PDA

View Full Version : The End of Time, The Next Revolution in Physics


amrit
02-11-2006, 01:36 PM
Ernst Mach about time:
It is utterly beyond our power to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction at which we arrive by means of the changes of things.

Albert Einstein about time:
Space and time are modes by which we think, not conditions under which we live." Time--the time that we know through clocks and calendars--was invented. http://www.britannica.com/clockworks/article.html

Roger Penrose about time:
The temporal ordering that we 'appear' to perceive is, I am claiming, something that we impose upon our perceptions in order to make sense of them in relation to the uniform forward time-progression of an external physical reality. http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/...ics/Time_2.html

Author about time:
In the universe one can observe only motion and not time. Time is a construction of the mind into which humans experience motion.
Julian Barbour gave his book title: The End of Time, The Next Revolution in Physics.
He has all reasons for this title. Existence of time as a physical reality has no experimental evidence. In all physical formulas symbol t means duration of motion. Universe is an a-temporal phenomena, time is of the mind, motion is of the universe. With clocks we measure duration of motion. The second is a unit with which we measure duration of motion. In 86400 seconds earth turn once around its axe. Second has no existence on it own, it came into existence when motion is measured by a clock. Second is a tool of the mind that man uses to measure duration of different motions. Motions by itself have no duration. Man give them a sense of duration by measuring them.

motion......perception (eyes)......elaboration (time)......experience (observer)

Motion is measured by clocks. With clocks we measure duration of the movement of body or particle regarding another body or particle. The speed of the motion depends on a density D of space. Density D in centre of planet or star is D = m x G, where m is a mass and G is gravitational constant. Density D is diminishing with the distance r on square from the centre of the star. Speed of time is increasing with the diminishing of density D. Clocks run faster on the top of the high mountain and slower at the sea side under the mountain. Density of space is higher at sea side and lover on the top of the mountain.

Density of space is increasing by going towards the sun. Time (speed of bodies and particles) is becoming slower by going towards the sun. That's the cause of "Mercury perihelion dilate".

2. Cosmic space are build up out of quanta of space QS. Gravitational force acts between quanta of space QS that build up cosmic space. Every QS attract the QS around it. Between QS near by the moon and QS near by the earth gravitation acts on the distance and instantly via QS that are between them. Gravitational force does not propagate into space, gravitational force is the force that builds up the space. In a similar way as the wall is made out of bricks. The cement between bricks is keeping together the wall, the gravitational force between QS is keeping together the space.

The strength of gravitational force depends on the density of QS that build up cosmic space. Density D of QS of a given volume of cosmic space depends on the density of matter contained in it:

formula 1: D = m x G

where D is the density of QS in the centre of the material object, m is the mass of the object and G is the gravitational constant. QS are “elastic”. Its density changes with the amount of matter. The gravitational force Fg between two material objects is given by the following relation:

Fg = (D1 x D2) / ( r on square x G)

where r is the distance between the centers of the two material objects.

Gravitational force Fg on material body or on a particle that has a mass m depends on the density G of space.

Fg = (m x D) / r on square

where m is a mass of a body or particle, D is the density if space in a centre of planet or star, r is the distance from the centre of the planet or star; r can be shorter or longer as t the radius of the planet or star.

In a centre of the planet or star Fg on a material object or mass particle is:

Fg = (m x D) m10^-2

Gravitational acceleration g in a given distance r from the centre of the planet or star is:

g = (m x G) / r on square

m is a mass of planet or star,
G is gravitational constant
r is a distance from a centre


According to the formula 1: D = m x G

g = D / r on square

where D is the density of space in the centre of planet or star and r is a distance from the centre

3. Relation between mass m of particle and density of space D into it is:
D = m x G
where G is gravitational constant. The density of space inside of the same atom is higher on the earth than on the moon, because on the earth the density of space is higher than on the moon. The same atom will have a bigger weight on the earth than on the moon. But its density D that defines its mass will remain the same. So by moving through the space the weight of particles changes, but its mass remains the same. Photon is an exception here. Around the photon there is no additional density D of cosmic space, so photon has no weight and no mass.

Energy of matter and energy of space inside of a material object or mass particle are in equilibrium, equal: Espace ( Es ) = Ematter ( Em )

Es = Em = m x cc, ( D = m x G)

where m is a mass of the object, c is speed of light, D is density of space around the object and G is gravitational constant.

Es = Em = (D x cc) / G

Energy of space Es inside of particle or material object depends on the density of space D.

First experiments that proves mass increasing of particles that moves fast were done about 100 years ago. The faster the elementary particle, the bigger will be its mass. We call that “The Relativistic Mass Increase”.

The formula E = 0.5m x vv shows the relationship between the increase in mass of the relativistic particle and its increase in kinetic energy.

In this formula we can change m with D/G and we will get the formula:

E = (0.5D x vv) / G

which shows clearly that the kinetic energy of particle depends on the density D of space into it and on the speed v

The mass of accelerated particle is increasing because the with the speed increasing the density around the particle is increasing.

Density of space is increasing also inside of the inertial system that moves with the higher speed regarding the inertial system that moves with the lower speed. This higher density of space causes the speed of clocks is slower into the faster inertial system.

Higher density of cosmic space inside of an fast inertial system is the bridge SR and GR. In SR the speed of inertial system causes the increasing of the density of cosmic space, in GR the mass causes the increasing of the density of cosmic space. “Inertial mass” and “gravitational mass” of a material object or particle are equal because the density of cosmic space in inertial mass and gravitational mass is equal.

Let’s say we are in a fast space ship that travels far away from the stars and planets in cosmic space with low density. With increasing of the speed of the space ship the density of cosmic space into it will increase. By attaining a certain speed the density of the space in the space ship will be equal to the density on the surface of the earth. Space ship travel than with this constant speed. We have two material bodies that are identical. Both of bodies will behave in exact the same way in the space ship and on the surface of the earth. The density D of space in both bodies is equal. This means the equality between inertial mass and gravitational mass.

4. Cosmic space is composed by quanta of space (QS) having the size of Planck length. Light is a physical event in which photons are "jumping" from one quantum of space to another in a Planck time. Cosmic space is a medium of light, inertial systems move through the cosmic space. That's why the speed of light is “maximum speed” in the universe and it is same in all inertial systems.

Light has a double particle-wave nature simultaneously. A single photon jumping from one quantum of space to another in its trajectory is the central part - particle. The “chain jumping” of the photon changes the frequency of the QS on its trajectory from its basic frequency to the frequency of the photon. The central part of the photon also changes the vibration of QS around its trajectory that is its circumference part - wave.

In a “double slit experiment” we can settle instruments and observe photon's particle-part or we can settle instruments differently and observe the wave's part of the photon.
When we settle instruments to observe a particle, we will observe (detect) the particle part of the photon, when we settle instruments to observe a wave, we will observe (detect) the wave part of the photon. Scientist (Observer) should not play any role in this experiment.

5. When a star has a mass of 3,2 masses of sun in its centre the density of cosmic space is so strong that gravitation overpowers all other forces. Matter transforms back into quanta of space (QS) that build up cosmic space.

Beyond Schwarzschild Radius gravity is so strong that prevails above all other forces. All elementary particles transform back into the energy of cosmic space. Matter and space are made out of the same “stuff”. Black holes are the “fabric” where matter transforms back into space. In big explosions of AGN space transforms back into matter.
Universe is composed by one energy. The basic packets of this one energy are QS. Energy is circulating continuously “space-matter-space-matter-…”. Universe is a self-renewing system. There was no beginning and there will be no end.

Schwarzschild Radius Rs is:

Rs = (2G x m) / (c x c)

G is gravitational constant
m is mass of the stellar object

According to the formula (1) D = G x m
D is the density of cosmic space in the centre of the black hole

Rs = 2D / (c x c)

Inside Rs gravitation has no direction, density of space does not increases towards the centre of the black hole. The area inside of Rs is a fabric where matter transforms back into the QS of cosmic space.


A mass has a weight when it is in a space where density changes, it has a direction. At the “weightless” Lagrange point between earth and sun happens that density D of space is stable, there is no change of density, no direction. So gravity is there because gravity is carried by the quanta of space QS, and QS build up cosmic space also at the “weightless point”. If it would be no gravitation at the “weightless point” earth would fly away long time ago.
A body at Lagrange point will not move, but this does not mean that gravitational force is not there.

Diminishing of the speed of binary pulsar is caused by the transformation of matter back into the energy of cosmic space in the centre of one star of the binary pulsar. With transformation of matter into space the mass one stars is diminishing, and so also the speed of the binary pulsar is diminishing. There is no gravitational radiation, gravitational waves do not exist.

Decreasing of the duration of motion of the orbital period of the binary pulsar PRS1913+16 is the result of matter transforming back into space in the centre of one star. This diminishes the mass of the star, diminishing of the mass causes diminishing of the speed of rotation, with diminishing of the speed the duration of motion on the orbit is increasing.

Epsilon=One
02-11-2006, 08:13 PM
Ernst Mach about time:
It is utterly beyond our power to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction at which we arrive by means of the changes of things.

Albert Einstein about time:
Space and time are modes by which we think, not conditions under which we live." Time--the time that we know through clocks and calendars--was invented. http://www.britannica.com/clockworks/article.html

Roger Penrose about time:
The temporal ordering that we 'appear' to perceive is, I am claiming, something that we impose upon our perceptions in order to make sense of them in relation to the uniform forward time-progression of an external physical reality. http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/...ics/Time_2.htmlThank you. You have made my point that many great minds throughout history have been unable to understand or define time. Of course, I am referring to fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT), which is the concept of time that synchronizes the Universe.

Of course we all understand “conventional time” (CT) that is measured by “clocks” that are the products of human invention.

FIT is that which is measured by a “clock” that is one of Nature’s most fundamental dimensions. FIT creates the pulses (Pulsoids) and their harmonic resonances (Resoloids) that evolve to all the manifestations of existence.

Theoretical physicists have been unable to define dimensions other than in a circular manner because they do not understand the Natural geometry and arithmetic manipulations from which numbers and dimensions arise.

Author about time:
In the universe one can observe only motion and not time. Time is a construction of the mind into which humans experience motion. This is a simplistic, hubristic argument that ignores the fact that motion without time is motion without structure; the “mind” is not a requirement for the structure of the Universe.

Julian Barbour gave his book title: The End of Time, The Next Revolution in Physics. What does Julian Barbour know of the geometry and seminal motion that creates the “clock” of fundamental, intrinsic time. Barbour, as with most theoretical physicists, has little concern for defining postulates to the limit of simplicity.

He has all reasons for this title. Existence of time as a physical reality has no experimental evidence.I know of no experimental evidence that does not indicate that there is a fundamental “organizing principle” (mathematics) that depends upon harmony (atomic wave motions). Harmony requires timing. Timing requires a “clock,” which is the requisite for the concept of FIT.

time is of the mindFIT is not “of” the “mind”; unless the “mind” created the Universe.

The second is a unit with which we measure duration of motion. In 86400 seconds earth turn once around its axe.There are many definitions of a “second” all of which are contrivances. However, the “clocks” that defines many of these definitions are Natural creations (Earth orbit, etc.); unlike many other “clocks” (spring-wound watch) that are not.

Second has no existence on it own, it came into existence when motion is measured by a clock. Second is a tool of the mind that man uses to measure duration of different motions. Motions by itself have no duration. Man give them a sense of duration by measuring them.The definition of a “second” is not that of FIT. A “second” is a unit of its “clock” . . . whatever “clock” that may be. Do not confuse a “unit” with the dimension of “time.”

Motion is measured by clocks. With clocks we measure duration of the movement of body or particle regarding another body or particle. The speed of the motion depends on a density D of space. Density D in centre of planet or star is D = m x G………..I will not waste space with the remainder of your comments that can be read in the post above if anyone has an interest.

Your comments do nothing for defining the fundamental concept of time except confuse and obfuscate with ambiguity and speciousness.

To repeat:The concept of time is simple.

Time is that which is measured by a “clock.”

There are as many kinds of time as there are kinds of “clocks.”

Fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT) is that “type of time” that is fundamental to understanding the structure of the Universe.

FIT is as fundamental as the concepts of orthogonal space, the Inverse Square Law (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=120), accelerating motion, Light, mass, et cetera.

The “clock” that measures FIT is a complex phenomena that is a manifestation that results from that which is described, heuristically, as Triquametric motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=101) and the Elliptical Constant (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=107) that underlies the Conceptual Unit (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=322).

Mr. Robin Parsons
02-13-2006, 01:59 PM
© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

....It is a useful notion, not much else, it has no existence, and is little but illusion otherwise.

In the infinite there can be NO time. We are 'in the infinite' too.

Epsilon=One
02-13-2006, 06:56 PM
....It is a useful notion, not much else…The "notion" concerning time is only intended to be useful. Useful in the sense of being of help to the layman in understand one aspect of the environment so that maximal happiness can be obtained.

…it has no existence, and is little but illusion otherwise.True, something that does not exist can be considered illusional; however, time (or the "clock" that measures it) does exist; and, it is fundamental to the structure of everything else that exists.

If it weren’t for the phenomenon that creates time, there would be no variety to existence.

In the infinite there can be NO time.Quite true.

We are 'in the infinite' too.No. The infinite is a limit beyond that which exists. We do exist.

Mr. Robin Parsons
02-13-2006, 09:28 PM
© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

No. The infinite is a limit beyond that which exists. We do exist.

That is only your opinion, (I) Disagree, (Obviously)....

after that...what was your point?

If infinite exists, then we MUST be 'In' it, there is no other way, unless you say there is No Infinite....end of story.

Epsilon=One
02-13-2006, 10:03 PM
That is only your opinion, (I) Disagree, (Obviously)....More to the point, it is my definition rather than my opinion.

You may "(Obviously)" disagree. What exactly is your disagreement?

...what was your point?Clarity.

If infinite exists, then we MUST be 'In' it, there is no other way, unless you say there is No Infinite....end of story.My definition of Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) is that it is a singularity; thus, it does not exist. Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) can be neither added to nor subtracted from.

I define infinite as quite large; such that: it is difficult, but not impossible, to add to it; and infinite can be decreased by subtracting that which was difficult to add to it. Numbers are infinite.

Not certain what either has to do with our being in "'In' it."

You, of course, can define anything as you wish. However, definitions should assist others in knowing exactly what concept you are discussing. I have great difficulty placing precise meaning to your words.

amrit
02-14-2006, 04:47 AM
Dear Epsilon, The End of Time Is Where Wisdom Exists

Mathematics is a science of the Infinity.
Infinity is a-temporal, so in math there is not time.
No symbol t in any math formula.

Physics is science of the Infinity into Motion.
Infinity into motion is a-temporal too.
In every formula of physics symbol t means duration of motion.
Duration of motion we measure with clocks.

Time is a construct of the mind into which one experiences motion.

Only a peaks of humanity are aware of that: Buddha, Kant, Einstein, Mach, Osho, Penrose.................

You are not into the club ATC yet.
/ATC = a-temporal club/

Knowing /Wisdom/ is of the Infinity, knowing is timeless, a-temporal,
knowledge is of the mind, knowledge is in time.

yours, amrit

Epsilon=One
02-14-2006, 05:35 PM
The End of Time Is Where Wisdom ExistsPlatitudes are not substitutes for wisdom.

Mathematics is a science of the Infinity.No. Arithmetic is a fundamental creation of existence. Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) does not exist.

…in math there is not time.Without fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT) there are no numbers. Without numbers there is no “math.” Thus, “math” requires time.

No symbol t in any math formula.Mathematics is symbolism. Anything can be designated as a symbol. Thus, “symbol t” can be in any “math” formula.

Physics is science of the Infinity into Motion.In general, I would say that physics abhors Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109). Physics, in general, describes motion, which is existence; and, existence is the antithesis of Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109).

In every formula of physics symbol t means duration of motion.
Duration of motion we measure with clocks.”Clocks” measure time. Time is specifically defined by its “clock.” “Duration of motion” is very ambiguous and most likely circular in definition.

Time is a construct of the mind into which one experiences motion.FIT does not require the mind. FIT is fundamental; the mind is a consequence of advanced evolution.

Only a peaks of humanity are aware of that: Buddha, Kant, Einstein, Mach, Osho, Penrose.................To the best of my understanding, each of these persons, most likely, had a different understanding of FIT.

Knowing /Wisdom/ is of the Infinity, knowing is timeless, a-temporal,
knowledge is of the mind, knowledge is in time.See “platitude” at above, beginning paragraph.

amrit
02-14-2006, 06:23 PM
We are discussing here for a week on Infinity as a source of the universe and now suddenly you say Infinity does not exists.
For me it is different to discuss in this way.

All is Infinity, Universe is Infinity, Eternal, God, call is as you want. Definitely with the mind you will miss it.
Watch the mind and one day Infinity will appear as a fresh moon above the hill.

yours, amrit

Epsilon=One
02-14-2006, 07:15 PM
...suddenly you say Infinity does not exists.I define Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) as a limit that cannot be reached from Reality. Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) is defined by motion not size.

I define Reality as that which exists.

Everything that exists has motion.

I agree that there is confusion because Reality and Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) share a locus.

Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109), as defined within Conceptualism (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=156), is a complex concept.

Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) and infinite are different concepts.

I have been consistent with the definition I link to the capitalized and italicized word "Infinity."

All is Infinity, Universe is Infinity, Eternal, God, call is as you want. Definitely with the mind you will miss it.
Watch the mind and one day Infinity will appear as a fresh moon above the hill.For my beliefs, you place too much importance on the “mind” as having something to do with fundamental manifestations. I see anthropoids (and thus their minds) as rather minor consequences of advanced evolution with little ability to control anything of Cosmic proportion or subatomic proportion.

amrit
02-15-2006, 12:04 PM
For me math infinity reflects some quality of the universe that is out of the realm of the mind.
Conscious experience make us aware if this Quality.

Epsilon=One
02-15-2006, 04:19 PM
For me math infinity reflects some quality of the universe that is out of the realm of the mind.
Conscious experience make us aware if this Quality.For me, math has to do with numbers and their manipulation.

Thus, "math infinity" means the manipulation of the largest of numbers and the many (forty some) definitions of infinity that mathematicians have developed.

"Math infinity" is obviously not a singularity.

When I refer to Infinity (italicized and capitalized), I refer to a singularity.

Mr. Robin Parsons
02-17-2006, 09:18 PM
© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

So Epsilon=One, first you say that there is No Existent Infinity, then you say it is a Singularity, which you then say doesn't exist, Befuddled Logic if (I) have ever encountered it.

If it is a Singularity then it has a Definable Existence, even if it is Purely "Imaginary" it can be 'Drawn' As a Picture, HENCE Imaginable, Infinity is NOT Imaginable, Yet it IS something that you Could/would/are(?) 'Sensate' to ('feel' 'it' -you do, don't you?)...the Spriitual Realm is But one of the Existent Realities in the Beyond Physics/Physical "Places" (Simply look inside your own head) and are as the Metaphysical Existences that 'we' are 'existent' (Limited) Within.

After that, well, Amrit tells it to you truly, it is A-temporal, (No Time, it's Apperance is generated {for us} by the 'illusion' of Movement/motion) that you cannot resolve your seeming Dilema Concerning the idea(s) of "Existent Beyond provable Existent" "Imaginable Ergo 'existent'" (as opposed to Un-imaginable) leaves it only as the reality of the obviousness with which you seem to wish to be fooling yourself.

"Suffer a fool till the fool will no longer suffer you"

(A recipe for sufferance.....?)

Insulting actually, cause when looking for a fool, one is most likely to recognize them from the within first, few have the Discernment to be able to tell the difference, the ones who can, are usually distinguished as by their recognition the absence of need to look for it/that a 'fool' for if it is there, it will show up, all by itself, as a self-evident-truth, presented by the 'fool'

Someone should bother to count the number of words you use in your responces V's the number of Words that you are responding to from the Poster that you are responding to, cause, other then some of the Longer Opening statements, by some posters, your responces always seem waaaay longer, then just about anything anyone else posts, that thing about "Leading OFF" reading into the other posters words things that simply are not there, and linking your standard 'linkers' that lead to.......and then.....eventually..a Book? somewheres in the past, A Scientific explanation of a GUT Right? Never got anywheres past it's intial reads...Right?

Sufferance Makes you Stronger, Didn't you know?