[mxplxxx (OP)]

Rovelli has just described the Principle of Least Action, but since you believe that Action is a mystery beyond the comprehnson of mere mortals you have to reject it as mumbo jumbo

You are jumping to conclusions:)

[alancalverd]

Actually physics postulates that the big bang started from a singularity which probably contains a small "amount" of distance. According to quantum theory the singularity will have an Action of h (Planck's constant) and will "contain" energy of E=h/t where t = wavelength (of singularity) / SOL.

You seem to have arrogated several ideas without justification or authority.

Physics postulates nothing. It is the means by which humans describe and examine some of their own postulates.

The equation E = hf describes photons, not singularities.

I am sure you will one day unlock the secret of creation, but I doubt that it can be done by shoving every stick-like object into anything that looks like a keyhole.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Actually physics postulates that the big bang started from a singularity which probably contains a small "amount" of distance. According to quantum theory the singularity will have an Action of h (Planck's constant) and will "contain" energy of E=h/t where t = wavelength (of singularity) / SOL.

You seem to have arrogated several ideas without justification or authority.

Physics postulates nothing. It is the means by which humans describe and examine some of their own postulates.

The equation E = hf describes photons, not singularities.

I am sure you will one day unlock the secret of creation, but I doubt that it can be done by shoving every stick-like object into anything that looks like a keyhole.

From Urban Dictionary, Arrogate. Someone who is not actually a person, but a being of pure arrogance, asshole-ness, and ignorance. ... Really:). I am a life coach. I don't do anything arrogately. Are you sure you aren't confusing impact and intent?

"Physics postulates" is a short form way of saying "it is generally accepted in physics that".

Pretty sure E=h/t describes the energy of a quantum of energy (see https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_quantum_quanta.html) . A photon "contains" 1 quantum of energy. But so does an electron (in addition to its rest energy, I think). In fact , it seems to me that fact anything that absorbs a photon is will be quantized on top of its rest energy.

But you are right, I have no evidence that a singularity contains a quantum of energy. But you have no evidence to the contrary. It is as good a guess as any of the myriad guesses that abound in physics re the big bang theory. Basically it means that the power that drove the big bang would have been truly gargantuan.

We are not in New Theories so I am very careful that what I postulate builds on current physics theory.

[yor_on]

Time is change. Then take a perfect vacuum, does it have a time? Related to what? Your observation?
Its intrinsic properties then, do they change?

If you connect time to a clock, then the clock to 'c', then as long as 'c' exist a clock must exist and with that 'time'. But if light doesn't propagate the way we observe it to behave, then the 'clock' we defined becomes a secondary expression related to where we exist. And 'time' in itself a cause. As a property of the universe more or less.

=
Spelling

[yor_on]

What it means is that you in this case have to differ between a 'clock' and 'time'. Just as a 'particle spin' will exist even when not measured, as a 'property'. So you get it both ways, the clock may stop but time still exist.
=

If you consider the double slit experiment one of the possible explanations for the wave particle duality is thought to exist in its 'fuzziness', described as the state of uncertainty (as in time and place) it gives you until observed. That one shouldn't be read as if 'nothing exist until observed' though. We can agree on locations times and somethings existence even without being there to observe it, macroscopically. Which tells us that something has to be there even when 'unlocalised', the 'property' of the 'particle' as it might be.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Actually, when I say "tiniest" amount of distance, I am talking relatively. There only needs to be the existence of a single continuous entity for it to "contain" an infinite amount of "anything" that can be described as a concept, including time. What we experience as our reality is a digital universe which is one of the "things" contained in the continuous entity that we are part of, that approximates the continuous entity. Phew!:)

This possibility is backed up by the latest research on continuous/discrete time events using Markov processes. https://scienceblog.com/507276/the-discrete-time-physics-hiding-inside-our-continuous-time-world/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scienceblogrssfeed+%28ScienceBlog.com%29
It is possible we live in a continuous universe. There is no place for discrete time events in such a universe. But the concept of them can exist in such a universe. That concept may be what awareness works on. Horribly wishy washy I know, but I thought it was worth while including in a discussion on the fundamental nature of time.
 

[fjoosk]

This happens because the speed of light is a constant for all systems but the distances between the component systems  in each system vary, getting longer the farther up the hierarchy we travel.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Then take a perfect vacuum

No such beast as far as I can see. See https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae290.cfm.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Of course, according to relativity, time stops for a particle when it reaches the speed of light (i.e. the particle stops aging). This can only occur for Bosons. The likely reason for this is that Bosons record past events. Changing a Boson would basically change the past.

[guest39538]

Time is a fundamental concept. Without it you would have no energy equations. Time is implicit in the units of the gravitational constant and so underpins gravity. If it wasn't fundamental we would have ignored it. A snapshot of events does not require time but our universe is not a static snapshot.

In my opinion time is a quantifiable measurement directly proportional to the recording of age .  The fundamental of time being the aging process of matter and dependent to matter .  Time itself as explained being independent of space because space itself cannot age,  therefore time is irrelevant  to space .

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Einstein's theory of relativity postulates that time is a dimension and that absolute motion and position do not exist. This is now being challenged by many people e.g. http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-einsteins-physics-is-crap-part-i.html.

Relativity is unlikely; to the point where really irrefutable evidence is needed to back it up. This has never been forthcoming. An alternative explanation follows.

The universe consists of systems of a basic system type (e.g. solar system, galaxy, atom etc.). The universe itself is a single (god?) system. Each system is a scaled up (quantized?) version of the basic system type. Time is absolute. What varies between systems are distances. Distances in a galaxy are much longer than distances in an atom. Hence the larger a system is, the slower it ages. It is longer distance, rather than slower time that governs the aging of systems  i.e the longer distances mean the time between events is longer. This contrasts with relativity that postulates that time itself, and hence aging, slows down the faster a system moves.
 

[mxplxxx (OP)]

It means the computer program can function without any reference to time. In computer programs, if time needs to be referenced, it is done via a special time-based object. A computer program will always take time to complete.

Or via the "Wait" method. The point is that time is handled via computer programming. It is not part of the basic functions of a computer. It is very likely that the universe works in a similar fashion. So, what is the equivalent of computer programming in the universe? The neural network that is driven by our brains would be one candidate. So time is therefore linked to our consciousness/awareness (assuming these are brain functions). Lets face it when we switch off every day (go to sleep), time stops for us, much like switching off a computer.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

In one respect, it seems obvious that time doesn't exist.

The energy of a cycle of an EM wave is give by the equation E=hf where h is a constant of Action and f is the frequency of the wave, or E=h/t where t is the time of once cycle of the wave or E = hC/λ where C is the speed of light and λ is the wavelength of the wave. The equations are all equivalent. The last one is interesting. Basically, because h and C are both constants, it is saying E is a function of wavelength.

There is no time in this final equation. Meaning what? Beats me but it seems to make time irrelevant in a way.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

The universe consists of systems of a basic system type (e.g. solar system, galaxy, atom etc.). The universe itself is a single (god?) system. Each system is a scaled up (quantized?) version of the basic system type. Time is absolute. What varies between systems are distances. Distances in a galaxy are much longer than distances in an atom. Hence the larger a system is, the slower it ages. It is longer distance, rather than slower time that governs the aging of systems  i.e the longer distances mean the time between events is longer. This contrasts with relativity that postulates that time itself, and hence aging, slows down the faster a system moves.

It may be the difference in aging between systems that causes death. The aging difference is likely to cause synchronization problems between systems leading to mistakes. It would seem that life has the means to overcome these mistakes (e.g. bad/old cell replaced by a new one) but this takes energy and eventually the mistakes overcome life's ability to manufacture the required energy.

Differences in aging appears to be an inherent aspect of reality. That is, aging has to happen at different rates given the design of reality.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

The universe consists of systems of a basic system type (e.g. solar system, galaxy, atom etc.). The universe itself is a single (god?) system. Each system is a scaled up (quantized?) version of the basic system type. Time is absolute. What varies between systems are distances. Distances in a galaxy are much longer than distances in an atom. Hence the larger a system is, the slower it ages. It is longer distance, rather than slower time that governs the aging of systems  i.e the longer distances mean the time between events is longer. This contrasts with relativity that postulates that time itself, and hence aging, slows down the faster a system moves.
 

The universe would experience light moving from one side of the universe to the other as doing so almost instantaneously. An observer on earth would experience the same light as taking billions of light year to move the same distance. The paradoxes inherent in this situation appear to be insurmountable meaning that reality cannot exist in the way we experience it. These paradoxes may account for some of the weirdness of quantum physics.

We seem forced to take into account the systems involved in our calculations and adjust the calculations to account for how the originating system of an event experiences it. i.e the only "real" version of an event is that experienced by the system in which the event originated.

It seems the universe is ALL about perception, meaning that it exists only in the mind of the perceiver (or observer in quantum physics). This also means that time is possibly just a perception (it may be experienced as an emotion, i.e. via peptide chains).

[mxplxxx (OP)]

It seems the universe is ALL about perception, meaning that it exists only in the mind of the perceiver (or observer in quantum physics).

How perception of time occurs in humans is beautifully explained in this article linking biology, physics and computer science. (https://horizon.scienceblog.com/899/link-between-music-and-speech-rhythm-in-brain-could-provide-language-insight/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scienceblogrssfeed+%28ScienceBlog.com%29)

[mxplxxx (OP)]

If you have a system that loops waiting for an event and does something on receipt of it, where is time in this scenario. Answer, there is none. The system is not aware of the time between events be it 1 second or a billion years. Nor does it need this awareness to work. if we add a timer to the system so that it can consult the timer each time an event occurs, then we have a time-aware system but the time involved is an artificial concept derived from the mind of the timer creator.

In other words, it is very easy to demonstrate that time:

a. is a concept i.e. not "real"
b. is not a fundamental concept.
c.  is relative.
d.  requires an "observer" to be at all meaningful.

Rather than time we should be concerned with sequences of events.   

[mxplxxx (OP)]

I think there exists perceived time, related to awareness

Actually, I think perceived time is an emotion. A feeling of "being alive" is likely to be a  a result of a time hormone interacting with a receptor in the brain. Possibly the hormone could originate from the pineal gland which is known to regulate our circadian rhythms. The more "aware" we are, the more the time hormone is generated. This accounts for the fact that we "lose" time when e.g. we daydream and "lose track of time".

In a computer program, a "Timer" object generates "Timer.Tick" events at predetermined intervals. These "Tick" events are used by other objects in the program to handle functions involving time.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

I think there exists perceived time, related to awareness and rate of change of reality systems, and absolute time, related to the absolute speed of light.

Actually, I think rate of change is time related to the absolute speed of light, not awareness.

The universe is composed of systems that interact to handle time-dependent states (see https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75960.msg575784#msg575784). Systems exist within systems like a set of Russian dolls. As a result, the distances involved in typical functions can vary from system to system. The lower in the set a system appears, the smaller are the distances it has to traverse to carry out its functions. But, the speed of light is a constant for all systems, so the rate of change of a system increases the smaller the system gets. This is how time works at higher and lower scales. The rate of change of e.g. an atom is much greater than that of e.g. a galaxy.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

It is interesting to note that state changes in this universe happen immediately. Which means time is the stillness between events. But what is stillness if not nothing.