Re: Time

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

I came across this paper and I thought it was worth sharing. I'm not trying to prove a point or agree with the paper.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.3520
Time is not the problem

Authors: Olaf Dreyer
(Submitted on 22 Apr 2009)

Abstract: Attempts to quantize general relativity encounter an odd problem. The Hamiltonian that normally generates time evolution vanishes in the case of general relativity as a result of diffeomorphism invariance. The theory seems to be saying that time does not exist. The most obvious feature of our world, namely that time seems to progress and that the world changes accordingly becomes a problem in this presumably fundamental theory. This is called the problem of time. In this essay we argue that this problem is the result of an unphysical idealization. We are caught in this "problem of time" trap because we took a wrong turn in the early days of relativity by permanently including a split of geometry and matter into our physical theories. We show that another possibility exists that circumvents the problem of time and also sheds new light on other problems like the cosmological constant problem and the horizon problem in early universe cosmology.

[aristarchusinexile]

P.S. I found this engraved on a stone - "Time is nature's way of stopping everything from happening at once."

Perhaps the stone was an artificial stone, baked in a mass producer's oven, and perhaps the words weren't engraved, but stamped thereinto prior to baking, but two days ago while camped I really did find a shiny black stone on the beach with which I sharpened my stainless steel sheath knife .. excellent stone, then I found a multi-layered stone of perhaps sandstone, extremely fine layers, perhaps 50 to 1 1/2 inches, which took the finest burs off the knife edge. Lovely finds. And I found many yellow blossomed sort of lilly growing in clear swamp water .. some sort of rare 'flag.'

Look what I found: http://thewildclassroom.com/biodiversit ... 20Iris.htm

Pale Yellow Iris .. takes up heavy metals through the roots, used in water purification .. this is the plant, perhaps appropriate as I am camped a two minute hike from a large uranium refinery in Port Hope, Ontario. Perhaps it is not only water which seeks its own level .. perhaps these Irises came to clean up pollution.

[harry]

G'day Aris

Thank you for the link, fantastic.

[aristarchusinexile]

G'day Aris

Thank you for the link, fantastic.

You're welcome, Harry.

[Doum]

That can also be lock .

[makc]

why, maybe they will now discuss it beyond "Thank you"-s and "Welcome"-s... there's like 1% probability but, more likely, just a bunch of unrelated posts will follow.

[bystander]

You mean like the six that followed the first one?

[makc]

you mean seven

[The Code]

I was happy to see this thread,, just waiting to see what people had to say. As you all know i have my views on the subject.

Mark

[makc]

nine and counting

[bystander]

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/2862 ... a1r_HI.jpg

[astrolabe]

Hello All,

At the incredibly huge risk of being number eleven (and I realize that I'll have to hurry if I wish to succeed!) this thought crossed my mind: If the measurement of time were reengineered to, say, 100 sec.=1 min. and 100 min.=1 hr. and 100 hrs.=? then we could call it metric time and maybe realize a much easier system.

Latitude, Longitude and even things like right ascension, declination, and angular measurements could be better coupled with rates of speed and degrees would be more in line with "metric time" and the metric system in general. Whoever thought that 60 was a good idea? Now WRT Atomic clocks........................

Well, anyway, you get my drift I hope.

[astrolabe]

Hello All- again,

One of the things that Einstein proposed in GR was that there was no such thing as "empty" space. And that space was actually a spatial extension of matter such that bodies of matter (visible?) are not IN space; they re in fact interconnected as the source and fabric OF space. Therefore space and matter are one and only mass is the factor of distinction. I would, myself, have to conclude that WTR the abstract in the first post, as an expansion on the idea, I feel spacetime to be a spacio-temporal extension of the physical matter itself and think that the early separating out of the geometry was necessary to mathematize the observations. Hamiltonian? Couldn't tell ya a thing about it!

This idea, more than likely, is nothing new so I'm not breaking any ground here, but the challenge to contribute to this thread was irrisistable. How am I doing?

[makc]

I dont think empty space without matter is impossible in GRT. Just replace every cell in T with 0, and you should end up with good old SRT, I think.

[apodman]

Whoever thought that 60 was a good idea?

The Babylonians. But the math works most naturally with radians (2 pi of them in a circle).

Hamiltonian? Couldn't tell ya a thing about it!

We are dealing here with the Schrödinger wave equation, one of the basic things in quantum mechanics (QM). We call the wavefunction of a particle "Psi". We call the Hamiltonian operator "H". We call energy "E". We have the Time Dependent Schrödinger Equation (TDSE) for traveling waves and the Time Independent Schrödinger Equation (TISE) for standing waves. The TISE basically says H(Psi)=E(Psi). The nature of H and Psi are such that the equation only has a solution - E(Psi) - for certain characteristic values (eigenvalues) of H(Psi). These are the allowed quantum states of a particle/wave, and the values of E(Psi) are the energies that go with them. For comparison, a vibrating string also has eigenvalues - it can only maintain a standing wave in integer fractions of its length, with corresponding frequencies and energies. With the string, the allowed states are a simple harmonic sequence, while with quantum mechanics it's not quite so simple. That's the best I can do for QM in one paragraph.

[astrolabe]

Hello apodman,

Thank you. You in fact wrote nearly a book's worth. It would seem then that the current physical reality with it's time progression IS the working reality in light of the fact that the Hamiltonian operator works for it (WRT time) and when one manipulates the mapping of points within a diffeomorphism invariance constraint then H disappears. Ergo- no time progression.

Seems like it should give us some valuable insights into the nature of the current shape of our Universe. Maybe nearly flat is the only senario that allows for the time dimension, or maybe the other way round? Other than that, alternate mappings appear to result in a 3D rather than 4D reality! Lagrangian/Newtonian is looking better all the time. Just kidding of course

[makc]

the math works most naturally with radians

not according to this guy.

[apodman]

the math works most naturally with radians

not according to this guy.

Not bad. As far as I'm concerned, the more correct ways there are at looking at it, the better. You can choose the easiest method for the situation. "Most naturally" depends on what problem you're addressing. I'm fully behind his approach to the regular solids.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Just sharing the reading.

If I posted this before, its an oops

http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.1132

Did time begin? Will time end?

Authors: Paul H. Frampton

(Submitted on 9 Apr 2007 (v1), last revised 14 May 2007 (this version, v2))

Abstract: Did time begin at a Big Bang? Will the present expansion of the universe last for a finite or infinite time? These questions sound philosophical but are becoming, now in the twenty-first century, central to the scientific study of cosmology. The answers, which should become clarified in the next decade or two, could have profound implications for how we see our own role in the universe. Since the original publication of Stephen Hawking's {\it A Brief History of Time} in 1988, the answers to these questions have progressed as a result of research by the community of active theoretical physicists including myself. To present the underlying ideas requires discussion of a wide range of topics in cosmology, especially the make up of the energy content of the universe. A brief summary of my conclusions, that of three different possibilities concerning the history and future of time, the least likely is the conventional wisdom (time began and will never end) and most likely is a cyclic model (time never begins or ends), is in the short final Chapter which could be read first. To understand the reasoning leading to my conclusions could encourage reading of my entire book. My hope in writing this, my first popular book, is that it will engender reflection about time. Many a non-scientist may already hold a philosophical opinion about whether time begins and ends. This book's aim is to present some recently discovered scientific facts which can focus the reader's consideration of the two short questions in my title.

[orin stepanek]

Hello All,

At the incredibly huge risk of being number eleven (and I realize that I'll have to hurry if I wish to succeed!) this thought crossed my mind: If the measurement of time were reengineered to, say, 100 sec.=1 min. and 100 min.=1 hr. and 100 hrs.=? then we could call it metric time and maybe realize a much easier system.

Latitude, Longitude and even things like right ascension, declination, and angular measurements could be better coupled with rates of speed and degrees would be more in line with "metric time" and the metric system in general. Whoever thought that 60 was a good idea? Now WRT Atomic clocks........................



Well, anyway, you get my drift I hope.

Metric time; intriguing; a 14.4 hour day.

Orin

[orin stepanek]

oops I forgot to take into consideration the 100 seconds/hour. that would make the day even less hours. Lets see 60sec x 60 min x 24hrs = 86400sec metric time would make that an 8.64 hour day. If my math is correct. That's worse than daylight savings time.

Orin

[bystander]

oops I forgot to take into consideration the 100 seconds/hour. that would make the day even less hours. Lets see 60sec x 60 min x 24hrs = 86400sec metric time would make that an 8.64 hour day. If my math is correct. That's worse than daylight savings time.

Orin

They would probably have a 10 hr day (* 100 Min/Hr * 100 Sec/Min = 100,000 Sec) and light would travel at the more sedate speed of 259,020,683.712 meters per sec (1,609,479,910.5225 mph) (or a meter would shrink) Just think how many constants would have to be recalibrated.

But think of the positive, interstate highways would be posted with 180 mph speed limits, major city streets would be 100 mph, school zones would be 60, workdays only 3.3 hrs.

[astrolabe]

orin? bystander?

I'm beginning to think that you two have juuuuust a little too much time on your hands. The value of a second of time would have to be the same, So the number of seconds in a day would remain unchanged; as would kms, as well as any metric length. So c would still be 300,000 m/s. There would be no MPH, only KPH. And more distance would be travelled in a metric hour so velocities would need adjusting at the minute and hour increments. However, to say that it takes N amount of days or years to arrive at some destination would be valid and NOT change , of course.

BTW 100 sec X 100 min. I believe is 10,000 sec as opposed to 100,000. Agreed there would be 8.64 hr. per day. Stay tuned there's more forthcoming soon

[apodman]

So c would still be 300,000 m/s.

300,000 km/s
300,000,000 m/s

[astrolabe]

Hello apodman,

Oh, right. then 3,000,000,000,000 kilometers per my proposed metric hour?