Post by: Æthelwulf on 04/04/2012 16:40:38
So, I am beginning this complete set-up of understanding the current problem in physics: the unification of Quantum Theory and Relativity theories - of course, such an approach requires that our knowledge of high energy physics is correct. But there is a prevailing uncertainty just how to do this at the moment. There seems to be a number of problems in our attempt at unification and one such problem is the infamous Time Problem of General Relativity.
In essence, when you quantize the famous Einstein field equations, you end up with what is called the Wheeler de Witt equation;
Normally on the right hand side, we would see the presence of a time derivative. However, this equation should have ended up something like your usual energy schrodinger equation, but for an entire universe, this does not seem to be possible.
The fact there is a vanishing time derivative, this had led to the interpretation that the universe, time atleast, from a global sense does not exist, that the universe is really about static time. This can seem at first like a big of a gee whiz moment, because time being static seems very exotic. However, there maybe still a new way to view this and I will tackle this from Fotini Markoupoulou's stance of time, which we will cover soon and to which I will add new concepts. I don't add them frivoulously, this is still a real science.
Now, of course, there maybe those still out there shrouded by the veil called time, they cannot see past their own experiences. We do afterall sense time pass, so why should we believe time does not exist? Surely if we experience time, there must be some corresponding physical application to the world at large. Well, over the years of studies I have made, this ''feeling'' of time might just be that: simply a feeling. The psychological arrow of time actually explains really well why we may feel a ''directionality to time''. This directionality of time is the arrow of time many people abuse, thinking it has a real consequence on physical reality. As observers, we experience a local time, but what does it mean when we talk about a ''global time'' or a ''local time''?
Global Time
A global time, is a time encompassed, or experienced by clocks inside of the universe. It is concerned with many groups of systems and never one alone. If one could sit outside the universe, we would actually view it as a static system. In a way to justify that claim, which Barbour does not do in his paper but does mention this fact, is through the weak measurement physics. In quantum cosmology, Prof. Steven Hawking believes we must veiw the universe like an atom. So indeed, if we were to view the universe from outside [1] then the energy content would not change. In fact, if we actually could, then we could measure the universes energy. It is well-known that the universe in totality cannot have a very well-defined energy unless someone was to actually measure it; and if no superintelligence exists then perhaps we may assume that the energy cannot be defined.
Local Time
Local time is the asymptotic time everyone comes to agree on: we all experience time, this cannot be denied. Time seems to be strictly local in this sense, local to bodies like ourselves, including even electrons [2] and perhaps other particles which experience zitter motion. By this reasoning, many believe, including myself that time is not in fact global, that global time does not exist and if anyone can speak about time, it must be purely local. But I now raise an important question --- ''surely then there is a major difference to saying no time exists than saying that a static time exists for a universe?''
Well, yes it does. In fact, static time may not even exist. It perhaps only makes sense to speak of static time when fields came into existence which broke the static nature. Indeed, time may not even exist fundamentally - this is the same as saying that time does not exist. We shall see why soon.
Since we are on the subject of observers, we may as well talk about one special part of the human observer which points to evidence that time is really something we experience and does not exist independant of the human. There is in fact a biological reason for experiencing time - there is a gene regulation inside the brain called the Suprachiasmatic Nucleus. This is one prominent reason among the scientific community to why we even sense a time pass.
Geometric Time
And thus the question is asked, why does it seem like time exists then? Why should we experience time if it does not exist? What makes us so special?
It's not that we are special per se, but we are in an important energy phase of the universe, called the low energy phase. The low energy phase happened late in the universe's history - do not mistake ''late'' as implying a time however. This is where the english language breaks down and we need to use different approaches to explain what we mean. There can be change in Julian Barbours eye's, but there is no such thing as a time. So can we reconcile change without time?
Yes, we can. It may not seem obvious at first, but things like the zeno effect gives us evidence that even if time really did exist, systems don't need to change.
Fundamental Time
So what is fundamental time? Fotini Markoupoulou created this type of time understanding. However, she takes this fundamental time as real, but I take it as not being real. The reason why I do not agree with Markoupoulou on this one, is because of her own reasoning. Geometry did not appear till very late in the universes history, so we must infer that time did not exist either if indeed Minkowski space is the correct representation for the low energy epoch. Of course, for this reason, fundamental time would be the application of a time dimension when the energies in the universe were very high. But if geometry did not exist, then the universe was born without time. Therefore time is not really fundamental at all. To explain this better, I labelled this as ''induced time''.
Induced Time
So, if I am saying time did not appear until geometry appeared, am I saying time really exists? The answer to this is ''no'', because induced time is not the same as a real existing time. If you like, the time anything experienced in the low energy epoch is in fact a by-product of slow moving systems; it appears when matter appears. Geometrogenesis is the science of physics and cosmology concerned with the appearance of matter. It wasn't until the phase space of the universe broke symmetries did the original photon fields or other radiation fields gave way to the matter fields which now dominate our portion of the universe. Therefore, geometrogenesis does in fact dictate, not predict, but dictate that time could not exist before the dimensions of space emerged: time is afterall a space dimension, it is called the imaginary space dimension - an imaginary leg off the spacetime triangle.
Then we must ask, well, if geometry and matter appeared late in the universes history, we ask also then whether time appears from such a geometry? If so, then time is emergent, it is an induced phenomenon which appears alongside the usual suspects: those being space and time. We cannot infer gravity directly because gravity can exist without matter. So curvature can still exist without matter - it just comes in a different guise, a radiation field which don't even have clocks which can tick off real time. (Hopefully everyone knows that photons do not experience time, including any type of radiation.) Relativity cannot deal with time and radiation together in such a way.
[1] - It is still impractical however to think anyone can sit outside the universe and view the energy content of the universe because according to relativity, there is no such thing as an outside to the universe; however saying that some theories like certain classes of string theory entertain that our universe is in fact ''bubble like'' floating in a multidimensional pool.
[2] - In fact, electrons have internal degrees of freedom, a special clock. The electron clock has been theorized and written upon by David Hestenes. It seems the electron clock has been varified.
Post by: imatfaal on 04/04/2012 17:01:10
Post by: Æthelwulf on 04/04/2012 17:07:06
AS this is part of a project aiming at the "the unification of Quantum Theory and Relativity theories" and is out of the normal run of a Science Question and Answer Forum I am moving this to New Theories. This should not necessarily be taken as a criticism of the physics or rigor of the argument
I was about to take it as an offense against the physics involved, but since you worded it so well, I cannot argue.#
Post by: Æthelwulf on 04/04/2012 17:08:09
AS this is part of a project aiming at the "the unification of Quantum Theory and Relativity theories" and is out of the normal run of a Science Question and Answer Forum I am moving this to New Theories. This should not necessarily be taken as a criticism of the physics or rigor of the argument
I was about to take it as an offense against the physics involved, but since you worded it so well, I cannot argue.
Though is new theories the correct place, for it is neither that?
Post by: MikeS on 05/04/2012 08:40:25
Does time exist in the Universe, yes. Is that the whole picture, possibly not.
If the prototype universe was born with equal quantities of matter and antimatter and the two different types of mass were gravitationally repulsive then the surviving particles could gravitationally sort themselves into two separate universes. Both going forward in time relative to themselves but going in opposite directions from the perspective of the other universe.
If you consider the two sister universes as being one system then the time that they have existed as a pair is always equal to zero. From that perspective time does not exist but that is not what we observe as we are only aware of half of the system.
Post by: yor_on on 05/04/2012 08:44:25
It will be interesting reading you.
Post by: Æthelwulf on 05/04/2012 09:24:43
Present your views Wulf.
It will be interesting reading you.
I think I did; I will rehash them.
We live in essentially a timeless universe, that the effects of matter and slow moving systems is what gives the illusion time. We live in a phase of the universe which is perfect for the sense of time because change is eminent with many systems which you won't find in a fundamental radiation field theory.
Post by: Æthelwulf on 05/04/2012 10:54:08
Æthelwulf
Does time exist in the Universe, yes. Is that the whole picture, possibly not.
I'd tend more to agree with, does time as we know it exist? The answer is no atleast.
Post by: Æthelwulf on 05/04/2012 10:57:00
Æthelwulf
If the prototype universe was born with equal quantities of matter and antimatter and the two different types of mass were gravitationally repulsive then the surviving particles could gravitationally sort themselves into two separate universes. Both going forward in time relative to themselves but going in opposite directions from the perspective of the other universe.
There can't be directions in time, forward or backwards. Things like time reversibility is also highly abused because, believe it or not, many people take time as a certain parity on the system. They think things like time reversibility as a real physical consequence on systems, but it doesn't, indeed as I said, there can be no directions which is linear when geometry is involved - this is also why a directionality to time, known as an arrow, truely can't exist.
Post by: MikeS on 05/04/2012 12:06:40
A positron can be thought of as an electron going backwards in time.
The jury is still out on whether matter and antimatter are gravitationally attractive or repulsive. (Hopefully not for much longer, Iv'e been waiting for 20 years)
The basic laws of physics do remain invariant under the CPT theorem.
If repulsive then an antimatter universe could theoretically exist. Time to the inhabitants of that universe would flow forward and if they could see into our universe (which they couldn't) they would see our time to be flowing backwards.
Post by: Æthelwulf on 05/04/2012 12:14:38
Æthelwulf
A positron can be thought of as an electron going backwards in time.
Only in Feynman diagrams. No scientist takes that seriously.
Post by: Æthelwulf on 05/04/2012 12:16:09
Æthelwulf
A positron can be thought of as an electron going backwards in time.
Only in Feynman diagrams. No scientist takes that seriously.
I speculated four years ago antimatter may have antigravitational tendancies, and I based that on a principle of repulsion, that locally an electron and a positron repell each other such that it looks like antigravity, however, we have made a clump of antimatter recently and sad to say, I was wrong. There was no antigravitational tendacies.
Post by: MikeS on 05/04/2012 12:29:18
Could you quote references please?
Post by: Æthelwulf on 05/04/2012 12:30:21
Æthelwulf
Could you quote references please?
For creating a lump of antimatter... I will try and find it, sure. I think it was hydrogen, but don't qoute me just yet.
Post by: Æthelwulf on 05/04/2012 12:32:04
Æthelwulf
Could you quote references please?
For creating a lump of antimatter... I will try and find it, sure. I think it was hydrogen, but don't qoute me just yet.
Here you go http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26709/
Post by: MikeS on 05/04/2012 12:42:29
The article that you quoted only said that they had trapped a significant amount of hydrogen atoms. Not that they had weighed them.
As far as I am aware the jury is still out.
Post by: MikeS on 05/04/2012 12:45:07
Æthelwulf
A positron can be thought of as an electron going backwards in time.
Only in Feynman diagrams. No scientist takes that seriously.
I speculated four years ago antimatter may have antigravitational tendancies, and I based that on a principle of repulsion, that locally an electron and a positron repell each other such that it looks like antigravity, however, we have made a clump of antimatter recently and sad to say, I was wrong. There was no antigravitational tendacies.
Seriously?
Post by: Æthelwulf on 05/04/2012 12:58:40
Æthelwulf
A positron can be thought of as an electron going backwards in time.
Only in Feynman diagrams. No scientist takes that seriously.
I speculated four years ago antimatter may have antigravitational tendancies, and I based that on a principle of repulsion, that locally an electron and a positron repell each other such that it looks like antigravity, however, we have made a clump of antimatter recently and sad to say, I was wrong. There was no antigravitational tendacies.
Seriously?
Yes. I believed the discernibility was difficult to assume at the quantum level.
Post by: Æthelwulf on 05/04/2012 12:59:56
Æthelwulf
The article that you quoted only said that they had trapped a significant amount of hydrogen atoms. Not that they had weighed them.
As far as I am aware the jury is still out.
Did you not understand the part whether is falls up or down? That is in reference to antigravitational effects.
Post by: Æthelwulf on 05/04/2012 13:09:24
Thought I should mention this, since this OP is an approach to unification.
Post by: MikeS on 05/04/2012 14:14:38
Æthelwulf
The article that you quoted only said that they had trapped a significant amount of hydrogen atoms. Not that they had weighed them.
As far as I am aware the jury is still out.
Did you not understand the part whether is falls up or down? That is in reference to antigravitational effects.
Yes I understand it but apparently you do not.
What the article said is
"Most important of these is whether ordinary gravity attracts or repels antimatter. In other words, does antihydrogen fall up or down?
Although there have been many attempts to do this experiment, all have been inconclusive because nobody has been able to trap a good lump of antimatter for long enough to try."
In other words we still don't know whether antimatter falls up or down!
Post by: Æthelwulf on 05/04/2012 14:30:08
Æthelwulf
The article that you quoted only said that they had trapped a significant amount of hydrogen atoms. Not that they had weighed them.
As far as I am aware the jury is still out.
Did you not understand the part whether is falls up or down? That is in reference to antigravitational effects.
Yes I understand it but apparently you do not.
What the article said is
"Most important of these is whether ordinary gravity attracts or repels antimatter. In other words, does antihydrogen fall up or down?
Although there have been many attempts to do this experiment, all have been inconclusive because nobody has been able to trap a good lump of antimatter for long enough to try."
In other words we still don't know whether antimatter falls up or down!
I concede then.
You are right we don't know yet. I didn't read the whole article, I was simply under the impression. This should take as an important lesson for me.
Perhaps our theory is still right.
Post by: yor_on on 06/04/2012 08:34:05
Present your views Wulf.
It will be interesting reading you.
I think I did; I will rehash them.
We live in essentially a timeless universe, that the effects of matter and slow moving systems is what gives the illusion time. We live in a phase of the universe which is perfect for the sense of time because change is eminent with many systems which you won't find in a fundamental radiation field theory.
Okay, on the idea of times arrow being a 'local phenomena' I fully agree. That becomes quite easy to see, as well as how it works to give us this 'universally same time'.
But this sub forum 'New Theories' also allows you to develop your very own interpretations of what you gained from others :) And that was what I thought you were planning to do?
Post by: Æthelwulf on 07/04/2012 16:42:22
Present your views Wulf.
It will be interesting reading you.
I think I did; I will rehash them.
We live in essentially a timeless universe, that the effects of matter and slow moving systems is what gives the illusion time. We live in a phase of the universe which is perfect for the sense of time because change is eminent with many systems which you won't find in a fundamental radiation field theory.
Okay, on the idea of times arrow being a 'local phenomena' I fully agree. That becomes quite easy to see, as well as how it works to give us this 'universally same time'.
But this sub forum 'New Theories' also allows you to develop your very own interpretations of what you gained from others :) And that was what I thought you were planning to do?
I don't use any concept of an arrow, I think thinking of such an arrow is wrong, especially if time is not linear.
And I have provided something new to these discussions, the scientific possibility of an emergent time. The induced time hypothesis states that time appears late in the universes history and is a by-product of slow moving systems i.e. particles with mass.