|
Author
|
Topic: Theory of Time
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 09. March 2003 16:25
Time
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-----------------------Space
Time is not really a dimension except in the abstact sense. Light-cones are generalizations for one instant or present moment of time.
The present moment or "NOW" is the intersection of the past and future light-cones for the "NOW", or present moment.
If we rotate the time axis towards us 90 degrees, then we are looking down at it like the barrel of a shotgun or a long tunnel.
{<-{->{<-{0}->}<-}->}
Time is not really linear. But is a rate of flux. The present moment is the intersection of the past and future light-cones of "NOW".
The distance a photon of light travels is given by velocity*time or "ct".
The distance(in the abstract sense) that a photon of light travels along the time dimension is given by imaginary*velocity*time or "ict".
The distance formula of Pythagoras would then be:
(ict)^2 + (ct)^2 = 0
Now is "zero" and is the intersection of past and future.
{<-{->{<-{U}->}<-}->}
Reality is at resonance.
All objects have their resonant frequency and "wavelength"
wavelength = h/p
h is Planck's constant and p is momentum.
Reality is abstract with imaginary-complex numbers and reality is concrete with the real numbers.
Russ
[ 09. March 2003, 16:42: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Noel Rude
Member
Member # 516
|
posted 13. March 2003 10:44
Theory of Time, eh? Wonderful! Some time back I initiated a thread wondering how ID might look at time -- the idea being that ID is also a "universal acid" that should permeate everything that has been founded upon materialist philosophy -- theories of time included. But, as one suggested, "Instead of time, since that's not really well understood, how about mentally manipulating the rate of the Second Law Of Thermodynamics (SLOT)?" Interesting idea, but I had hoped for a better understanding of time itself in light of ID.
So -- before those of us from lesser disciplines invest the time to understand what you're saying here -- might it be possible to translate into laymen's language? More directly I have some questions -- if that's permissible -- because I'd like to know how your theory might fit ID.
(1) Are you a determinist? -- that is, is the future fixed within some kind of "block time" or is there really a "now" when the future is determined?
(2) Are you a compatibilist? -- that is, if you are in some sense a determinist, do you believe that a fully determined future is compatible with free will?
(3) Are you a materialist? -- that is, at least according to my definition, do you prefer to believe that mind or will at its deepest level supervenes on chance and necessity (a la Monod) or perhaps on information -- or would you hold that mind (I don't mean cognition) is elemental, as elemental as an electron?
(4) If you are not a materialist, how would you relate your theory to ID?
My sense is that if Einstein had been an IDist, the notion of "now" would have been basic. If physics thought that materialism was mistaken then agency would be fundamental. Who knows? If ID is correct then maybe a "grand synthesis" of our disciplines is possible and adjusting our theory of time will play a crucial role.
[ 13. March 2003, 10:53: Message edited by: Noel Rude ]
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 18. March 2003 14:29
Thanks for the questions.
I will try to sum it up with this:
Of course, the geometrical description of gravitation has ample
justification.
But what about the electromagnetic "force"??? The electromagnetic
field is different in character from gravitation. Must we consider
electromagnetism as an independent physical field, with its own
characteristic dynamics?
Must the electromagnetic field be forever described as
non-geometrical? Or is it possible to describe both the
electromagnetic and gravitational fields as aspects of the curvature
of spacetime? Or a complementary formulation that describes
gravitation as an aspect of electromagnetism? The variation of the
curvature of spacetime at one point can also be correlated with the
electromagnetic field at one point. The electromagnetic field can be
described relativistically by the Maxwell tensor F^uv with electric
and magnetic field strengths E and B.
I seem to recall reading Einstein postulated that mass generates
spacetime? with spacetime as inhomogeneous and anisotropic in the
neighborhood of mass.
Space becomes contracted in the neighborhood of massive objects such
as neutron stars according to the formula r' = (1-rS/r)^(1/2) Where rS
= 2GM/c^2 .
The vacuum T^uv = 0 solution to the Einstein field equation, which is
spherically symmetric and static, is called the Schwarzschild
geometry. For r very large compared to rS(distances many Schwarzschild
radii from the neutron star) , rS/r will be very small and r' will be
virtually equal to r . As r shrinks toward rS/r, r' will approach 1 -
rS/r = 0.
Rulers appear to get shorter, in the approach towards the neutron
star, and time intervals get longer. The distortions arising from
general relativity depend on the gravitational potential energy, and
vary as 1/r, rather than varying with the strength of the
gravitational field. Since the Swarzschild radius is radially
symmetric, the curvature in the path of a ray of light can be
explained as the varying density of space which creates a region of
varying refractive index. This is what causes the ray to bend slightly
as it grazes a massive star.
As far as special relativity is concerned, the increase in mass of a
body moving at relativistic speeds is a kind of rotational
"perspective effect". When dealing with the spacelike separation
between two events we have the expression:
(distance)^2 = (Dx)^2 + (Dy)^2 + (Dz)^2
When dealing with an interval between two events A and B where we
have the same y and z coordinates, the separation in space between the
two events becomes: distance = Dx . The interval is given by the
mathematical expression:
[(Dt^2) - (Dx^2)]^(1/2)
Where t is the time coordinate. The expression becomes:
(Dt^2) - (Dx^2) - (Dy^2) - (Dz^2)
for a timelike interval.
For a spacelike interval:
(Dx^2) + (Dy^2) + (Dz^2) - (Dt^2)
So Minkowski introduces a new way to measure time with Dw =
[(-1)^(1/2)]*Dt
(distance)^2 = (Dx)^2 + (Dy)^2 + (Dz)^2 + (Dw)^2
Time and space become parts of a larger unity,
[Dx^2 + Dy^2 + Dz^2 - Dt^2]^(1/2)
The minus sign shows how time is not quite the same as space and marks
their difference in character. with the imaginary number (-1)^(1/2) .
The light cone is an interesting feature of Lorentz geometry. A flash
of light at one moment in time. The Lorentz geometry has interesting
and important characteristics for the understanding the structure of
the physical world.
The future light cone tells the history of the expanding spherical
pulse that started at point P. Similarly the bacwards light cone tells
the history of a converging pulse of radiation collapsing at point P,
the origin, at time zero.
The light cone of the event at point P and the light cone of any other
event, has an existence in spacetime apart from any coordinates we may
use to describe it. Events that effect each other are independent of
the reference frame in which the observation of said connection of
events was observed. So the causal connection between two events is
preserved in every reference frame.
The brilliant theoretical physicist Julian Barbour agrees with the Trans-Einsteinian Hypothesis in that motion is an illusion and time is invariant:
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:40:18 +0000
To: analog57@yahoo.com
From: "Julian Barbour" | This is Spam | Add to Address Book
Subject: Re: Feedback
Thank you for your comment. I am glad you agree that
motion is an illusion.
Best wishes, Julian Barbour
At 00:45 17/03/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>A new message has been received from >href=mailto:analog57@yahoo.com>analog57@yahoo.com.
>
>FirstName : Russell E.
>LastName : Rierson
>Email : analog57@yahoo.com
>Country : United States
>Message : If we observe light cone cross sections of
the past light cone
>of the universe, it becomes a temporal stacking
effect:
>
>[{S/T_0}[[[[[[{S/T_1}]]]]]]...]
>
>S/T is distance/time for a photon of light.
>
>S/T_0 = S/T_1
>
>
>This is the principle of "c" invariance explained by
Einstein's
>relativity. The stacking of layers of space time can
be interpreted as a
>pressure force causing matter-energy to be rescaled
successively in the
>universe's past light cone. Matter would shrink
uniformly such that even
>though S and T are shrinking they are shrinking in
tandem, giving another
>equivalence principle equating equivalent physics of
circles-spheres of
>radius R and 1/R respectively. T-Duality.
>
>S/T_0 = S/T_1 means that all points in space time are
in immediate contact
>and that there is no real "non locality", it only
appears to be due to our
>misconceptions about the seperatness of reality.
>
>Yes, I agree that motion is an illusion. The only
motion is movement of
>"mind".
>
>Russ
>
>submit : Send
Russ
[ 09. April 2003, 04:36: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 31. March 2003 01:59
Postulating a flat background metric n_ab for spacetime forces the breakup of the true metric g_ab.
An approach that does not rely on a background metric is the canonical quantization method. An approach applicable for formulating a quantum theory when the classical reality has been put in the Hamiltonian form.
Take the states of a system described by wave functions psi{q} of configuration variables and differentiate the momentum variables with respect to the conjugate configuration variable so we can determine the time evolution of the psi wave function with the Schrodinger equation
H{psi} = E{psi}
General relativity can be expressed in Hamiltonian form, so it should be possible to apply the canonical quantization rules to GR. There are constraint problems though.
That is why I propose a merging of the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian approaches while also incorporating the conspansive model of space-time, or should I say to incorporate the merger of H and L into Chris Langan's conspansion?!!
{psi^2}*H*L = {psi^2}*E^2
Since the total energy of the universe is zero, E = 0.
The pesky classical background metric, does not agree with conspansion because it introduces, or sneaks, a type of Cartesian dualism back into the philosophical arena.
The universal consciousness is a universally distributed function of itself, i.e. the Eigenfunction diffeomorphism.
{<-{->{<-{U}->}<-}->}
No "temporal" motion occurs globally, yet locally, time marches on.
Russ
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic