Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Reviewing Time Theory and its Applications to a Model of Relative Experience


    I have came to some satisfactory conclusions within my widespread essays and investigations into time, and i will cover a few of them soon. Firstly i will explain what this essay entails. It provides philosophical and scientific evidence suggesting that the past and the future
    can be applied to the law of indiscernibles, also known as Leibniz Law. It shows how if the current theory on time is correct, it has the implications of suggesting why there may be any symmetry in time at all. I will also be exploring local events, and whether or not time takes
    on a local role with us, and whatever relationships this might have on the geometrical map. I also explore the reasoning that the conceptual meaning of entropy is misunderstood through the true definition of ''order'' and ''disorder''.

    I have concluded that:

    1) That time is essentially local for which i impose the principle of Relative Experience [1].

    2) That time is global when there is a reduction in the measuring aparatus or observer.

    3) That the universe is not ''timeless'' as imposed by the ''time problem'' of quantum mechanics and relativity.

    4) There is no flow to time unless the quantum world have individual clocks which record themselves similar to the way we record ourselves [2].

    5) Time is not a physical substance as imposed by the experience of the observer

    The first conclusion is quite simple to explain, and explained with less detail as found in footnote [1]. Time is esentially local because our experience of it seems very personal. Whilst many of us share an asymptotic time frame which exists strictly within
    the present frame, it is still nontheless very local to us, and our actions made personally correspond to the intimate knowledge of the experience of some time (which feels to flow relative to our frame of existence, but this is wrong as will soon be explained).
    So we now move to premise 2) which explains that time is only global when there is a reduction in the experience. Using the human being as the aparatus, we experience time locally, so it depends on whether there is an object which has an internal clock. It has been
    noted in past times by Schrodeinger and Dirac that the electron may have a zig-zagged motion through spacetime, which would mean it had an internal clock. This internal clock was soon verified by experimentation (read the essay ''Electron time, mass and zitter'' By
    David Hestenes) by measuring the period of the clock in an electron channeling experiment.

    The third queery poses that time is real and that we don't entirely live in a timeless world. There are solutions in the equations of relativity that seems to imply this, and works well with the even more estranged theory of the multiverse. However, since i have become
    devoted to the need to integrate a model of the experience of consciousness to the physical world at large so that neglecting one will not make the other incomplete in the final theory (or GUT), our very experience of a time cannot be neglected with the highest
    impunity. It requires that our Relative Time Experience is quite real to us, and therefore must imply it's existence somewhere, if not purely subliminal and local. The model of time extended from a non-conscious model will simply lead to the quantization of time as being
    starts and stops, with discontinuous beginnings and ends, all happening within planck restraints. So time to us is an experience which seems to flow, and that is almost certainly real to us with a second view which is purely physical.

    But the experience of time is just as real as the platform in which it seems to emit from: the physical vacuum, where time may not flow unless the outside world has an internal set of devices which can moniter time much like we can ourselves. This is where the final premise
    comes into play: Time is not a physical substance. In General Relativity, the combining of space and time as one object of a continuum made time as real space. It also treated time as a physical quantity since space itself is a physical quantity. Such things allows relativity
    to have space and time switch roles, because they are essentially the same thing. In space, if time exists, then it certainly means it is physical, whether or not the particles of spacetime experience time linearly or not if at all. But subliminally in the experience of the observer,
    it makes little sense to refer to time as being a physical entity. Nothing we percieve is a physical entity, as it is well-known today in nuerobiology that the ''outside'' is actually recreated in the human three-dimensional network of the human percpection, extended into the
    phenomena of the imaginary fourth dimension of space, which is of course, time. This seems to be why time has two specific descriptions: An internal description and one that is external of measurement.

    The conclusions i have made i feel seem quite solid, and i see very little reason why they should not be able to incorporate time as a theory without any real paradoxes. I come to reason that many descriptions of time might be required as neglecting them will fundamentally result
    in an incomplete theory - this will bring back the importance of what the observer experiences with the fundamental limit of time as given in the physical theory of quantum gravity.

    The Electron has an Internal Periodic Clock

    So what experiences time in general? Is it us mere humans, niavely assessing the world in frames of existence flowing inexorably in one direction and increasing in a gradient we call time, or can much smaller objects, dimensionless objects actually experience some internal time as well? The periodic internal
    clock hypothesis was first made by De Broglie in his wave hypothesis of all matter. The perdiodic nature of this internal time is in fact 10^{21} seconds; this is close to the chronon compatibility for the electron suggested by Piero Caldirola in 1980. Caldirola's
    model has one chronon corresponds to about 6.97 x 10^{-24} seconds for an electron.. The clock hypothesis has not been very popular for some reason over the years since De Broglie proposed it in his PhD thesis on the wave structure of the electron. But, for the importance of this work,
    it is now reestablished here so that time in its many aspects can be properly analyzed under the scrutiny of logic. In a series of experiments, it was finally shown that the electron did in fact
    possess an internal clock frequency [6]-[7].

    It is interesting that time variable can be attributed as an intrinsic structure of the electron, even though mathematically is not quite linear in fashion. It's more like periods which last for the smallest amount of time possible, and this quantization of time is unique for it can highlight two
    specific worlds which can exist in the vacuum. One which allows time on a large classical scale to experience no discontinous nature in time, and the other on smaller scales which have no choice but to see the world as fleeting flashes of existence.

    Space is a Matter of Time

    And thus following from what i described earlier, the spatial dimensions are inextricably linked with time from a Minkowskian aspect, where the geometry of matter and space are indeed interwoven to introduce the four-dimensional manifold. Many physicist secure this as a meaningful way to
    say that relativity is useless without the fourth dimension describing the evolution of objects relative to each other. It's down to the geometry of this aspect where time is not apparently quantized which is going to be of discussion.

    Some scientists could argue, i suppose, that time in all of its array, is primal. Primal being the sense, that it arose with space, matter and energy as one interconnected thing; where time is an imaginary space dimension, and where energy and matter are equivalated, meaning they exist only
    as ripples in a physical fabric itself. Remove but one of these, and the rest must follow. This would certainly mean that time is very important within the structure of physics when relativity is taken into account. But when talking about time being primal, it also includes the notion that
    time can also exist within the boundaries of a very short time-limit and spatial freedom. This is called quantized time, and this kind of time would normally never come across our minds in our daily lives. The shortest time possible is in fact the billionth of the billionth of the billionth
    of the billionth of the billionth of just one second, a very short time scale indeed. It is within these scales that matter and energy can form from the vacuum.

    The geometric time and the quantized time levels may have very little association to each other, for as far as the geometric time is concerned, it has very little consequence within the parameters of the quantized time, for usually a large collection of pointlike particles making a three dimensional
    object cares very little for the plankian time levels. Interestingly enough, when energy is taken into account, the geometric time is very low. When we talk about energies ''binding'' together, we are talking about the necessery energy required to unite all four forces of nature [5] (assuming gravity
    is itself a quantized force) - they would combine and make up one single force in nature, called the quantum gravity force where it probably originated from a singular region in spacetime, which is a negative energy region of spacetime. Geometry cares for the lowest end of the possible energies
    obtainable in the universe in a given system. Geometry is then said to be low-level energy physics. High energy level physics (where the scientific community seems very focused on right now), is of course the level in which quantization time occurs.

    Now, according to physicist Fotini Markopoulou, the problems of time in a geometric sense is synonymous with the emergence of space itself - which is geometry. It absolutely requires no time whatsoever. He continues to say, ''By making the geometry not fundamental, we are able to make a distinction
    between the geometric and the fundamental time, which opens up the possibility that, while the geometric time is a symmetry, the fundamental time is real.''

    In this sense, the physicist is assuring us that whilst time on the geometric scale is heavily disputed on its real validity, the fundamental, or quantized time is certainly real. The geometic time you could say mathematically has no need for time, allowing us to exist paradoxically in a timeless world. The
    quantized time cannot be so easily bred away, but does happen within very short periods; it is within this arguement today physicists do not believe there is really a flow to time at all, not in anyway like a river, but rather happens in starts and stops. However, i have always believed neglected the description
    of this time will lead to an overall incomplete description of reality at large. If two kinds of time exist, then should not each be incorporated to each other in some fashionable way? Is it possible?

    To begin with, there would need to be some underlying theory resulting the three dimensions of space from the quantized time. Since quantized time is absolutely primal, it means that essentially geometric time is primal as well. It's certainly possible to say this with certainty, if one states that geometric time
    is an emergent phenomena of quantized time. To choose biastly over the quantized time and the geometric time would therefore be obsolete, since both time descriptions are primal. You might argue even that this is wrong, since geometric time does not arise from the quantization of time because the latter is absolutely
    non-geometric, but then i could argue that you could say three dimensional objects cannot be constructed of pointlike dimensionless particles, and then the point becomes clear.

    For instance, the arguement again, plain and simple is that the primal attributes of geometric time is the same as the quantized time, as much as quantized matter can make up the geometric matter on large scales. It's afterall still made up of these tiny dimensionless fundamental statistical averages are they not?
    Could it be that geometric time also is made up of equally many parts? In fact, this would imply that entire macroscopic systems have internal parts which exist only for as long as the shortest time possible. If we imagined a ball electrons, so many that they made a geometric three dimensional sphere, could you
    argue that altogether they mathematically make no sense in geometric time, but fundamentally ''the object'' itself is made up of many parts which do experience a time? The confirmation in which the electron has an internal clock comes to mind again.

    A Quick Summary of the Fundamentals of Spacetime and Quantum Cosmology

    So, for a few facts to get us on the way so that a clear understanding of the following is possible.

    It is believed that in the beginning, ironically a word that describes the start of something, but in this case it refers to the condition before big bang, the standard model suggests that there was nothing. Not an electron, quark, gluon in sight, nor a drop of time in a void of space. But there was some kind of potential
    there lurking, an incorporeal type of potential, which held all the necessery information for what seems mathematically highly improbable out of which our universe began. It did not really begin all that big, nor was it all that ''bang''... it was really quite small, hot, and compressed, but with matter and energy at this
    level being highly unstable due to compression, a result itself of the Uncertainty Principle, (i beleive, and have proposed in other essays) caused the initial expansion of a space to occur between the energy particles. The appearance of this energy was actually in a very short time indeed, which is a consequence of
    quantizing space. Depending on what theory you adopt, either a gluon-quark plasma or a gas of photons appeared in spacetime, and this energy would provide spacetime with all the essential ingredients to manifest all the vast array of particles known on the standard model, a great many hundred of them.

    But before the universe grew very old, it went through a major event in which it would expand faster than light and consequently smoothing out the four-dimensional manifold of spacetime and diluting the matter and energy contained within it over vast spaces. Relatively-recent confirmation from the Wilkenson telescope does
    suggest the universe is mostly flat. The period in which the universe began to accelerate in speed for a short time was called the ''Inflationary State,'' which require a specific quantum field comprised of particles called the Inflaton. The field of course is purely hypothetical so far, as is the existence of this particle.
    Interestingly enough, this period happened somewhere between -33 to -34 seconds after the very first chronon, so quite a long time had passed, as relatively small it may seem to us. Remember, a chronon is very small. It's a small time of 5.3 x 10^{-44}, five billionth parts of one second. This inflationary phase
    was also a period in which the inflaton field released stored potential energy in the form of many types of particles, so it was also responsible for the vast array of particles in the universe, and the quantity in which they contain.

    Where did all this energy originally reside if they can miraculously appear from the spacetime vacuum seemingly from no prior cause? Even though we cannot see the entire energy of the universe, but potentially-speaking, there is no such thing as free space in phsyics. It's a term used many times which leads many to think that
    space truely has many degrees of freedom in which matter does not encompass, but this is not really true at all. The spacetime between me and the computer screen as i type this essay out is filled to the bring with particles of Hydrogen gas, among other gasses and rouge particles. There really isn't all that much space between.
    And even between the gas molecules, atoms, and rouge particles, many other particles are appearing between them when a certain order of energy is released into the vacuum. These particles appear faster than light sometimes, existing only as a potential particle of energy in spacetime, but still possessing real effects in the
    universe. Between all matter at the fundamental level, even more energy in these forms appear and disappear from the potential vacuum. This vacuum's energy is called the Cosmological Constant, (which is more or less considered the same thing as the Zero-Point Energy Field), and it was first encorporated by Einstein in his field
    equations [9]. The Cosmological Constant \lambda has an energy which is practically unform in the universe and has a repulsive energy density. Observational evidence of the energy in the universe seems to imply the constant cannot exceed [latex]10^{-41} km^{-2}[\latex].

    Now, this little lesson on the principles of the big bang and the synthesis of matter has led us now to the energy of the universe, and in a timeless universe, we find that the energy density is rather pointless to even imagine. Not because it's unimaginably big, but because it simply does not exist.

    No Time, No Energy

    And so imagine if we where to consider a timeless universe as adopted by many growing number of physicists, we would actually present ourselves with more problems, such as energy. To define the energy in the universe, you would almost certainly need time since time and energy are acting
    conjugates under the Noether Theorem; though, mind you, and not intentionally trying to complicate things, but how could anyone measure the energy of the universe because you would need to be outside of it to do so... but without adding any more to the problems, it still remains true that
    neglecting time in a final theory of quantum mechanics will degrade the chances of measuring energy at levels required for quantum synthesis exploration, maybe more mathematically than so much experimentally.

    In fact, the problem of time is the adaptation of the Scrodinger equation to a diffeomorphism invariant context by a quantizing equation gives the Wheeler-deWitt equation, which is an equation which governs the universe in a lifeless non-changing state, where time is essentially frozen,
    and the internal energy is non-changing. Everything should be best then to describe the universe which would be immutable [4].

    But the universe does have an energy, just not one that can be well defined. Only a very small portion of this cloud will be condensed, and some of it we can observe measure in their various multi-particle systems to an approximation. But as expected, these problems concerning energy and time
    are not alone. Without time, it is also contrary to our experience. Why would we seem to experience and represent something like a time if it was not in the manifold of space? Would evolution be audacious enough as to give us an experience of something so exotic it is not an extention of space
    itself, which would then imply that perhaps consciousness is not extention of space either? Consciousness and time are inexorably linked, and in many ways are the same. As i have already explained, remove time directionality, spice it up with a few negatives here and there as to allow it to not
    follow a logical linear path, then our experiences in the world would be shortlived and perhaps even non-existent.

    Time is Relative to the Observer

    And so will it become that these to seamingly different existences of time, one being quantized and the other geometric the same kind of problem facing a model of time when subliminal and external cases are involved? In fact, in many ways they are very similar. On face value, concerning the quantized notion
    of time and the geometric notion of time, one seems very local whilst in the other, relativity predicts that time doesn't even exist. When considering the mind-body problem and the experience of time, how can time to us seem so real and local whilst models that are independant of the human observer in [modern]
    psychophysics states that time ceases to have any real meaning. It's all relative, relative between objects, their internal clocks, possible self-reflection (or knowing of this phenom) to time itself.

    To explain this better, we shall turn to Special Relativity. In this theory, Einstein incorporates the notion that two observers travelling relative to each other can experience time distortions in which the effect is quite noticable on the proverbial clock on the wall. Convieniently to this arguement however,
    time is not a clock, beleive it or not. It's only an instrument used to measure the duration in which events can pass, and we associate the feeling of this direction as the experience of time itself, but time is not consequential on the clock on the wall, for time would not simply disappear if the battery ran
    out now would it? Time would go on, in whatever shape or form one wishes to accept. Time is an abstraction which helps us manifest the meaning of a logical set of outcomes.

    Now, in Einstein's Special Relativity, we must know that it is absolutely observer-dependant. It requires the relative motion between two objects, in this case, two observers who can measure sufficiently a time-delay. Without the observers, Einsteins theory would not hold. The importance of the measurement
    of the distortion in time itself is very important, and i conclude that the important nature is derived from the fact that time seems to be relative to ourselves. Is this another aspect of relativity that should be touched on? Even though time is completely ethereal by nature, and a conceptual abstraction, it does
    hold a significance to the human being. This experience we come to have, or better worded, relationship we have with time in this sense is touched on in ''asymptotic time'' as described by physics. Asymptotic time is the time we all come to experience, the time in which we come together in agreement on. But it also
    means that time is something relative to the experience of the observer as thus to compare yet again relativistically between other time frames [8].

    cont>
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    The Flux of Time

    Is space and time are single entities in relativity, and since space is a vacuum that expands, does this literally mean that time expands also?

    This is actually a really hard question to tackle, for a many good reasons, one of them comes down to geometry. You can argue that if time is part of the physical vacuum, then on geometrical time scale, it could be argued from relativity it must expand along with space; but strictly in an imaginary sense. You see, modelling
    special relativity into a four dimensional manifold requires that you take off the spacetime triangle a vector that would be described totally in imaginary terms, and here is some vector calculus to explain the four dimensional manifold in a Minkowskian Spacetime in this sub-reference[*]. If it was taken geometrically-true,
    the literal sense of space expanding would induce an imaginary-expanding void of time as well, if it engulfs the physical contraints of space itself. In a way, Leibniz' rule explained with some detail within this essay kind of inspires as a background to why space and time should be treated the same. A distance taken in some
    space has some associated time dilation with it. The invariance of time, that imaginary dimension of space truely does gulf the entire existence of the geometry of space, introducing the geometical time. The fundamental time exists without any geometry, pointlike, instant and dimensionless.

    Final Thoughts

    The reason why timelessness in physics is even tolerated is because General Relativity finds it easy to yield a solution which opposes the idea. The General Theory only entertains what is mathematically-called the pure gravity solution, and this solution is a universe which is devoid of matter.
    Normally, it's considered pointless to assume a matter-less universe because the vacuum is a physical vacuum, and matter is but one part of the big manifold. In fact, Einstein once commented, ''Before relativity, we thought that if we removed all the matter in the universe, spacetime would continue to exist.
    We now know that spacetime would also disappear.'' Nevertheless, in these solutions of a pure gravity universe, it would mean there are no physical interactions, or physical relative relationships which are able to act as clocks, and this leads to no description of time.

    Many will scoff at this and say, ''but matter does exist, so General relativity is either wrong or incomplete.'' Indeed, this could be very true. However, since no theory to date has overthrown the General and Special Theories of Relativity (not that i would imagine many have professionally-tried) due to
    relativities amazing success and measurement, it does stand that General Relativity will allow so far such a discription of a timeless universe. In many ways, its does just seem like a mathematical nonesense that seems to contradict our everyday experiences. However, as i have said, we have not has a better theory
    than that of relativity to explain the world at large, and will remain this way until such a time. The search for the unified theory has been tackled from a classical viewpoint for around 150 years, hence, Einsteins theory does not take into account quantum certainty and remains itself a classical theory.
    Maybe some new physics is needed to explain the universe?

    Certainly new physics is needed, but none in the nearest horizon it seems that are going to revolutionary throw Einsteins equally revolutionary theory out. Until then we are going to have to deal with a theory which can allow a timeless universe and those who wish to accept that this is the correct interpretation
    of reality at large. The point of this particular essay on time was to highlight and strengthen other points i have made previously. The main ones are that time is not only a quantized reality but is also a reality we come to experience. The threshold of time may not be as meaningful only on a quantized level, as it
    would implying also the existence of it from a geometrical perspective. Allowing the geometry and the fundamental to share time equally should not be such a paradox. In fact if anything, it should be quite a logical step, afterall, as i have said many times, the final theory of physics will need to answer for these
    worlds where time can exist in anyway, whether it be quantization or the subliminal experience of time by the observer, afterall, are we still not part of this large whole we call the universe?

    I conclude the following, which sums up the states of time;

    1) - Anything that is real by context must exist strictly within present time (which is relative to their frame of reference), and that a change in one frame of this moment in present time produces the future moment, which is paradoxically experienced in the present. Because of this, the future does not exist. If by future
    we could envoke the new meaning ''more present time will proceed'' would be actually more true of the statement than saying it lyes ahead of us, which is completely erreneous.

    2) - The past then also pertains to the same law - the law stating that nothing exists other than within the reality of present time, and so to believe that a past time existed alongside our own present time simultaneously seems to predict again an oxymoron. Concurrently, if anything can only exist in present time, then a past
    time cannot exist, only if we started to adopt again a new meaning for the past saying, ''The past was the present, and is the present.''

    3) - This means that the future will be the present, as much as the past was the present, as much as they are the same as the current present time [10].

    4) - From this, i conclude that the past and future are completely ''psychological''. Because we recognize a psychological arrow of time, this completely sets to us the awareness of moments happening in an order which to us feels like we increase from the past event, into the future, where we find this future information already
    part of our memories, again due to the fact it is processed only in the present time [11].

    5) - The implications of a cosmological application would imply that the beginning of the universe and the end of the universe will be indiscernible too. In fact, modern physics already agrees with kind of apporach, since the common agreement between scientists is that the end will happen in much the same way the beginning
    occurred - through the presence of some singularity [12].

    (the following is less theoretical and more hypothetical)

    So according to the fifth premise, what exactly does this tell us about any preferred direction in time? If the beginning began in much the same way it will end, then how can there really be any end point with a meaning more significant than the other? I tend to fall back on philosophical questions like, ''What state is the
    universe progressing to, and why did it chose to follow to that state?''

    ''Is this final state more important than the state it had began in? It seems that if you take this from a mathematical perspective, it means that both the end and the beginning are the same thing. They are nothing but singular regions of spacetime. But if we humans take a step back to look at thi universe, we do notice a specific
    order which has arisen to this modern time, and how this order has managed to manifest many different possibilities. Some of these come in the forms of stars, planets, supernovea, galaxies, supergalaxies and so on, to entire galaxies spiralling around some galactic center. This order of matter has come together, fused by
    the strong forces at the fundamental level, and held in planetary formation by the force of gravity at the levels we can observe. The state of the universe to us now, would certainly seem more ordered than what the universe would have been like a few chronons after the first initial instant of time. It would have been a hot messy
    gas of plasma or electromagnetic energy, and would have taken a while (15 billion-odd years) to reach to todays present state, which has, out of the disorder, allowed some order to persist, namely ourselves. We can observe this world, and it seems very structured to us, safe (sometimes) and tangible. It's not ethereal, hot and messy
    like the early universe was, but nevertheless, entropy theory of physics suggests that the early universe was in fact in its most ordered state, where as time passes, the universe becomes more and more disordered through thermodynamics of particles and displacement of these particles from their original orientations. But in physics,
    we consider this to be true, despite the obviously opposing psychology of the human being, which seems to see more order really than disorder.

    Perhaps there is more order now than what there was during the big bang? It is certain that according to wave mechanics that it is possible that the big bang is not as well-defined as todays universe is. Our very actions of observation according to the Copenhagen School of thought suggests we make the world more and more defined by
    our measurements. In fact, Doctor Fred Alan Wolf has shown in his book Parallel Universes 1985 that it is possible under the laws of quantum mechanics to suggest that our observations today are actually making the past of the universe more and more defined. The sudden collapse of the wave function would have a statistical effect on the
    past state of the universe. In this notion, he adopts the use of the Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics.

    Now, if the universe is evolving to a more important state than what it originally begun in, then we would need to ask what it is. Is it the influence of the observer making the universe more defined by our observations [13]? Might we even dare to suggest a Strong Anthropic Principle and state that we may play a very important role in
    the existence of the universe? The main thing which makes this so hard to beleive, is that compared to our existences, we are so small on a cosmological scale, infinitely so. Why would our tiny existences on equally a tiny peice of matter we call earth, which only makes up a fraction of all the matter in the universe (which is quite small
    while we are it) make such an influence on the universe at large? I guess it depends on how much we actually contribute to the universe. The ultimate goal of the Anthropic Principle is prove that the universe began so that humans could exist, according to the physicist Frank J. Tipler, most noted for his work on Global Cosmology, the study
    of relativity on a cosmological scale studying the possible ends it may experience due to the geometry of the vacuum.

    If our existences are entirely special, and the universe also intended to design other intelligent lifeforms, it would certainly be more easier to believe than simply believing we are the be all and end all of the universes existence. Since we are actually pretty complicated ystems, with an equally baffling computerlike system we call
    the consciousness, it seems that we could indeed have been a special part in the design of matter. We certainly live on a higher existence to matter in general, as we are alive. We are often completely surrounding in dead matter, so the appearance of life in general excites the question of how much our appearance in the universe was actually
    designed... If it was the universes goal, it would explain many of the philosophical contraints of physics concerning our existences, and the goal to find a unified theory of gravity in general.

    Notes

    [1] - Relative Experience is at the core of how we percieve time. We percieve it within our own parameters of knowledge, and very personally at best, and thus the Relative Experience of time to us is Local. The Experience of Relative Time allows one to also model
    experiences we may observe and measure in which we can alter and change the material world, but can also be modeled not to alter and change as percieved by a time which flows, but by one which incorporates time as being instantaneous fleeting flashes of starts and
    stops. A recent essay has provided this new revolutionary perspective (before i came to the idea independantly) - ''The Flow of Time'' by George F. R. Ellis who explains that ''Current theoretical physics suggests the flow of time is an illusion: the entire universe
    just is, with no special meaning attached to the present time.'' Thus i proposed a second principle which might allow some kind of structure to a geometrical and respresentational model of spacetime which fits the catagorically long list of experiences we encounter:
    The spacetime theories where first explored by Arthur Eddington, but it seems this idea did not catch on very well and was forgotten by many scientists. The Reference Principle is the principle within my model which allows a three dimensional vector representation of
    our experience to overlap or condense into the same structure we observe, thus in a sense, our reality is defined by what is out there, as much as what is out there is defined in here, and as some scientists believe, the world in here might be influencing the world out
    there (read Doctor Fred Alan Wolfs, Mind into Matter). The Reference Principle allowing a computational object like oueselves to cohere with the outside world appears to be connected with some abstraction in the form of experienced time, and thus highlights the importance
    of the Relative Time Experience, in which time to us is local, and allows us to locally interact with the outside world. So to these sister-principles, the outside world is relative to us through time, as much as we are relative to the outside world via experiences which are
    tied in fragmentations of time.

    [2] - I came to name this the Self-Reflection Principle. For possibly many hundred years, it has been considered that for a system to self-reflect in the way it can measure itself and know of its own existence requires a certain level of intelligence which can be applied
    to only a few of the living creatures of the world. But since we have only measured this by experimentation of observation of other animals and how they percieve themselves, it is still not fully understood. I suggest as a possible solution, that intelligence is the word that
    is misunderstood, not misused. There is certainly information at large when an [object] can self-reflect. But whether it requires an extreme level of intelligence could be up for debate, as for the level of reflection seems to have quite a large spectrum, for do not
    electrons, billions upon billions upon billions times smaller than a human being come into contact and reflect on their own states to reveal single Eigenstates into their structure, such as angular polarization? In fact, if in his essay ''Electron time, mass and zitter'' By
    David Hestenes is truely understood that electrons can have internal clocks, then there may be some type of self-reflection individually without the need of two to come together and collapse each wavefunctions. This is where my contentions on treating the conscious experience
    of time as an object as the same experience in which a subatomic experience would with time, purely local and smooth.

    [3] - Words that seem similar to Einsteins revolutionary idea that the speed of light was the same in every inertial frame except in this case, the experience of time from any objects frame is always localized.

    [4] - The Wheeler-de Witt equation is \hat{H}|\psi>=0 where the right hand side of the equation is the quantity of time, which is zero.

    [5] - The energies which are spoke of here are confirmed already by experimental evidence. We have managed to unite the forces of electric and magnetic together unifying it as electromagnetism, but at much higher energies at the scale of around 10^{14} GeV, the
    nuclear force and weak force are unfied with electromagnetism and gravity. The scale of energy is just below the Plank Scale as to find gravity at it's most effectiveness. In short, it was just one small gravitationally stressed region, and just afterwards, the forces flew
    apart as single sides of a hidden same force.

    [6] - Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie (2005) and later M. Gouanère et. al. (2008), A Search for the de Broglie Particle Internal Clock by Means of Electron Channeling, Foundations of Physics 38: 659-664.

    [7] - The Chronon is more commonly known as an indivisable unit equal to the Planck Time. It is the time in which the shortest action can be achieved, and which no photon experiences because it moves along a null path trajectory, which is consequently zero-time evolution
    in relativity. This paradoxically means that mathematically-stating the photon not experiencing time pass is also consequentially meaning it moves through no space either.

    [8] - In a spacetime theory i designed i allowed a geometry to the conscious experience by giving a mathematical vector notation of three dimensions to the world we visually percieve in an attempt to explain the Reference Principle of my theory. The Reference Principle to quickly
    summarize again is when you allow some referral between ''in here'' and ''out there'' through some time gradient. I also noted that if this was the case, then the time experienced in here and the time ''supposedly'' out there may actually be interdependant. In effect, i also decided
    in that theory that some kind of relative existence must be implied when concerning our experience of time, and with time itself in general, even though it is not a physical object. Usually in physics this has been unheard of, simply because in relativity you require two physical objects
    in spacetime, but these physical objects are also allowed to be composed of immobile matter, so generally-speaking from a non-special viewpoint, two atoms can have a relativity between them conscious or not. Howsoever, the very fact we can experience time means that some type of description
    needs to be made, and since the experience of time is a process which could not be more personal, perhaps treating time like an object in the fashion could be rewarding. It might be that we can talk about a non-material entity like time being relative to us, simply because the human
    mind (and the world we percieve) is itself immaterial and abstractual. I certainly don't intend this side of the theory to neglect completely what influence matter has over the mind, but i can sit here with certainty and say the things we observe are not the real world, and are not material
    entities themselves. They are somehow projections made from the information of photons bouncing off objects and into the retina, causing a series of electrical imbalances and chemical changes which are then sent to the brain through a series of complex actions where that information is
    finally projected into a holographic three dimensional world, with our consciousness inexorably sensing a time pass as things tend themselves to change in the luminous world of the measurement.

    [9] - The Field Equation which used the constant was R_{\mu \nu} -\frac{1}{2}Rg_{\mu \nu} + \lambda g_{\mu \nu} = \frac{8 \pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu \nu} where \lambda represents this Cosmological energy.

    [10] - The idea of just unifying the past and present this way is inspired by Liebniz Law. Even i was quite surprised to discover that the two can be applied to the Liebniz law, but evidently they do. The past and the future must be considered indiscernible if they are (according to my
    conclusionary data in this essay) only ever real during the present time. In fact, everything that ever exists must exist in a present time, which means that past and the future are of the same identity. The only difference to us is purely psychological. We beleive we have added information
    about the past whereas we do not of the future. The way to avoid this problem is by saying that the future is also a history which we simply cannot remember. But as explained, as soon as future enfolds to us, it already seems as if it is part of our memories, so even the future is the present
    time, as much as the past is also the present. To provide a scientific arguement to why this must be true, one only needs to look to special relativity, where time travel is a possibility. For someone to successfully move from this present moment and into the past, it must invoke the truth that
    this person would arrive at this past existence (in their own current present time). Due to this relative rule, we have an arguement to understand how the present must encompass both what we really call past and future.

    [11] - If when the future occurs to us, it feels like it is already part of our memories, then one can interpret this as meaning that somehow thoughts and wishes are or exist beyond the observer, or makes the illusion we can extend our thoughts past the present bounds. For instance, imagine you
    decided to think about a memory. We do no such thing as ''going back'' in time. Instead, we are remembering an [experience] we had during another present time, so we are in fact recreating some past event in our minds during the present time.

    [12] - On the global existence of time, By Ettore Minguzzi

    [Essay Abstract]

    The existence of a global time is often taken for granted but should instead be considered as a matter of investigation. By using the tools of global Lorentzian geometry I prove that, under physically reasonable conditions, the impossibility of finding a global time implies the singularity of spacetime.

    [13] - In Copenhagen, objects must undergo a quantum leap everytime something is observed. This is because of a mathematical description called the collapse of the wave function.
    [*] - In a standard course of geometry, you learn phythagora's theorem. It relates the lengths of the side of a right triangle, where if we take the sqaure of two sides of the triangle and their sum, they will equal the same as the remaining length. The three dimensional nature of the universe obides by
    this simple and conscise rule. Now, since Phythagora's theorem, it has been applied into the geometry which is most commonly associated with Minkowskian Spacetime. It is a four dimensionsional vector space, with one imaginary quantity which is time. Time then becomes under the description as the imaginary
    space dimension. This imaginary dimension, which is not meaning it is ethereal in anyway without proof, takes off this spacetime triangle making the four-dimensional manifold of spacetime what it is, and what unifying them means. The math which described this was a new geometry:

    s^2=-(c\Delta t)^2+(\Delta x)^2+(\Delta y)^2+(\Delta z)^2

    This equation is a Cartesian Coordinate of spacetime. In a Minkowskian Row Vector Notation in a bilinear form can be given as: V=(0,0,0,1). The Row Value of the Matrix is given as:

    \eta=\begin{pmatrix}-1&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0  &1\end{pmatrix}

    This makes a smooth manifold consistent of time and space as single entities. This is why time cannot disappear from some small square unit of space for it is a universal invariant. The presence of space according to the new physics generalized this to mean that it also included the appearance of time.
    Such an example was the big bang itself, it was not just the beginning of primal space, but also of primal time.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Are you expecting me to read that?
    :lolwut:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miss Mary)
    Are you expecting me to read that?
    :lolwut:
    I don't certainly force anyone too

    but as a suggestion, you could read a bit a day?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    no offence but wtf are u on about?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wizz_kid)
    no offence but wtf are u on about?

    Aynway, physics is not easy sir. I have spent approximately nine years studying, reading and now academically following the current mainstream science of physics. But many of the words and terms i have used are obviously not for those who have studied only at Grammer Level, or higher schooling. I suggest you accept my offer: I will write it more elementary for you, as much as we all needed it one time, but only if you read it. I will not waste my time educating you on a peice i have written in simpler forms if you do not do me the honor of reading the effort> deal?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: July 15, 2009
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.