[Colin2B]

Your analogy would work well if cows were defined as being causally related to the existence of fields.

It still works well, because you cannot show a causal relationship between time and events.
Are you suggesting that time ‘causes’ events to happen? Or that events cause time to happen. There is no evidence in physics that there is a mechanism by which time might be considered a causative nor that events cause time to leap into existence.
A more likely explanation is that time, like space, has an existence independent of objects and events, that the 2 form a stage for objects and change. Relativity suggests that in the absence of energy, eg in the form of mass, spacetime takes a ‘relaxed’, less curved topology, but there is no evidence that time begins to disappear. Even in the most extreme areas of mass energy eg a black hole, the distortion of time is relative to the distant observer, although the gradient in such areas might make us question how distant the observer might need to be in order to see the distortion.

Edit: I see @Malamute Lover has replied while I was typing. Similar issues and yes the interchangeability of time & space is an interesting one.

[CPT ArkAngel]

How can we explain that the causal order of all events is the same for all observers? The chain of causality is not broken anywhere. GR has no explanation for that. What is a locality? To say that there is no simultaneity considering the speed of light is one thing but to say there is no intrinsic synchronization in the physics is another, especially when you consider that it takes time for a beam of light to travel from a locality to another and that each type of particle has the same properties, even though they may be separated by billions of light years...

[alancalverd]

Events "cause" time in the same way that cows "cause" space. If there were only one cow, its separation from other cows would be meaningless. Similarly if there were no cows (though I'm sure a philosopher could write a book about the implications of the nonexistence of philosophy's favorite species, and believe it was important).You need at least two events for time to have any meaning or value to anyone other than a philosopher.   

[CPT ArkAngel]

It is physics, not philosophy. You are stuck in GR. GR doesn't explain everything. I did not say there is a possible instantaneous process, I said there is a possible causal connection faster than light with no energy exchange. It is clearly a possibility in physics and it does not contradict GR. Show me a contradiction and I will show you how you are wrong.

How can you solve the singularity inside a black hole?

How can you explain entanglement?

How can you explain the speed of light is a constant?

What is the mechanism explaining the gravitational redshift? GR gives an explanation for a local observer but it doesn't say why a local observer is a local observer. The speed of light is a local constant but what is the speed of a photon in the absence of an observer or between two localities with different gravitational potentials?

[Malamute Lover]

It is physics, not philosophy. You are stuck in GR. GR doesn't explain everything.

Correct. General Relativity is a classical theory that does not take quantization into account.

I did not say there is a possible instantaneous process, I said there is a possible causal connection faster than light with no energy exchange.

To explain the Bell Inequality violation in terms of causality would require instantaneous communication. Any finite speed, even if >c, will be ‘too late’. The principle of quantum entanglement holds regardless of distance. If you are not talking about entanglement at a distance (as in Bell’s Theorem), what are you referring to?

It is clearly a possibility in physics and it does not contradict GR. Show me a contradiction and I will show you how you are wrong.

Actually, it does raise a problem for Relativity Theory.

In Special Relativity, the spacetime interval is a measure of an invariant spacetime distance between two events in spacetime regardless of observer. This requires converting time into distance by multiplying time by c. If communication can exceed c, the interval is no longer invariant, but different for different observers.

In General Relativity, the appearance of a distant object is affected by spacetime conditions between the object and the observer, such as the varying spacetime curvatures the information must traverse. This is described by the Robertson-Walker metric, a very hairy formula. Communication at >c will not traverse the intervening distance in the same way as communication at c because it will not follow the same geodesics.

Relativity Theory is definitely affected. This does not mean that supra-light speed is impossible. We already know GR is not the whole story.

How can you solve the singularity inside a black hole?

The singularity inside a black hole is not a thing. The singularity is the point at which the expression of spacetime curvature involves division by zero. That is, the mathematics of GR is inadequate to describe the ‘bottom’ of a black hole. A theory of quantum gravity would hopefully not involve a mathematical singularity.

How can you explain entanglement?

I don’t. It is part of the formalism of quantum theory and it definitely happens. Why? Dunno.

How can you explain the speed of light is a constant?

In inertial reference frames, the speed of light in a vacuum will always be measured as a constant by all observers. This is because of relativistic things going on – old story. Why is it always measured as a constant at all? Because of the way electromagnetic waves self-propagate. A moving electric field generates a moving magnetic field which generates a moving electric field etc. The quantitative relationship between electric fields and magnetic fields determines the speed of electromagnetic radiation, i.e., light.

What is the mechanism explaining the gravitational redshift? GR gives an explanation for a local observer but it doesn't say why a local observer is a local observer.

In GR, gravitational fields slow clocks. Imagine a lamp in a gravitational field that shines blue light. i.e., the frequency corresponding to blue light according to local clocks. A blue photon goes up the gravitational well. As it goes up, clocks tick faster and faster. The frequency of that photon is now slower and slower with respect to the faster clocks. It is now a red photon. (Exaggeration intentional.)

Another way of looking at it: The energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency. As the photon goes up, gravity is pulling back and robbing it of energy, thus slowing its frequency.

In both scenarios, where does the energy go? The positive energy that is taken from the photon goes into the negative energy of the gravitational field canceling some of it. (Note that a gravitational field has negative energy. It pulls instead of pushing.) Since some energy (the photon) has moved away from the center of the mass-energy accumulation that is providing the gravity, the gravitational pull is a tiny bit weaker, equal to the reduced negative energy of the gravitational field, courtesy of the positive energy it stole from the photon.

In GR, both scenarios are the same thing. Slower clock equals gravity. They are one and the same.

Notice that I did it all from the viewpoint of the photon. No other observer local or otherwise needed.

The speed of light is a local constant but what is the speed of a photon in the absence of an observer or between two localities with different gravitational potentials?

A photon is maximally time dilated. Time does not pass for a photon. Unless you introduce the passage of time via an observer (possibly hypothetical) of present or past events, talking about the speed of light does not make sense.

The speed of light is not necessarily measured to be constant in accelerated reference frames. Light crossing different regions of curved space time will not necessarily be measured as constant by an observer. The Robertson-Walker metric equation talks this into account.

[Bill S]

The beauty of this theory is that as the sum of mass is zero, you don't need anything to preexist the BB,

I know we’ve been here before, but I still lack resolution.  The sum of the mass is zero; no problem, but would the masses not have to “pre-exist” in order to sum to zero?

The only way we could infer the presence of an unreal particle is if two real particles spontaneously move apart due to the presence of an unreal particle between them. Which is just what we observe in the expanding universe.

Like it.  Think “Bill Ockham” would approve.  Need to give it some thought.

[Malamute Lover]

The beauty of this theory is that as the sum of mass is zero, you don't need anything to preexist the BB,

I know we’ve been here before, but I still lack resolution.  The sum of the mass is zero; no problem, but would the masses not have to “pre-exist” in order to sum to zero?

I happen to agree with Alan about this. In my version, the positive mass and the negative mass shape spacetime in opposite ways so that positive mass goes one way in time and negative mass goes the other way. There is no pre-exist, time goes two ways from an origin point. Time is a result of the presence of the mass.

But this is now way outside the allowable limits of this sub-forum.

[Bill S]

There is no pre-exist,

If this says that everything is eternal, I would not argue with that.  I just wonder if it would leave Neilep feeling he had a woolly answer to the OP; but I'll not bleat about that.

[alancalverd]

Time is a result of the presence of the mass.

But this is now way outside the allowable limits of this sub-forum.

No, I think it is entirely within the scope. If time is what separates sequential events, and we can only observe sequential events involving positive masses, then we have answered the question and even hinted at an answer to the implied question of why time only goes forward.

[Malamute Lover]

There is no pre-exist,

If this says that everything is eternal, I would not argue with that.  I just wonder if it would leave Neilep feeling he had a woolly answer to the OP; but I'll not bleat about that.

Eternity need not be involved. There could be an end of time in both directions, a Big Crunch or something like that. There is no 'pre-exist' because in this scenario, time starts in the middle and goes both ways.

I hope this answer does not make you feel sheepish or think that I am trying to pull the wool over your eyes or otherwise fleece you. And I would never try to ram anything down your throat.  I never herd of such a thing, doggone it.

[CPT ArkAngel]

I know all this Malamute Lover. You miss that I propose that no energy is exchanged. My idea is that the speed of light is always constant even when travelling between two localities having different gravitational potentials. In GR the actual speed is undefined outside localities because it depends on the observer. The gravitational time dilation, hence also the corresponding redshift, is interpreted as a curvature of spacetime in the context of a local constant speed of light. My idea would necessarily change GR but not the current observations. What I think is the wavelength of the particle gets longer as it travels toward a more massive region while the wavelengths of gravitons are getting shorter due to the fact that there is less distances between particles. This way, the energy is always conserved. The objects measured are actually visually appearing larger and the standard interpretation is that it is the expanding space which is producing this phenomena. I say they are truly larger. Though there is a redshift due to the expansion of space also but it is due to SR not gravity. This redshift is not due to the increase in the massive particle wavelength but the stress in the vacuum field between particles.

I propose that spacetime is not of a basic 3D+1 dimensional set but spacetime is a causal set of 1 dimensional physical relations. These relations are the gravitational and the EM field and the particles are the intersections of these two sets of relations. Essentially, it is a kind of quantum field of spacetime and the massive particles are loops where the EM field has perpendicular connections to the gravitational field. The curvature of the loop depends on the type of the particle and its internal configuration. For an electron, this corresponds to the Compton wavelength and it determines the proper mass. The electric charge is not fundamental but due to a quantization of the EM field. The interactions produce waves and curvature in both fields moving at the speed of light. You cannot perceive anything going at the speed of light, what you perceive is differentials between particles from emitted photons. This explains the Heisenberg Principle. These fields are always interacting and the total flow of spacetime or energy is always conserved. The weak and strong interactions are emergent from the resulting geometry of spacetime in the near
 field interactions.

To explain entanglement and that the speed of light is a constant, I also propose a third field which conveys internal information about space and time but no energy. This is a flat spatial field which connects all particles within a Planck time and the minimal length is the Planck length. The EM waves are connected only in multiples of the local wavelength connected by the h constant. Any particles is entangled with all other particles of the Universe. The maximum of entanglement between two particles of the same type is 50% and its origin is a spacetime distance of one or two wavelengths. The other 50% is due to the spatial connections with other particles in the form of a quantized series. When the distance increases between two maximally entangled particles, the entanglement between the two particles decreases while the entanglement with other particles increases. The spacetime distances depends on the actual type of interactions (or the type of state) you are measuring. Thus the high entangled relation may be maintain as long as the spacetime distance of the state from other particles remains sufficiently large. So the particles become entangled with the detectors as they approach them... And the Born rule is due to the detectors... What is being measured is the common spatial component between the two entangled particles in correlation with the position of the detectors. When the symmetry is maximized like it is the case for the Higgs or like a simple conservation of momentum, the two components of spin appear to be entangled at a 100%, but the truth is they are only entangled at 50% and the 50% leftover correlation is due to conservation of energy in the relations of the two particles and the entire Universe. This is a local interaction from the start.

A photon has no image in a mirror because it has no projection in front of itself, the energy component is totally redshifted. The photon follow the vacuum fields.

I know it should be in the theories section but I just answered the question with minimal explanations.

[CPT ArkAngel]

I forgot to mention that the EM loops are made of two loops GLUED together by gravity at the Planck length in the case of leptons. They are not fundamental elements. The two loops are made of one string forming a mobius strip, probably... Or maybe not... but probably... 

Rotation must be fundamental at the large scale... Because the Universe cannot have a net rotation, it could be a simple spatial asymmetry or a sign of a multiverse. Remember that spacetime remains curvable.

The negative charge has a flow in the reverse direction to the positive one in the EM field. Now, you can understand the annihilation process. The process of the Big Bang...

The Higgs field is flat but creates two opposite curvatures in spacetime, one for the EM field and one for the G field at the cosmological scale but cannot reconnect to itself locally in the flat space.What it means is you cannot see a copy of yourself. The total curvature is zero and the total energy of the Universe is a fundamental constant through the minimal delay. It is a constant but there is a delay between effective attraction and effective repulsion, meaning it has an effective oscillation in spacetime but fundamentally, you have one positive curvature and one negative with a minimal delay between them which change in spacetime.

The total energy E = K/constant delay = EM₀ - EM[dx/dt] + G[dx/dt] during the expansion phase and

Total E = G₀ - G[dx/dt] + EM[dx/dt] during the contraction phase.

And E = G₀ = EM₀.

The transitions are at E = EM₀/2 + G₀/2

The dx has higher derivatives due to the initial condensation of matter. After the first Planck time, the curvature and mass reappear so it creates a process similar to inflation because there are other asymmetries creating fermions  and then baryons bound by gravity. Gravity  increases sharply which will slow down the expansion but will produce oscillations in spacetime because of the sudden local production of gravitons which takes time to connect. Expansion restarts to increase due to re-emission of photons through disintegration and other processes. The Higgs is the only particle with no charge because the Higgs field has zero energy or rather a constant energy. The Higgs field maintains the conservation of energy and momentum in the entire Universe. Don't forget that this is the spacetime components that we observe. But it is an observable in entanglement experiments and other places...

The neutrino oscillations are understandable because they have much lower possible entanglement relations with more massive particles due to their sizes and low proper masses. But they are very similar to each other, so they oscillates together. They could potentially oscillate with quasi particles in matter viewed as holes in matter with similar symmetries to the neutrinos. More massive particles are so small compared to neutrinos that matter particles interact with the neutrino electric charge as it was a small fractional charge, the weak charge. Though in my model, the charge is +1 for the anti-electron neutrino. That's why the fine structure constant vary in QFT. The variation comes from near interactions due to the geometry of the fields. Only the first family of particles is potentially fundamental, in my opinion... +Higgs and possible other higgs, but could be redundant with the first family. A fermion has no electrical field in the middle. And the field starts at two wavelengths for an outside particle from the entry point (The build up starting point of the field due to curvature). Low curvature = low energy.

Music has a purpose, I let you think about that.

The Higgs boson occurs when the graviton has the exact same energy and wavelength as the corresponding boson of the EM field. The gravitational field is only quantized at the Planck length. Its energy not only depends on its frequency but also the inertial mass (curvature) of the emitting particle. The graviton has always one wavelength between two massive particles. So if you approximate the proton has having the geometry of a fermion, the Higgs mass should be the mass of the proton divided by the fine structure constant (128 GeV). But the proton is not a fermion. The gravitational field has an emergent quantization from the EM field quantizing the curvature in particles. The Higgs is the sync. Here, when I speak of gravity, I speak of the gluons and the strong force. There is a correction for the gravity and possibly one for the weak interaction. I`m working on it.

The real W boson in a neutron desintegration has a wavelength which is a multiple of the fundamental W.

The problem of CPT symmetry in particle physics arises mainly due to an error in thinking that all electric charges are the same with the exception of their sign. The charge of the electron and the charge of the proton are not exactly the same. The minimal distances of interaction are different so the potential are the same at long distance but not at the minimum. But when you consider this, it is at the scale of the universe that there is an asymmetry. There is the same quantity of protons and electrons, but almost no positron  and no constituent of the antiproton. The total potential doesn't seem to be equal to zero... This is the Dark Energy and this is what cause a neutron star to be a pulsar.

CPT symmetry is about conservation. If you suppose no creation, but conservation. There must be a complement somewhere.
What is dark matter? Why does the universe expand... Why gravity is so weak? The complement does not interact with the electric charge of matter, only at the beginning and at the end of the process, where CPT is conserved.

Dark matter is 1, 2 or 5 symmetric families linked with other Higgs boson, each having a length which is incompatible with matter. This explains why the up and the down quark are unstable. The maximal expansion is reached when all are synchronized. Now, you may understand why gravity is so weak. This is very hypothetical...

[CPT ArkAngel]

Luckily, your brain has been trained by its environment through correlations to understand my writing, and this is this quantization that allows your logic to work in your brain. From synchronization, allowed by physics, consciousness emerges. Where the notion of the present moment appears... But alone, we are not much of it...

[Bill S]

time starts

Nice one, ML, that takes us right back to the OP. 

What starts time; in the middle of what?  We know that time "emerges" in response to sequential events.  Do we assume that these events have always been happening (a touch of the eternal, there); or are we to think of these events as starting at some point?

[Colin2B]

We know that time "emerges" in response to sequential events. 

But we don’t know this do we Bill. The emergent time theories don’t see time as fundamental, but the fundamental theories don’t see it as emergent. I suppose my view is closer to the evolving block universe idea in which time is an enabler or precondition for sequential event to occur.

[Malamute Lover]

time starts

Nice one, ML, that takes us right back to the OP. 

What starts time; in the middle of what?  We know that time "emerges" in response to sequential events.  Do we assume that these events have always been happening (a touch of the eternal, there); or are we to think of these events as starting at some point?

If Hartle and Hawking are right, then time starts out as just another space dimension. It does not start at at point in time. They were only concerned with removing a mathematical singularity that arose from the assumption of infinite density. They do not provide a mechanism for making the 4th space dimension into time.

In my proposal the presence of positive energy matter shapes spacetime so that  there is a time dimension where things can happen. The shaping is entirely local in that the presence of positive mass-energy at each point constitutes the shaping. No time lapse is needed for mass-energy to exert influence on anything anywhere else than where it already is. It is not that spacetime is flat and gets shaped. It is that the presence of positive mass-energy and the shape of spacetime are one and the same.

My hypothesis is that the positive mass-energy exists because negative mass-energy also exists, totaling zero and therefore allowed to exist. The middle is the space-only point where time starts out in each direction, spacetime being shaped in opposite time directions by the positive and negative mass-energy.

[Colin2B]

My hypothesis is that the positive mass-energy exists because negative mass-energy also exists, totaling zero and therefore allowed to exist.

And presumably not requiring anything (other than space) to exist prior to this point because the bookkeeping adds to zero?

[alancalverd]

That's the idea. And since space is an infinity of nothing, you can have as much of that as you like. 

[Malamute Lover]

My hypothesis is that the positive mass-energy exists because negative mass-energy also exists, totaling zero and therefore allowed to exist.

And presumably not requiring anything (other than space) to exist prior to this point because the bookkeeping adds to zero?

Don't even need space, which is shaped by mass-energy. Just mass-energy..And with plus and minus mass-energy signs and the accompanying reversed time direction, and opposite parity thrown in for good measure because of CPT symmetry, everything adds to zero.

[yor_on]

Time is a clock. That clock can be represented by 'c'. The weird thing about it is that it has only one direction, as far as I know.

All other 'dimensions' has two.