians ''butchered his theory'' as he knew it.


    Before Minkowski's idea shot off, Einstein's theory was still basic in how they were interpreted and Machian relativity almost vanished from the minds of physicists altogether; though, not many know, but Einstein was heavily influenced by the idea's of Mach, one of the founding fathers of relativity. Actually Machian theory was more truer in the general relativistic sense Einstein intended his theory than the four-dimensional case proposed by his teacher Minkowski.


    To be relativistic, you need to talk about each point in space; but points in space are not really physical, only interactions are. This happens because General Relativity is manifestly Covariant which makes sure that the laws of physics remain the same in every coordinate frame. This allows physicists to use diffeomorphism invariance, a beautiful mathematical consequence in which the universe isn't desccribed by a cosmological ... instead it arises as symmetry of the motion of the theory. In other words, it's measuring change using diffeomorphisms to describe ''time without time.''


    Machian relativity doesn't use time either to describe the evolution of systems, instead as he famously put it


    ''we arrive at the abstraction of time, from the changes of things.''


    Interestingly, Leibniz also made a similar argument, believing that space in itself made no sense, unless speaking about locations. Time in itself made no sense, unless inferred from the relative movement of bodies... But Mach's idea's where already bubbling, he wanted to advocate a holistic relativistic model


    ''When, accordingly, we say that a body preserves unchanged its direction and velocity in space, our assertion is nothing more or less than an abbreviated reference to the entire universe.''


    Gravitation and Inertia, p. 387


    On this relativistic ''space-scape'' I call it, changes of physical systems in this universe are our definition of time, without it, if systems did not change, there would be no way to define time at all. Here is one way to articulate the problem, if change is the true definition of time and change happens in space then time isn't space itself, it's a measure of disorder in space. The closest thing we have to the definition of time as we understand it, is entropy and this thermodynamic law gives rise the cosmological arrow of time as it is known using popular science buzzwords. (Later I will provide a ''toy'' model towards a theory of everything using entropic gravity, the entropy part being our definition of the measure of change and gravity being described from the entropic laws).


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    To believe there is an order to things which gives rise to a ''direction'' in time is a very wrong picture to adopt within relativity because of simultaneity. The relativity of simultaneity forbids us from absolutely saying every event in the universe can ever be agreed upon. Because of this, it argues that events may as well happen side-by-side. Time appears between moving observers which dilates when thing happen in different frame of references; in a funny sense, it is time dilation that gives rise to time [anime *]. Also, there is no place in the universe we can point to and say ''it all happened there.'' In fact, according to modern theory, the big happened at every point throughout space. So where is this linear view of time, with a definite past to some definite future? It's completely analogous to applying concepts like ''up'' and ''down'' in the universe because there are none. So equally, there is no ''true'' arrow in space for the evolution of things either. There is only a measure of change in a given instant.


    Not only is Newtonian time linear, but he implies it is external flowing to us. To this day, many many years later, no physicist has ever shown evidence of this. Time is not an observable and so cannot be ''measured'' in the quantum sense; it doesn't have any corresponding Hermitian matrix. One can ''measure'' time in relativity, but it isn't a true quantum measurement, nor should any scientist really believe a clock measures time... it measures a mechanical change and we measure this by the displacements of it's hands. There is also no-non trivial operator for time in physics.


    So as you can see, so far the definition of time is tricky, but Newtonian time is most likely incorrect thinking that external time exists. There are no problems with understanding a subjective time existing... in fact there are internal gene regulators in the brain which act a theory to why humans have a sense of time at all, many animals have these internal circadian rhythms; so we have a perfectly reasonable biological explanation for the subjective experience of time. The sense Newton gave his flow of time without relation to anything external, probably because there is no way you can physically relate something external with time (the measurement of time is ill-defined in relativity whereas in quantum theory, time isn't an observable). Time is likely emergent, induced from the presence of matter fields; this would mean time isn't fundamental after all and there are many great reasons to think this might be the case we will get into later.


    With all the definition nonsense out of the way, let's just get to some hard facts about the model of timelessness. Why is it a problem? How does time fall out of physics?




    ref.
    (1) -Recent experiments have shown space-time still to be continuous to great degree by measuring the time taken of distant photons. This was to measure how ''grainy'' space time was.


    (2) - Markopoulou has already offered a theory in which time is fundamental but space isn't. She argues that the quantum theory of gravity will essentially be spaceless. I have already surmised myself that maybe not only time is not fundamental but maybe space isn't either: this could provide a reason to entanglement - systems continue to be ''connected'' because separation is a macroscopic illusion and isn't fundamental for quantum systems allowing intrinsic non-locality. Perhaps the final theory will not only be timeless then, but also spaceless. The trick is to able to describe ''time without time,'' just as General Relativity does.


    [anime *] File:Relativity of Simultaneity Animation.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    As you can see in this on-line animation, events A, B and C all occur at different times depending on the motion of the observer. Because no one can agree on when an event happens, time appears to be an illusion where the past and future are simply products of the human mind. Our distinction of the past and future is called the psychological arrow of time; there are biological gene regulators which play the role for our perception of time and the different speeds at which perception happens. Note the latter phenomenon is biological, while simultaneity is a relativistic phenomenon.




    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    The Time Problem of Physics



    It is true in fact, that time falls out of physics in several different ways, in this work we will investigate a few of these approaches, one of the most famous is the Wheeler de Witt equation. You see, in the 1960's Wheeler came to de Witt for help constructing a theory of quantum gravity.


    To do this, de Witt quantized the General Relativistic equations to find what has become familiar as





    Such a simple equation, it is in fact the timeless Schrodinger equation. What he found was that if you apply quantum mechanics to the universe, you find out it doesn't have a fundamental clock!


    This was an interesting equation for some other reasons as well: Apparently, this ''field of gravity'' was unlike any of the other quantum fields they dealt with in quantum theory. It was manifestly real, the field wasn't a complex one. Fields in quantum mechanics are inherently complex, so this was an unusual feature of quantum theory.


    But moreover, it showed that gravity wasn't what it seemed. Later I will propose a way in which scientists might look forward to: This will require a better understanding of gravity (in which there is no universal agreement with any theory as thus far) - we will see later though, the problem might be it is not a quantum field any way.


    Before we close off this small section of this work, I want to explain not to be deceived by the idea that time hasn't been used in relativity, of course, special relativity incorporates it without any troubles. The unification of GR to SR might find a deep philosophical breakdown of space with time. Already, motion in GR is described by no time parameter while in special relativity, moving observers experience time.


    It turns out there is a solution: the problem lies in the use of ''observer.'' In quantum field theory, an observer can be a particle, doesn't need to be a conscious moving observer measuring the time it take for light to reach one place to another (this is misnomer), you are actually measuring your own time, not the photons. Instead, particles can act as observers and when you apply these principles in a cosmological approach, you do find time disappearing - at least our ability to describe it. We will find out later why this is.


    The Model Towards the Fully Relativistic Space-Scape


    When we think about Minkowski space, it treats one of it's four space dimensions as an imaginary dimension to account for time. A popular way to think about space and time, is that they form a single system that stretches perhaps... forever.


    In many ways, it is a bit like a landscape. Time and space in this unified picture make a landscape for all the events inside the universe. However, we are arguing of course there is no time... we argue time is a measure of change [in] space, it isn't space itself. Treating it as a dimension of space is treated as faulty in this work. Change is what defines time, if there was no change, there would be no way to describe time.


    Change then will be described in a 'space-scape' which was just a fancy way of saying ''arena'' and the arena of space is where statistical averages (particles) interact and change with respect to each other - configuration space is the arena in which the physicist works. This fully space theory of relativity, is probably more relativistic if you can imagine such a thing, than even Minkowski space time. Minkowski space time assumes there is an external time coordinate, whereas this space theory correlates strongly to Machian Relativity which describes ''time without time''.
    Around Newtons time, he knew there where three different ways you could describe motion in the universe,


    1. With an asbolute space-time background


    2. With boundary conditions at spatial infinity


    3. By Machian relativity


    It was considered that 3. was the hardest of the approaches which said motion was relative and holistic (in the sense that motion is driven in a causal manner by all other systems in the universe). Minkowski relativity slices up in space and time using Lorentz boosts and you can go from coordinate frame to another. Machian relativity is quite different indeed, it says that any point is relative to every other point in the universe.


    Now... points in space themselves are not physical according to modern relativity, only interactions are. It is believed that the laws of physics should be the same in every coordinate frame, similar to the Lorentz boost allowing you to go to one coordinate frame to another, diffeomorphism invariance allows you to shuffle freely between coordinates in GR. The motion then in GR arises as a symmetry of the theory, you don't actually have a time parameter. This is important, because while special relativity describes moving observers and uses a notion of local time, General Relativity actually acts a lot more like Machian Relativity at times. The technical difference between the boost and diffeomorphism, is that the boost preserves a spacetime interval naturally and Diffeomorphisms shuffle coordinates without any reference to time, again, the motion appears as a symmetry of the theory. The addition General Relativity has done with the motion is to be able to say points themselves are not physical, which means Machian Relativity needs to account for this.


    In Machian relativity, how can points be relative to each other but points are not physical in themselves only their interactions are?

    While Lorentz transformations preserved the assumption the rules of physics should be the same in every coordinate frame, it is General Covariance that allows General Relativity to assume the laws of physics are the same in every coordinate frame. As it turns out, Einstein solved this problem concerning how to give meaning back to coordinates in space. Basically you get physical points back when you consider the entire world line and their interaction. (Already, you need to think ''holistically'' about a systems history, than just a point, might we find you also need to think of the universe holistically as well?)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    There are other valid reasons to think Machian relativity has to describe the world, as we saw earlier, one of the popular timeless problems is when you quantize GR you get back the Wheeler de Witt equation, which is really just the time-independent Schrodinger equation. Moreover, the probabilities are for complete three-geometries and the values of matter fields on them which involves the complete configuration of the universe: not for values of some metric on some underlying manifold [1]. This means already, we are getting a sense of Machian relativity when we have to think holistically about the universe as a whole. Indeed, it wasn't long until Einstein realized the metric tensor could describe such a system.


    Now we can see how points in Machian Relativity can be physical; we have to formulate the theory not only with relative positions in Machian Relativity but it also must make world lines relative, to give positions a physical meaning. To say Machian Relativity not only makes the points but world lines physical, is akin to General Relativity dragging matter with the metric under Diffeomorphisms. So how do we write this new definition of Machian Relativity?


    I believe it is an important realization that position and world lines need to be included into Machian relativity. This isn't about ''replacing'' current General Relativity, it's doubtful any theory will better it for a long time to come. Instead, we want to incorporate a timeless understanding using Machian relativity (which in many ways already satisfies many contentions GR makes), again, this is largely due to Einstein being heavily influenced by Machian relativity. Points as it turns out, can be physical in Machian space just so long as you include their world lines and their interactions.


    Well, a frame work for relative distances was made by Julian Barbour (which can be found at the end of this chapter). Already, Barbour is attempting to bridge some ''gaps'' from Machian relativity to General Relativity. The Kinematic concept is Relative Configuration Space or (RCS) for short and goes on to express it in terms of a Newtonian many-body system consisting of particles in a fixed three-dimensional Euclidean space. Each point are all distinct relative configurations of these N-particles (to this, I add world lines and their interactions to be fully consistent with GR).


    The Newtonian mechanics of a universe of N-gravitating particles in Euclidean space is given quite beautifully by Julian Barbour. These particles will have a mass where and then a metric can be written





    The metric is flat and too simple to yield non-trivial dynamics which can be obtained by the conformal factor which Barbour derives an action





    You can go on from here to derive the Euler Langrange equations once you define a kinetic energy term





    It should be explained, that the equation doesn't explicitely depend on which usually plays the role of time. In fact, as Julian Barbour says, it is much more illuminating to think of it in it's timeless form, in which our kinetic energy absorbs that with a new term





    Note, that has been playing the role our generalized coordinates, we will now convert to normal convention.


    The kinetic energy is related to the action with a -derivative





    We can also absorb that term again to simply write the timeless action





    As explained, Julian Barbour has indeed wrote out a very nice framework for the theory. And it encorporates these holistic, relativistic idea's Mach wanted to think of the universe. Mach was no doubt influenced by the Newtonian idea that all matter in the universe effected all other systems. Mach believed inertia itself was a property induced by all the systems in the heavens, as he once said:


    ''You are standing in a field looking at the stars. Your arms are resting freely at your side, and you see that the distant stars are not moving. Now start spinning. The stars are whirling around you and your arms are pulled away from your body. Why should your arms be pulled away when the stars are whirling? Why should they be dangling freely when the stars don't move?''


    You can feel a bit of this theory in Machian Relativity as well when he argues all systems are relative to each other in the universe, their positions are relative to all other systems. At least in my work, that may only be true if you consider their world lines and their interactions with it. But this subject of inertia brings me to a last discussion which will take us to Julian Barbour's idea which are largely responsible for my interest on the subject.


    Relativity says there is a problem, if motion is indeed relative then how do you locally define inertia? Well, actually, Julian Barbour has presented many idea's over the years that might help pave a way to an understanding of how to solve the time problem. He has dedicated work to show that Machian Relativity deals with changes of systems where positions are only relative to each other. He defines it by taking a generic solution of the Newtonian many body problem [2] of celestial planets [3]. Instead of giving time to systems described by their various configurations, you can simply give a sequence of the events. He omits the information (he says which is characterized by six numbers) which describes the position and orientation of the system, he does this by specifying the semi-metric - and finally, he omits the scale information (he calls one number) contained in the metric (separation). He says this is best done by normalizing them by the square root of the moment of inertia





    ''The resulting information'' he says, ''can be plotted as a curve on phase space.''


    But perhaps more importantly he seems to have solved this problem about how one defined inertia within the theory; it keeps all the valuable information that the original Machian theory was based upon and that involving relative positions.


    [1] http://www.platonia.com/barbour_emergence_of_time.pdf


    http://www.platonia.com/barbour_nature.pdf


    http://www.platonia.com/barbour_bert...s1982_scan.pdf


    [2] http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0309089v1.pdf


    [3] All types of motion may contribute to any understanding of time. This includes then changes of celestial bodies. Time is just a measure of change, there is no specification about whether the change is using planets or the displacement of particles.


    Julian Barbours model: http://www.platonia.com/barbour_nature.pdf


    Barbour's paper is interesting for another reason, he does understand that it is hard to reconcile the local time experienced in special relativity to the universal time, and he mentions this within the first page of this work. The distinction I believe is which is more fundamental, emergent time, or cosmological time? Clearly the universe is more fundamental than the matter fields contained within it, which are required to define time itself. Special relativity then satisfies the low energy range. In the high energy range, special relativity isn't able to define time at all.


    Just so there is no confusion, the high energy range concerns itself with high-energy physics of early cosmology. During very early cosmology, the universe was extremely hot - too hot for matter if you like. The universe then begins to cool down and when it has cooled down sufficiently, matter appears. At this range, special relativity appears consistent. So, the question of how they make sense of each other, that is special relativity and timelessness of general relativity, may just be an application of environment!

    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880

    Tools of Timelessness


    Ok... so if we actually can deal with relative positions then what about all our mathematical tools that use time to describe, say action... how do you understand any of that without time?


    Well, actually, we have quite number of the tools required to describe timelessness already. We already have a timeless Schrodinger equation. There is also a timeless action using only generalized coordinates





    This is also related to momentum





    With there being a timeless action, there is also naturally a timeless path integral that exists in quantum mechanics [1]. The reference given is an important one, it will propose an action using the variational principle, an approach that was favored in this next citation [2]. In this work, we will not even attempt any quantum picture of ''time.'' If there is a ''quantum time'' we can be sure it doesn't fit into the Newtonian picture of time in which it flows from the past to the future. Instead, quantum time would be made up discretely of very quick beginnings and ends. However, actually discovering how pixelated reality is has shown to be difficult, space-time has been shown to be pretty much smooth down to small scales so far by measuring how long it has taken for light to reach us from some distant event.




    [1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1009.5436v4.pdf
    [2] http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-conte...ime_FQXiEs.pdf




    Induced Time and Matter Clocks




    On the macroscopic scale, time really does appear real to us and I suppose within the context of a field theory coupled to special relativity, you could define easily in a model where matter acts as clocks. In fact, the definition is well-recognized that, if only radiation fields existed Penrose says, ''time essentially disappears.''


    Well, that was within the context actually, of his own Cyclic universe theory, but it uses the same physics. In his model, the universe get's so large that matter eventually evaporates away, into gravitational radiation no doubt and all you are left with ''is radiation fields,'' he concludes ''and so time somewhat disappears.'' And then later, time re-emerges with a new beginning all over again.


    Instead, we want to remove the idea of cyclic models and ask the same question by taking into consideration a fact about the model: when big bang happened, how do you define time because matter did not appear until the electroweak symmetry breaking?


    I am sure Penrose had caught onto this question at some point in his life, as it is a completely valid one. If you are using the disappearance of matter fields to remove time, then how could the universe have a beginning to time, if there were no matter fields about initially? The universe in this respect from relativity, was also timeless. There were no moving clocks to define time inside the universe.


    The previous part which spoke about similarities and differences between Machian Relativity and General Relativity was talking about coordinate phenomenon and these coordinates ''problems'' was considered for many years by Einstein in what he called his hole argument. It is maybe interesting to point out, that Einstein finally settled with an understanding he was happy with. As we learned, a point in space is physically meaningless, Einstein believed that the hole argument implied that the meaningful definition of location and time is through matter itself! Isn't that interesting? Einstein appears to be saying time itself is meaningless without the presence of matter.


    You can actually show that matter can have internal clocks (a way for matter to have a local experience of time) by recognizing some very basic physics equations. So how do you give 'time to matter?' Let's take a look at two equations








    If you don't recognize the first one you're not a particle physicist. If you don't know the second one, you don't read much science. But take my word for it, these two equations are universally-accepted and when you string them together you find the clock of matter:





    DeBroglie was the first to recognize that an electron could have an internal clock and work by David Hestene's has shown that there has been some experimental confirmation for this using channeling experiments. This local gauging of time to matter is important. It's how relativity even defines time; it's more fundamental say, than using two moving human observers. It's much more enlightening to think of matter being the fundamental mediator of time itself. Certainly, this was Einstein's final conclusion after his ''struggle with the meaning of coordinates,'' as he called it when he finally came to understand that location and time can only be meaningful when you have matter fields in the picture.


    This brings us back to the thought-experiment, if the universe began with only radiation fields, how can relativity say there was any time present? Effectively, it can't. How do you deal with gravity without time?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Entropic Gravity


    It was found, by some very clever scientists that you can retreive Einstein's field equations from statistical mechanics.


    Earlier I explained that our best definition of time was change and so if we want to talk about the evolution of the universe, we should really be thinking of it in terms of entropy. Entropic gravity could perhaps describe our universe consistently within GR - the perk of using entropy like this is because of the way entropy makes use of every system in a statistical sense. In Machian relativity, time is also defined by the changes of systems relative to the positions of other systems. Time of course, is a measure of change.


    Well, entropy is the perfect tool to describe that change and now we know it is theoretically possible to recover general relativity from those equations. What a simple and yet beautiful theory it would be, if at the framework it was really depending on two well-known facts of physics, one of them being Einstein's famous relativistic field equations, the other a classical thermodynamic law. Is it possible we can create a proper understanding of gravity using only these two instruments? I think it is.


    Being entropic, means gravity is also not fundamental; this might be the best route we can take since it appears that gravity so far is best seen in light as a pseudoforce (not a true fundamental field). Of course, being emergent in this manner means it could work well in principle with geometrogenesis (the theory which proposes that matter, geometry (and time) are emergent properties of the universe). We know that General Relativity really says that time is unthinkable without matter fields. Perhaps not only is time and matter emergent, but perhaps then also geometry.


    There are now well over several scientists in this respect working in this field to attempt to find ways to falsify these idea's. Entropic gravity was heavily criticized for not producing measurable predictions (it only predicted already known facts)... I think it is foolish throwing away a theory because it makes the right predictions, that isn't the way you falsify a theory. It's an odd reason indeed not to like a theory.


    Final Thoughts


    When I discuss this subject to people, very few understand it. The major task is understanding how we can even talk about things without time. I've shown, some of these tools already exist. But conceptually, the popularity of space-time has become deceptively massive and almost threaded into the minds of physicists and layman alike.


    How do we unthread this train of thought?


    Well first of all, we have to correct popularized definitions; such as, one that is hailed in almost any popular science book at your local store, that Einstein said ''space, time, matter and energy are all one and the same thing.''


    If Einstein did make this statement, he never actually gave the fuller meaning, which doesn't actually state this at all. When it comes to time for instance, he realized in his General Theory that it was meaningless to even talk about time without matter. The inter-dependency of space-time-matter-energy is actually... space-energy first it seems, then matter-time gets folded into the mix, because if we take our current model of the universe, it tells us matter appears after a radiation epoch. Einstein was settled with his idea, that matter and time needed each other to be defined, so we must take this seriously. If the universe arose in radiation fields first, Einstein would it appears be forced to admit there is no way to even define time! The early universe was static until matter fields appeared, then we can begin to talk about time.


    So hopefully the popular understanding of relativity can be nipped in the bud, because it isn't actually fully true: You can have space and energy no problem, but in Einstein's hole argument, you can't have time without matter.


    The Wheeler de Witt equation is also a nice prediction from wedding quantum mechanics with general relativity, we get back a timeless Schrodinger equation. If quantizing general relativity leads to the correct picture, then Bryce deWitt did this in the 60's for Wheeler and ever since he called it ''that damn equation!'' The fact that coordinates can be freely exchanged without a time parameter describing evolution as a symmetry of the theory goes hand in hand with this timeless nature of GR.


    The cosmological consequences of not having a time parameter for the universe could be huge. It can predict for instance, that energy is not conserved. Without a cosmological there is no way to mathematically conserve it's energy; in itself, this could be a prediction our universe is leaking energy, so this makes testable predictions. There has already been work underway to see if the universe is leaking energy [1].


    To finish off, we already know what time is; Mach said it best


    ''we arrive at the abstraction of time, from the changes of things.''


    I like to tell myself, most people will agree that time is a measure of change: And in most instances I am correct, almost no one ever challenges this view. If there is no dispute change is the true definition of time, then how has there been a major paradigm shift of understanding, from making time an abstract from the changes of things, to something which is by definition a space dimension?


    It's because people, even physicists tend to cling onto fashionable idea's. It's helps to promote books, helps to promote your name for being able to talk about science in a simplistic way for audiences understand. Is it true though?


    After reading Einsteins real conclusions about how he defined time, would you believe the statement that space-time-matter-energy are all interdependant? Of course you'd question it, I did. I once thought the same thing, but Einstein actually said matter and time where unthinkable without each other within his theory. As I mentioned before, if we take the modern view of cosmology correctly, there where no matter fields originally.The universe has to undergo a Planck Epoch. It then had to undergo a unified electrostrong phase before the electroweak symmetry breaking occurred, then matter appears, this is directly after a radiation epoch of pure radiation fields.


    Can we afford to hold on to time like we have?


    I don't think so. Don't get me wrong, time is very meaningful because we draw that meaning from the changes of things. A lot of physics would be difficult without the use of time, while other parts of it no doubt will start to make sense. But this was no doubt a leading factor to why many physicists dared not to think of position as being relative, because at the crux of it, it would lead to a more complex theory. Interestingly, if we can learn anything from physics in the last 100 years is that Occams Principle, in principle almost never works. Quantum theory is far from rational and it has proven this time and time again.


    If it wasn't so blatantly obvious that time is an abstraction rather than an objective phenomenon, quantum physicists could have been accused of hiding a secret. Rather, it's came from a faulty understanding of what Einstein really said about the unity of space-time and matter-energy. It turned out that time was more an emergent phenomenon with matter because both could not be thought of without each other. This faulty premise needs to be fixed, or the next generation of physicists will tend to cling to fashionable idea's that have no direct confirmation at all.


    Now to end... a map has been given to the physicist now how to solve the time problem. It exists as a temperature problem of the universe, Special Relativity theory can only be applied to the low energy range, meaning that time emerges when matter appears in the universe. Special theory describes this effect quite well: Machian Theory coupled to General Relativity can help with a more fundamental picture of reality, where relativity is forced to admit it cannot define time without the presence of matter fields. The motion of systems in this fundamental theory will not deal with a time parameter, but instead a complex configuration (probably) three-geometry space where motion generates time.




    [1] Tamara M. Davis Is the Universe Leaking Energy? - Scientific American
    Other sources


    [1] No flow to time, George Ellis [0812.0240] On the Flow of Time


    In this work, Markopoulou does a good job explaining timelessness in GR. In her work, she attempts to take a radical new view on it's solution, by making time real, but space not [0909.1861] Space does not exist, so time can
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    That's all wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Naturally.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    No.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    No.

    But yes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Well, that sure was a lot of work.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Well, that sure was a lot of work.

    It's a long story. This is the model I think ... the future model of physics. I could be wrong, but the biggest objection of using timeless theories is how to deal with gravity?

    You can deal with gravity using pure statistics (entropy) modelled on a Euclidean space.

    How to do that, is the biggest leap! Half of it has been done already, scientists have been able to recover Einstein's field equations simply from statistical mechanics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    No.
    But yes.
    Definitely no.
    stonecutter likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    No.
    But yes.
    Definitely no.
    Indubitably yes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    No.
    But yes.
    Definitely no.
    Indubitably yes.
    You've made similar mistakes to the ones in your other thread.
    That thread was wrong - and so is this one.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    No.
    But yes.
    Definitely no.
    Indubitably yes.
    You've made similar mistakes to the ones in your other thread.
    That thread was wrong - and so is this one.


    You where no were to be seen when my other thread was in action. If you had an objection about anything, you should have pointed it out... like how in this instance, calling something ''wrong'' doesn't make it wrong.


    you have to prove it is wrong like I have done my bit to prove what I am saying is correct.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Things like math, links... perhaps even mine quoting some scientists will do.

    But saying ''nope wrong'' doesn't qualify. You need better debating skills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    You where no were to be seen when my other thread was in action.
    The only explanation I have for your inability to see posts is that either they conclusively proved you wrong or showed you were unable to support your claims.
    PhDemon and stonecutter like this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    You where no were to be seen when my other thread was in action.
    The only explanation I have for your inability to see posts is that either they conclusively proved you wrong or showed you were unable to support your claims.

    ?

    Why don't I have memory of this? Any questions that have been asked to me, I have answered. Anything I've needed to back up, I have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    To do this, de Witt quantized the General Relativistic equations
    That's not really correct. The WDWE is not a quantisation of the Einstein equations, it is a constraint on a configuration space of static 3-metrics.

    Such a simple equation, it is in fact the timeless Schrodinger equation.
    No, not really - at first glance it looks like a Schroedinger equation, but in fact the H(x) is a first-class Hamiltonian constraint ( not the same as a Hamiltonian in standard QM ), and the state vector represents a functional of 3-metrics, as opposed to a complex-valued wave function.

    Apparently, this ''field of gravity'' was unlike any of the other quantum fields they dealt with in quantum theory
    That's because it isn't a quantum field.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    The Wheeler de witt equation is obtained by quantizing Einstein's field equations: I quote Julian Barbour

    Page 47



    http://www.platonia.com/complex_numbers.pdf



    turning them into contraints is quantum theory!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    No, not really - at first glance it looks like a Schroedinger equation

    Again, I quote Barbour, who has worked on this subject for well over 30 years


    ''The Wheeler de Witt equation, is really just the time-independent Schrodinger equation.''
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post

    That's because it isn't a quantum field.

    Good, I agree with you on something.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    155
    Time isn't really synonymous with change. They are two different ideas and concept. But time changes, I give you that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by thulium_gal View Post
    Time isn't really synonymous with change. They are two different ideas and concept. But time changes, I give you that.

    How do you define time without a measure of change?

    There is no way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    And the closest thing we have to a ''fundamental picture'' of change, is by the definition of entropy itself.

    And if indeed we can recover the equations of GR from entropy, then a complete 3-geometry of motion and gravity can be done in GR without time using pure statistics. Perhaps... just the way quantum nature intended.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    And the closest thing we have to a ''fundamental picture'' of change, is by the definition of entropy itself.

    And if indeed we can recover the equations of GR from entropy, then a complete 3-geometry of motion and gravity can be done in GR without time using pure statistics. Perhaps... just the way quantum nature intended.
    Because 'change' doesn't sound scientific. I get the idea of what you are describing but change doesn't sound the right word. Change it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by thulium_gal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    And the closest thing we have to a ''fundamental picture'' of change, is by the definition of entropy itself.

    And if indeed we can recover the equations of GR from entropy, then a complete 3-geometry of motion and gravity can be done in GR without time using pure statistics. Perhaps... just the way quantum nature intended.
    Because 'change' doesn't sound scientific. I get the idea of what you are describing but change doesn't sound the right word. Change it.

    Change is absolutely fine. I don't know any other names for change... emmm... mutable... will that work?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    The mutability of the universe. It does have a ring to it.

    I still think change is fine You've got me thinking now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    I quote Julian Barbour
    In the interest of civility I will refrain from any comment on this particular person.

    The Wheeler de witt equation is obtained by quantizing Einstein's field equations
    A quantisation of the Einstein equations would involve quantising the underlying action ( Einstein-Hilbert action ). This can of course be done, but has nothing whatsoever to do with the Wheeler deWitt equation, which is derived from the EQG path integral formulation. They are different approaches to different problems.

    ''The Wheeler de Witt equation, is really just the time-independent Schrodinger equation.''
    It is not, for reasons already explained; the SE involves an operator acting on a complex wave function, whereas the WDWE involves a first-class constraint on a configuration space functional. These are very different.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    I quote Julian Barbour
    In the interest of civility I will refrain from any comment on this particular person.

    Why?

    He's a brilliant scientist. He worked in private with many of the giants of physics for his time. Since leaving education, he never held a job in physics for too long. Now he mostly works as a translator.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    [QUOTE=Markus Hanke;557656]
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    The Wheeler de witt equation is obtained by quantizing Einstein's field equations
    A quantisation of the Einstein equations would involve quantising the underlying action ( Einstein-Hilbert action ). This can of course be done, but has nothing whatsoever to do with the Wheeler deWitt equation, which is derived from the EQG path integral formulation. They are different approaches to different problems.

    ''The Wheeler de Witt equation, is really just the time-independent Schrodinger equation.''
    It is not, for reasons already explained; the SE involves an operator acting on a complex wave function, whereas the WDWE involves a first-class constraint on a configuration space functional. These are very different.
    We may have to just agree to disagree on some points here. Since conflicting evidence on my side conflicts with your understanding, let's just try and agree with what we can. We both agree it is a 3 geometry Euclidean space - we may not agree on it's complete interpretation, but that's a better start than some people I have discussed this with on the internet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    We both agree it is a 3 geometry Euclidean space
    I am not sure what you mean by this; the configuration space itself has a Euclidean inner product ( afaik, since it is a Hilbert space ), but the elements of the configuration space - the 3-metric functionals - are obviously not Euclidean, or else there would be no gravity in our universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    We both agree it is a 3 geometry Euclidean space
    I am not sure what you mean by this; the configuration space itself has a Euclidean inner product ( afaik, since it is a Hilbert space ), but the elements of the configuration space - the 3-metric functionals - are obviously not Euclidean, or else there would be no gravity in our universe.

    Sorry, a bit muddled from my own work. My work (which was really Barbours work first) implements Machian relativity onto a Euclidean 3-space.

    Instead, what I should be saying, is we can agree the WDW equation is for complete three geometries and that GR is inherently timeless in this sense.

    Personally, I think Julian is correct and this is based on a number of observations I have made concerning similarities between the models. I have pointed out some of them above, one of them is that instead of Lorentz Boosts preserving spacetime coordinates to retain the same laws of physics in each coordinate, General Relativity does the same except it is called by another name and it isn't for four geometry like Minkowski spacetime is. This is why I think on the whole, Minkowski relativity is giving us the wrong picture, it's applicable to SR but clearly there is a breakdown when we get to GR.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    This is why I think on the whole, Minkowski relativity is giving us the wrong picture, it's applicable to SR but clearly there is a breakdown when we get to GR.
    Minkowski space-time is just a special case of an Einstein manifold where



    As such, you cannot model gravity in Minkowski space-time. SR is just a subset of GR for metrics that are isometric to the Minkowski metric, i.e. for flat space-time.

    and it isn't for four geometry like Minkowski spacetime is
    See above. The only difference between SR and GR is that for the former, the Riemann tensor identically vanishes everywhere, whereas for the latter it doesn't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post

    As such, you cannot model gravity in Minkowski space-time.

    See above. The only difference between SR and GR is that for the former, the Riemann tensor identically vanishes everywhere, whereas for the latter it doesn't.



    That's actually a very nice, sort of technical way to look at it - I actually didn't know Minkowski relativity couldn't model gravity?

    You really do learn something everyday... and even more reason why I don't like it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Though, I still don't like it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Howsoever, this may not be true after a quick search?
    Apologies, I wasn't quite clear enough - what I meant to say is that it isn't possible to consistently model gravity in flat space-time, it is of course possible to write scalar and vector models in flat space-time, as has always been done. Misner/Thorne/Wheeler in their standard work "Gravitation" dedicate an entire chapter to this, and show in detail why such models will fail; for example, a vector theory of gravity in Minkowski space-time yields gravitational radiation with negative energy flux, which is contrary to observation ( orbital decay couldn't happen ). A scalar model would predict the wrong deflection angles for light, and so on. The only internally self-consistent model is one where the space-time background is allowed to be non-Minkowskian, and the components of the metric tensor are related in a non-linear way.

    Linearised models on flat space-time are nonetheless useful as a weak-field, non-relativistic approximation ( e.g. gravitomagnetism ).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Howsoever, this may not be true after a quick search?
    Apologies, I wasn't quite clear enough - what I meant to say is that it isn't possible to consistently model gravity in flat space-time

    No problemo. Happens.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    for example, a vector theory of gravity in Minkowski space-time yields gravitational radiation with negative energy flux, which is contrary to observation ( orbital decay couldn't happen ).

    Interesting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    You where no were to be seen when my other thread was in action.
    The only explanation I have for your inability to see posts is that either they conclusively proved you wrong or showed you were unable to support your claims.
    ?
    Why don't I have memory of this?
    The only explanation I have for your inability to see posts is that either they conclusively proved you wrong or showed you were unable to support your claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Any questions that have been asked to me, I have answered. Anything I've needed to back up, I have.
    Nope - not true.
    There were even comments made by others regarding your lack of response.
    If it was just a single post, then it could have just slipped by.
    But since it was several posts, I expect you simply couldn't cope with being wrong and so blanked them from your mind.

    There is not much anyone can do to prevent your cognitive dissonance making you blind to your mistakes.
    You are simply condemned to a life of being ignorant of your own mistakes; a life of denial and delusion.

    Have you not noticed that you have not accepted one single criticism of your ideas?
    Do you really think your "theories" are perfect; without flaws?
    Do you truly think that there is no possibility of you making any mistake at all?

    You previous comments in this thread display your lack of interest in being corrected:
    "We may have to just agree to disagree on some points here."
    "We may not agree on it's complete interpretation, but that's a better start than some people I have discussed this with on the internet."
    "You really do learn something everyday... and even more reason why I don't like it."
    "Though, I still don't like it."
    "Sorry, a bit muddled from my own work. My work implements Machian relativity onto a Euclidean 3-space. Instead, what I should be saying, is ..."
    PhDemon likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Where were even comments made by others regarding your lack of response.

    Who?

    The same poster who said I never gave any evidence or links, when I provided them in abundance?

    I give links, when posters like yourself continue and continue to contradict me. The worst of the trolls... like that xyz guy, doesn't even acknowledge you have posted any links or any proof against his assertions.

    Yet I was in the wrong.

    I didn't calculate my units in my equation right.

    I can't talk about physics.

    I have been banned from every forum possible (or so they claim, it's really just an exaggeration of sciforums banning of me)




    So no... I don't need to take the abuse. I'll just ignore him in the future if he annoys me and trolls my threads and then sets false lies in the heads of people like you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    [QUOTE=RedPanda;557716]
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Do you really think your "theories" are perfect; without flaws?
    Do you truly think that there is no possibility of you making any mistake at all?

    You previous comments in this thread display your lack of interest in being corrected:
    "We may have to just agree to disagree on some points here."
    "You really do learn something everyday... and even more reason why I don't like it."
    "Though, I still don't like it."
    "Sorry, a bit muddled from my own work. My work implements Machian relativity onto a Euclidean 3-space. Instead, what I should be saying, is ..."


    Not about being corrected... I don't mind being corrected. I haven't seen enough evidence to change my views, that's different (this particular view contradicted the view of Barbour) since he is an authority on the matter, I cannot be persuaded that easily. I humbly agreed to disagree on a kind note.

    You want to somehow make it sinister.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Who?
    I cannot make the blind see.
    You will simply continue to wriggle and squirm, refusing to acknowledge any possible mistake on your part.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Not about being corrected... I don't mind being corrected.
    Your posting history says otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    I haven't seen enough evidence to change my views
    And you never will.
    To do so, would involve you admitting you were wrong - and that is never going to happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    You want to somehow make it sinister.
    Not sinister; simply delusional.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Your posting history says otherwise.


    the irony... talking about backing up statements, why don't you find some of these ''blatant refusals'' to provide links.


    Common, where are the relevant posts and threads? I only have about four threads, should be piss easy for you. Once you can find someone who has asked for citations and I never provided them, I'll do that thing you think I am incapable of doing... apologizing.

    Until then, stop attempting to bait me and derail my threads. Come back here when you have the relevant evidence that what you are saying is true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    talking about backing up statements, why don't you find some of these ''blatant refusals'' to provide links.
    This is a great example of you refusing to accept your mistakes.
    (And you even put the words "blatant refusals" in quotes, as if I have said those words - which I haven't.)

    I am not discussing any refusal by you to provide links.
    I am talking about the posts you have ignored; the replies you are somehow unable to see.
    (This can easily be confirmed by reading my posts in this thread - unless you are somehow also unable to see those posts.)

    You are trying to move the conversation away from you ignoring posts to something different.
    I expect you are uncomfortable discussing the posts you have ignored and wish to change the subject.
    stonecutter likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    talking about backing up statements, why don't you find some of these ''blatant refusals'' to provide links.
    This is a great example of you refusing to accept your mistakes.
    (And you even put the words "blatant refusals" in quotes, as if I have said those words - which I haven't.)

    I am not discussing any refusal by you to provide links.
    I am talking about the posts you have ignored; the replies you are somehow unable to see.


    Well here is a suggestion... this is an internet forum, it isn't possible for me to track every single post. Now and again I might miss one.

    But, if you could take your royal second to stop being cryptic and just tell me what post I am supposed to have missed, this would inexorably save valuable bandwidth!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    And ironically, save us both time, even thought I argue it doesn't exist. Can you stop being awkward and just get to the point?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    talking about backing up statements, why don't you find some of these ''blatant refusals'' to provide links.
    This is a great example of you refusing to accept your mistakes.
    (And you even put the words "blatant refusals" in quotes, as if I have said those words - which I haven't.)

    I am not discussing any refusal by you to provide links.
    I am talking about the posts you have ignored; the replies you are somehow unable to see.
    Well here is a suggestion... this is an internet forum, it isn't possible for me to track every single post. Now and again I might miss one.
    But, if you could take your royal second to stop being cryptic and just tell me what post I am supposed to have missed, this would inexorably save valuable bandwidth!
    Thank you for another clear example of you refusing to accept your mistakes.

    You can find the posts yourself.
    You only have about four threads, should be piss easy for you.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    talking about backing up statements, why don't you find some of these ''blatant refusals'' to provide links.
    This is a great example of you refusing to accept your mistakes.
    (And you even put the words "blatant refusals" in quotes, as if I have said those words - which I haven't.)

    I am not discussing any refusal by you to provide links.
    I am talking about the posts you have ignored; the replies you are somehow unable to see.
    Well here is a suggestion... this is an internet forum, it isn't possible for me to track every single post. Now and again I might miss one.
    But, if you could take your royal second to stop being cryptic and just tell me what post I am supposed to have missed, this would inexorably save valuable bandwidth!
    Thank you for another clear example of you refusing to accept your mistakes.

    Look, I have semantic pragmatic disorder, it's difficult for me to understand people half the time. You are not making this easy for me.

    You blame me for not owning up to accepting a mistake... or mistakes.... what mistakes I ask you?

    If it has anything to do with that xyz guy then please don't be duped. He can't even work out the dimensions in an equation properly. If it has anything to do with the discussion between me and Markus, then I think I'd prefer it to stay that way, since you seem to just want to argue with me.

    Because of this, I am moving on. I've given you three chances to explain in detail, what I am supposed to have got wrong. And no... you can't just point a finger at something and say it is wrong. You need to be able to explain why it is wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    If someone is incapable of telling me how something is wrong, they don't deserve any kind of apology off me. Unless you put some work into your statements, I can effectively ignore you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    You blame me for not owning up to accepting a mistake... or mistakes.... what mistakes I ask you?
    So...that's another post you are somehow unable to see - even though you quoted it!
    Your blindness is really quite extraordinary.

    Well, you are consistent, if nothing else.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Finally someone who argues that time is not fundamental, i like this thread.
    I might take another 10 years before it will be accepted in mainstream science (or should i say mainstream science forum) t
    hat 'clocks do not run slow because of time itself slowing down'.
    It will probably only be accepted when technology provides the visual evidence of the underlying Planck scale dynamics.
    I will not further impose my own ideas in this thread, i'm just looking forward to more of this kind of paradigm shifting material.

    At the Max Planck Institute, you have Oriti, Gielen and Sindoni, young professional scientists.
    Sindoni a.o. is also questioning the fundamental nature of 'time', time and gravity being emergent :

    [0903.4876] Is the notion of time really fundamental?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    155
    Time may not be fundamental but it is elemental.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Finally someone who argues that time is not fundamental, i like this thread.
    I might take another 10 years before it will be accepted in mainstream science (or should i say mainstream science forum) t
    hat 'clocks do not run slow because of time itself slowing down'.
    It will probably only be accepted when technology provides the visual evidence of the underlying Planck scale dynamics.
    I will not further impose my own ideas in this thread, i'm just looking forward to more of this kind of paradigm shifting material.

    At the Max Planck Institute, you have Oriti, Gielen and Sindoni, young professional scientists.
    Sindoni a.o. is also questioning the fundamental nature of 'time', time and gravity being emergent :

    [0903.4876] Is the notion of time really fundamental?


    Thanks for the paper.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Finally someone who argues that time is not fundamental
    It all depends what you mean by "fundamental". Clearly, time is an intrinsic part of space-time, and cannot be separated from it; hence gravity is a manifestation of the geometry of both space and time, and the paper you referenced argues nothing different ( after all, curvature of space alone gives only tidal forces, but not gravity ). On the other hand, there is little doubt in my mind that space-time itself is an emergent feature of some much more fundamental system of degrees of freedom, which is in itself not spatio-temporal in nature. As such, time is no more fundamental than space, or matter, or energy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Finally someone who argues that time is not fundamental
    It all depends what you mean by "fundamental". Clearly, time is an intrinsic part of space-time, and cannot be separated from it; hence gravity is a manifestation of the geometry of both space and time, and the paper you referenced argues nothing different ( after all, curvature of space alone gives only tidal forces, but not gravity ). On the other hand, there is little doubt in my mind that space-time itself is an emergent feature of some much more fundamental system of degrees of freedom, which is in itself not spatio-temporal in nature. As such, time is no more fundamental than space, or matter, or energy.

    As a low energy phenomenon, time would not be fundamental. Nor would gravity or matter. Being emergent means it isn't intrinsic to the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    It would mean... there is something more fundamental than time. If we believe what GR tells us, our final theory is likely going to have nothing to do with time, hence you said yourself, Minkowski space-time just doesn't work.

    As far as I can tell, it just doesn't fit into general relativity at all. Special relativity would be an emergent thing as well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    [QUOTE=Markus Hanke;558248]
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    On the other hand, there is little doubt in my mind that space-time itself is an emergent feature of some much more fundamental system of degrees of freedom, which is in itself not spatio-temporal in nature. As such, time is no more fundamental than space, or matter, or energy.
    Exactly. Except for the final part... you can't have time without matter, but in cosmology*, you can have energy without matter. GR relativity cannot ascribe to time without the presence of matter.

    The equivalence of energy-matter-time-space is only a popular one. Really what Einstein said was time was unthinkable without matter. Energy and space are a given relationship.

    *For instance, early cosmology deals with only radiation fields and matter emerges when the universe cools down sufficiently - when this happens, time emerges in GR.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    It would mean... there is something more fundamental than time. If we believe what GR tells us, our final theory is likely going to have nothing to do with time, hence you said yourself, Minkowski space-time just doesn't work.

    As far as I can tell, it just doesn't fit into general relativity at all. Special relativity would be an emergent thing as well.
    Not just time, but space as well. Space and time are on equal footing.

    Local physics is special relativity.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Well, I shouldn't get ahead of myself, but... space might not be fundamental either. That's actually harder to prove mathematically than saying time doesn't exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    At least with time, it doesn't seem intrinsic to GR when describing the universe. But if you remove space, GR becomes a lot harder... maybe impossible, but never say never.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    At least with time, it doesn't seem intrinsic to GR when describing the universe. But if you remove space, GR becomes a lot harder... maybe impossible, but never say never.
    Time is intrinsic to classical GR ( as I said - you can't separate space and time in the context of pure GR ), but that might not be so in approaches to quantum gravity such as the WDWE. Remember that the WDWE is a theory/model in its own right, and no longer purely classical, unlike GR.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    At least with time, it doesn't seem intrinsic to GR when describing the universe. But if you remove space, GR becomes a lot harder... maybe impossible, but never say never.
    Time is intrinsic to classical GR ( as I said - you can't separate space and time in the context of pure GR ), but that might not be so in approaches to quantum gravity such as the WDWE. Remember that the WDWE is a theory/model in its own right, and no longer purely classical, unlike GR.

    Sorry can you be a bit clearer where bolded
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    See, I learned from reading about Einstein's ''hole argument'' that time and matter could not be thought without each other - but GR won't be able to deal with this if matter fields vanish before you reach the initial stages of big bang. General relativity can warp space without the presence of matter, energy can do this as well. So I am not entirely sure matter is fundamental to it: Or at least, it won't be fundamental to a theory of cosmology that primarily deals with radiation fields.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Not sure if this will require a reformulation of GR, but based on what I think you are telling me, it perhaps will do.

    ps. that's a good point about the Wheeler de witt equation, it isn't classical like pure classical GR.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    as I said - you can't separate space and time in the context of pure GR
    Sorry can you be a bit clearer where bolded
    Spacetime is a four-dimensional manifold, and the coordinate transformations over that manifold involve all four dimensions in general. Also, the general equations do not distinguish between space and time, placing these on equal footing. Indeed, the general equations do not even make reference to space and time.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    as I said - you can't separate space and time in the context of pure GR
    Sorry can you be a bit clearer where bolded
    Spacetime is a four-dimensional manifold, and the coordinate transformations over that manifold involve all four dimensions in general. Also, the general equations do not distinguish between space and time, placing these on equal footing. Indeed, the general equations do not even make reference to space and time.

    But GR in the context of WDWE is for complete 3 geometry, not for a four dimensional manifold.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    This is why I have been saying, Minkowski spacetime is not applicable to GR. It was just a mathematical symmetry Minkowski found. GR is timeless, at the very core of it. It makes reference to points in space by making their worldlines and interactions interact. The motion in the evolution is because of a symmetry of the theory, not because of a real time evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    This is why I think further redefinitions are required. Like talking about global time and local time.

    Global time doesn't exist and local time only exists because it is emergent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    but GR won't be able to deal with this if matter fields vanish before you reach the initial stages of big bang.
    This is outside the domain of applicability of GR anyway, since it is a purely classical model.

    Sorry can you be a bit clearer where bolded
    In classical GR, the fundamental entity which the field equations are solved for is the metric tensor. Due to the structure of the field equations, each component of this tensor is interdependent in complicated, nonlinear ways on all other components, as well as the energy-momentum tensor. It is not possible to "disentangle" the Einstein equations in the sense that one could write separate equations for the space and time components of the metric; such an attempt would not be meaningful anyway, since in general one can have metrics containing non-orthogonal terms ( such as e.g. the Born metric ).
    Chesslonesome likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Finally someone who argues that time is not fundamental
    It all depends what you mean by "fundamental". Clearly, time is an intrinsic part of space-time, and cannot be separated from it; hence gravity is a manifestation of the geometry of both space and time, and the paper you referenced argues nothing different ( after all, curvature of space alone gives only tidal forces, but not gravity ). On the other hand, there is little doubt in my mind that space-time itself is an emergent feature of some much more fundamental system of degrees of freedom, which is in itself not spatio-temporal in nature. As such, time is no more fundamental than space, or matter, or energy.
    "gravity is a manifestation of the geometry of both space and time"
    "after all, curvature of space alone gives only tidal forces, but not gravity"


    > It is probably true that if you go deeper and deeper into the explanations, almost nothing remains fundamental.
    But there are degrees.
    In my view a starting point as being fundamental in the Universe, is Plack scale particles
    (no doubt they will consist of stuff we don't know yet).

    >These particles are the cause of many other less fundamental phenomenons.

    -Their configuration around a spherical mass, can result in the geometry of 'spacetime'.
    -Their spherical configuration as 'spacetime' can have an increasing density towards the center of the sphere, causing a pressure difference over a certain distance (causing a difference in release of potentional energy > 'energy momentum tensor'), causing gravity.
    -Their clogging together under a certain amount of pressure and configuration , depending on were they were formed,
    can result in the elements of the periodic table, and further on to molecules, planets etc.
    -Their escape at a certain speed from a matter configuration, can cause temperature and shockwave, energy, radiation (E=mc˛).

    >In this way these particles are the basis of less fundamental phenomenons such as mentioned above :
    density, pressure, temperature, gravity, energy etc, and perhaps also time, although i think time is only a man made concept, a tool to structure these events.
    In any case, 'Time' is not a conditio sine qua non here.

    Just a view i have, based on elementary logic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    but GR won't be able to deal with this if matter fields vanish before you reach the initial stages of big bang.
    This is outside the domain of applicability of GR anyway, since it is a purely classical model.

    And in the context of the WDWE?

    Am I right to assume that it should have an application at this point?

    I think that's what my investigation in the OP led to. I concluded that GR predicted a timeless theory when in the context of the WDWE because matter fields fundamentally vanish as you approach the big bang.

    (as conjecture to GR), this would be akin to Einstein's hole argument in which matter drives the existence of time itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    But GR in the context of WDWE is for complete 3 geometry, not for a four dimensional manifold.
    The WDWE only constraints the geometry and matter fields on each constant-time hypersurface, hence the elements of the phase space are 3-metrics; this makes sense, since we expect to find the same laws of physics regardless of what point in time we choose to examine the universe, so the Hamiltonian constraint is not an evolution operator that takes one state of the system into another. To recover the space-time of GR requires the use of so-called clock operators, which basically relate all the various hypersurfaces by introducing an appropriately chosen and constrained parameter - a time coordinate.

    Again, be very careful to remember that the first class Hamiltonian constraint in the WDWE is not the same as the Hamiltonian operator we are used to from standard QM, and neither is the meaning of the state space itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Am I right to assume that it should have an application at this point?
    Yes, but again - the WDWE is not the same as GR, but a more general theory.

    I concluded that GR predicted a timeless theory
    It's the WDWE that does that. GR is really just about how matter-energy is related to the geometry, since this isn't an arbitrary relationship.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    It is probably true that if you go deeper and deeper into the explanations, almost nothing remains fundamental.
    Yes, I agree. This is what the search for the "Theory of Everything" is about - finding the most fundamental entity that is capable of giving rise to the universe we observe. It is interesting to wonder whether there can be only one such TOE, or whether there are many ( infinitely many ? ) possibilities.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post

    It's the WDWE that does that.


    I know

    That's what I said.



    I concluded that GR predicted a timeless theory when in the context of the WDWE
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    To recover the space-time of GR requires the use of so-called clock operators, which basically relate all the various hypersurfaces by introducing an appropriately chosen and constrained parameter - a time coordinate.


    Yes I am not really that thrilled by these ''clock operators.'' I feel it is very smudging, taking away essential features of the theory. Why not gauge simply time with matter? I've shown mathematically it's possible in the OP. That way to give GR time in the context of matter and location (location doesn't mean space itself, but it is meaningless to talk about space without locations, just as it is meaningless to talk about time without inferring inertial motion).
    Last edited by Chesslonesome; April 27th, 2014 at 04:54 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I concluded that GR predicted a timeless theory
    It's the WDWE that does that.
    That's what I said.
    So predictable.
    stonecutter and DogLady like this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I concluded that GR predicted a timeless theory
    It's the WDWE that does that.
    That's what I said.
    So predictable.

    Its was the truth,

    ''I concluded that GR predicted a timeless theory when in the context of the WDWE''



    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I concluded that GR predicted a timeless theory
    It's the WDWE that does that.
    That's what I said.
    So predictable.
    Its was the truth,
    ''I concluded that GR predicted a timeless theory when in the context of the WDWE''
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Yes Panda, I know you are trolling. Just making sure though, because things like that can serve as propaganda.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Yes Panda, I know you are trolling. Just making sure though, because things like that can serve as propaganda.
    No not trolling.
    I know you don't/can't admit making any kind of mistake.
    I was simply acknowledging your continued behavioural disorder.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Yes Panda, I know you are trolling. Just making sure though, because things like that can serve as propaganda.
    No not trolling.
    I know you don't/can't admit making any kind of mistake.


    Well you obviously can't read. I actually implied it in terms of the WDWE. You can only get me to admit a mistake unless it is warranted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Yes Panda, I know you are trolling. Just making sure though, because things like that can serve as propaganda.
    No not trolling.
    I know you don't/can't admit making any kind of mistake.
    Well you obviously can't read. I actually implied it in terms of the WDWE. You can only get me to admit a mistake unless it is warranted.
    And again.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    By your twisted logic, we should admit mistakes even if we don't create them. The biggest mistake is on your behalf, trust me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Why not gauge simply time with matter?
    Not sure what you mean by "gauge time with matter" - but in any case, this isn't how the WDWE works. The configuration space is one of 3-metrics, by its very definition, so you need clock operators to relate the hypersurfaces and hence recover the 4-manifolds of GR.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Why not gauge simply time with matter?
    Not sure what you mean by "gauge time with matter" - but in any case, this isn't how the WDWE works. The configuration space is one of 3-metrics, by its very definition, so you need clock operators to relate the hypersurfaces and hence recover the 4-manifolds of GR.

    The point is, which you have noticed before, as you approach the big bang, matter disappears. Currently, which you noticed also, that GR cannot be applied to non-quantum situations, but the quantized version of GR (WDWE) can. The WDWE may be indicating such a phenomenon, time disappears because matter fields are NOT fundamental to the universe.

    Introducing matter clocks, just gives back time when GR predicts it doesn't exist in the context of WDWE. Matter clocks attempt to ''fix'' the predictions of the WDWE by ascribing time back to systems. This may not be needed, the GR WDWE may be predicting a fundamental structure of reality: Time should not be arbitrarily replaced just because the theory seems to remove it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    The point is, which you have noticed before, as you approach the big bang, matter disappears. Currently, which you noticed also, that GR cannot be applied to non-quantum situations, but the quantized version of GR (WDWE) can. The WDWE may be indicating such a phenomenon, time disappears because matter fields are NOT fundamental to the universe.

    Introducing matter clocks, just gives back time when GR predicts it doesn't exist in the context of WDWE. Matter clocks attempt to ''fix'' the predictions of the WDWE by ascribing time back to systems. This may not be needed, the GR WDWE may be predicting a fundamental structure of reality: Time should not be arbitrarily replaced just because the theory seems to remove it.
    Ok, I'm getting more and more the impression that you are missing the basic principles at play here. Firstly, GR is a model of geometrodynamics - it establishes how sources of energy-momentum are related to the geometry of the associated space-time, nothing more and nothing less. It doesn't even constrain the global topology. The WDWE on the other hand is an attempt at a model of quantum cosmology ( not gravity ! ) - what it does is place a constraint on the symmetries that govern what types of geometrodynamics are actually allowed ( only general covariance is acceptable ). To put it quite simply, the WDWE tells which law of gravity applies to the universe in question, whereas GR is a specific example of such a law. If you follow this train of thought to its conclusion, it is not difficult to see why neither the Hamiltonian constraint nor the wave functional depend on a time coordinate - it's simply because the same law of gravity applies at all points in time, so the WDWE constraints only hypersurfaces ( 3-metrics ) and contains no concept of "evolution of states", unlike in standard QM.

    The upshot is - GR and the WDWE are two completely different things, the former dealing with gravity, the latter with the underlying symmetries that determine which law of gravity applies. These symmetries aren't dependent on time, but gravity itself of course affects both space and time. Personally I don't see how this is even a "problem" ( problem of time ?? ) in the WDWE, since there don't appear to be any indications that the laws of physics ( specifically gravity ) change with time, so time appearing in the WDWE would seem very strange to me.
    RedPanda likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    It doesn't even constrain the global topology. The WDWE on the other hand is an attempt at a model of quantum cosmology ( not gravity ! )



    hi markus

    I don't agree with this statement. Wheeler approached de Witt with the sole intention of searching for a quantum theory of gravity. DeWitt did this by quantizing the GR equations which made the WDWE.

    Whether or not it is the true quantum theory of gravity, surely can be argued. But the point of their work was to find a quantum gravity theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    That's why he quantized GR.... not because it sounded cool, but because GR are the equations that classically describe gravity. If you quantize those equations, you surely will get back a quantum theory of gravity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Though it is a quantum cosmological approach as well... but saying it isn't a quantum theory of gravity is wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    DeWitt did this by quantizing the GR equations which made the WDWE.
    I have already explained why this isn't correct, twice in fact. I won't do it a third time - you can go back over this thread and re-read the information that was given to you, if you are so inclined.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    DeWitt did this by quantizing the GR equations which made the WDWE.
    I have already explained why this isn't correct, twice in fact. I won't do it a third time - you can go back over this thread and re-read the information that was given to you, if you are so inclined.


    Yes and I have told you on this instance, I am trusting it is a form of quantized GR equations. Simply because Julian makes a point of stating this in his paper, which I also provided. But I said I was willing to agree to disagree on the subject. I respect Barbour and if he says it's quantized, then I am likely to trust him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    I am trusting it is a form of quantized GR equations. Simply because Julian makes a point of stating this in his paper
    I respect Barbour and if he says it's quantized, then I am likely to trust him.
    That's of course up to yourself, but then I think I can be of no further help to you.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; April 29th, 2014 at 05:21 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    I am trusting it is a form of quantized GR equations. Simply because Julian makes a point of stating this in his paper
    I respect Barbour and if he says it's quantized, then I am likely to trust him.
    That's of course up to yourself, but then I think I can be of no further help to you.


    I don't feel so, because I think other than this little discrepancy, I feel I was relating to a lot you were saying. I actually took some time last night to write something for you... but it's not done yet... I hoping it would help you understand my point of view, and then from there you can tell me if you think it's either possible, or if there are things in there with some conceptual errors. If that is the case and you explain them, I will do my part as well and I will investigate what you say with some heavy reading? deal?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quantum range high energy range early quantum cosmology


    conj. 1 - General Relativity range classical low energy range part of macroscopic systems


    conj. 2 - Special Relativity range classical low energy range part of an observer-dependant model


    conj. 3 - GR in the context of WDWE range high energy range early cosmology part of microscopic systems


    This final conjecture (3) unified conjectures (1) and (2) assuming we unify Special Relativity by gauging matter fields with internal clock systems. None of this ''extra'' geometry that seems superfluous at the basis that General Relativity originally was for three geometry space and while Minkowski spacetime seemed nice, it was incompatible. The WDWE actually confirms this further, the evolution of systems are no longer nicely predicted with time, as we have all covered hundreds of ''times'' now, there is no global time.


    Emergent Time was suggested to be part of entanglement. I recently created a thread in physics paoer which uses a most... interesting thought experiment to derive the assumption that time itself emerges from entanglement. This probably isn't correct. And I will attempt to prove logically to the reader why.


    In my investigations of time over the years, I've learned that as just mentioned before, global time doesn't exist. (There may be fancy mathematical ways to bring back clocks using complex geometry) but for the moment, consider that the only time ever experience is local time. Lee Smolin would tend to agree with this view (I've come to respect Smolin but I largely ignore any of his work associated to string theory, not a fan).


    Anyway... The fact only local time exists, goes against the fact time is emergent from it. Particles themselves can only have entanglement because of non-locality, Bells has proven this and it is undisputed. So, what are they are saying? That local time emerges from non-local phenomena? Isn't that a contradiction of physical laws of itself?


    Time can only emerge in my mind, in the same sense Einstein concluded... time only becomes significant in the low energy range when it appeared from the mysterious Higgs Mechanism via spontaneous symmetry breaking. As I have mentioned before, and I don't mean to bore you Hanke, but the universe was for some significant time (throughout an inflation phase) and unified electrostrong phase... to the emergence of internal clocks in the universe.


    Time is locally-experienced, because it is a local phenomenon, caused by inertial systems which obtain the abstraction of time from the measurement of the changes of their enviroment. Let's go back to my unified model ref. (conj. 3)


    conj. 3 - GR in the context of WDWE range high energy range early cosmology part of microscopic systems


    What this says to me... and you have ever right to differ with me, but I read this and I think it is perfectly reasonable, assuming there are no problems with what has been deduced so far, that GR works for the emergence side of things, it's form in the WDWE is for the absence of matter fields concerned with the high energy range of the universe, dealing with very small microscopic particles fused into an incredibly dense point.


    I think the WDWE is saying our final theory has to deal with only complete-three Euclidean geometries and we can calculate the field equations of general relativity through the thermodynamic laws (this is known as entropic gravity as I am sure you know). Time should only become significant when matter appears. Adding clocks by some mathematical process is less appealing to me, than actually first principles of what relativity actually says about time and matter. (Plus we also have experimental evidence of this Hestene's writes in his paper on the subject, involving an electron clock based on zitter motion).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    General Relativity originally was for three geometry space and while Minkowski spacetime seemed nice, it was incompatible.
    No - GR is and always was a model of geometrodynamics for 4-dimensional space-time; Minkowski space-time is just a special case of a manifold with vanishing curvature.

    Emergent Time was suggested to be part of entanglement.
    I have heard of this hypothesis, but I'm not sufficiently familiar with it to comment.

    Time can only emerge in my mind, in the same sense Einstein concluded... time only becomes significant in the low energy range when it appeared from the mysterious Higgs Mechanism via spontaneous symmetry breaking.
    This is certainly not what Einstein said or implied - the Higgs mechanism wasn't even proposed until 1962, and it has very little to do with time.

    it's form in the WDWE is for the absence of matter fields
    No, the wave functional in the WDWE describes both geometry and matter fields - this is mentioned even in the otherwise very sparse Wiki article on this subject.

    I think the WDWE is saying our final theory has to deal with only complete-three Euclidean geometries
    We don't know this yet.

    entropic gravity
    It would appear that the concept of "entropic gravity" is not viable after all : [1009.5414] Gravity is not an entropic force
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    General Relativity originally was for three geometry space and while Minkowski spacetime seemed nice, it was incompatible.
    No - GR is and always was a model of geometrodynamics for 4-dimensional space-time;

    Time can only emerge in my mind, in the same sense Einstein concluded... time only becomes significant in the low energy range when it appeared from the mysterious Higgs Mechanism via spontaneous symmetry breaking.
    This is certainly not what Einstein said or implied - the Higgs mechanism wasn't even proposed until 1962, and it has very little to do with time.

    Einstein never wrote his GR for a four dimensional space, this was the work of his teacher. Einstein didn't originally write his theory for four symmetry.

    And I know Einstein had no clue about the Higgs, but he did indeed say time was unthinkable without matter. If this is the case, obviously we are inferring on a Higgs mechanism in terms of cosmology when matter first appeared.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. fully covariant Gravitoelectromagnetism
    By Quantum immortal in forum Physics
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: May 5th, 2014, 06:00 AM
  2. If we FULLY close all the openings of our body!
    By sir ir r aj in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: December 28th, 2013, 10:11 PM
  3. Replies: 24
    Last Post: June 10th, 2013, 10:36 AM
  4. Fully Associative Mapping Strategy
    By pas in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 7th, 2011, 11:56 PM
  5. At what age in males is the endocrine system fully develop?
    By new_guy in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 11th, 2010, 06:13 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •