Do expressions for symmetry breaking account for causes without inducing symmetry breaking by mathematical construction - for the research reported here?

If I understand your question correctly, you are asking if they have considered causes other than symetry violation?

Symetry violation isn't a 'cause'. It's an observed property of the Universe. We don't know what the 'cause' is, but the Universe is definitely made up of matter rather than anti-matter. The theroy seemed to say that if the Universe is made up of matter, then there should also be a preference towards one direction of time. They still don't have the root 'cause' of why time and matter are not balanced. It does confirm that this part of quantum theory was correct in predicting symetry violation in time as well as matter.

It's kinda like being able to predict how much time slows down near mass, and then proving it with satellites, but we still don't know 'why' that happens. We can measure it though.

This provides good statistical evidence of structure below the currently observed limits.

I still don't buy into the whole time aspect. IMO I believe that the results are being misinterpreted - that the researchers are measuring and applying their understanding based on a belief that time is an absolute and real and not the illusion and simple measuring tool that (I believe) it really is. Take "time" out of the equation and what do you have left? Surely there is another way, another angle, to see and describe this behavior. I'm just a layman and that's my 2 cents.

As another layman, I think our problem with understanding time is that first we experience it as a series of events, which physics then re-enforces by treating it as a measurement issue. Thus we describe it as the present "moving" from past to future. Logically it is the events which are ephemeral, not the existence of what is present and it is the changing configuration of this presence that turns future potential into present actual, than past residual. That it is the events going future to past. Consider that the earth is not traveling some narrative fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, but that tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. That way time is an effect of action, rather than the basis for it, so it is similar to temperature. Effectively time is to frequency, what temperature is to amplitude.

Time keeps everything from happening all at once.

It's as real as that at least....

Minkowski space (space-time) plus Lorentz invariant transformations (4-d group theory rotations) plus General Relativity (curved space) = curved time
Add conservation of 4-momentum and 4-dimensional rotational kinematics to get Minkowski space precession = time asymmetry.

Searching for time reversal is like looking for a negative dimension, it has no meaning. Searching for time reversal is as futile as trying to find the square root of a negative number. At the fundamental level everything happens at the speed of light, in both directions which have no differences. That is why there is just time. There must be other explanations for what they are observing.

With issues like this I seem to return to the issue of the 'interpreted fact' that a photon does not experience time. So in that context any cause and effect relationship has an illusory aspect vs a 'proper time' aspect which suggests we, who travel so far below the speed of light, are living effectively close to a static non-moving condition, hence our difficulty in appreciating the 'other realm'.

By way of analogy, we live in a very thin layer of atmosphere at a pressure close to vacuum and a temperature close to absolute zero - all from the perspective of a huge range so far beyond our experience or conception.

Might we speculate on life forms, which routinely exist at high temperatures and high pressures and move very quickly, Eg such as in the sea of metallic hydrogen in Jupiter which has dissolved its rocky core and might be an environment for an equilibria conducive to selective cold fusion, Jupiter does seem to generate rather more heat than it receives from sol !

One possible theoretical explanation previously given for CP violation is that antimatter experiences 'antigravity'. I wonder if the same explanation might work here?

It might be that somewhere out there someone living on an anti matter planet is running the same experiment and finding the exact opposite violation :)

What mathematical 'construct' led to symmetry breaking in QFT?

Obviously this 'construct' has no physical interpretation.
This 'guides' QFT to predictions fitting observation

It's both thoeretical and observational. We can see the creation of equal parts matter and antimatter in high energy particle experiements. We can even demonstrate mathematically why this must be. What we cannot explain is why the Universe doesn't appear to be following the rules.

The implications of not having to follow the rules might lead to some remarkable applications. If you can violate symetry, then it allows you to do things like time travel (subatomic scale at least), and that might let you do all kinds of cool stuff with quantum computing or signal transmission/processing.

Like the guy in the article said, the data was there all along, but nobody looked at it in the right way. Now that they have, there's no telling what might pop up in the engineering side of QFT.

Although the universe appears vast and high on matter we cant be sure the observable universe isn't the remnants of a minuscule difference between matter and anti-matter from a potentially much larger 'initial event', big bang, whatever. The minor difference on our scale is the universe we see now as a result of the minor perturbation and possibly explainable by vacuum variation but on a scale almost impossible to comprehend initially.

Also what of distant super massive black holes not in galaxies, they might well have arisen from anti-matter. There is the so-called "Great Attractor" can we be sure the mass within is not anti-matter or the region beyond it ?

Take both paras above where the initial difference was very small but on a much larger scale *and* the consequent distribution issues raised, such combinatorial complexity in relation to uncertainty on the (initial) larger scale may well be sufficient within the incremental probabilistic distribution as we now perceive it...

The Standard Model for particles FTW - a recurring theme this year.

@ VendicarD: "This provides good statistical evidence of structure below the currently observed limits." As noted by earlier commenters, this is predicted by macroscale as well as microscale mechanisms, so it doesn't move our knowledge on that at all.

An example of a macroscale mechanism would be eternal inflation. Then in our universe the Standard Model of particles happened to freeze out with a slight symmetry breaking between CP & T symmetries.

@ A2G: "the dual slit experiment. That experiment proves that our understanding of EM radiation is not complete,".

The quantum field theory of EM predicts all observed EM effects to an astounding degree, within and without the dual slit experiment. So what are you thinking of?

@ Raygunner: Time is real, because it underlies physics and a basic aspect of mechanics is a test for reality. (Say, observation-observables in quantum mechanics.) Take out time, and you have no physics (no processes).

@ brodix: You are confusing how to measure time, with periodic clocks, with time, which has an observable direction. See the article.

@ Taush: The physical construct is symmetry breaking of fields.

In the Higgs mechanism, which gives particles mass, it looks like this: \/\*/. V is a potential minima of the Higgs field, * is the current vacuum.

Our vacuum has dropped into a minimum of a circular symmetric "mexican hat" potential, which we see a cut out of in my ascii diagram. And that ultimately results in SM particles having mass.

@ tadchem: That doesn't work. We know from observation that our universe isn't rotating.

@ Pressure2: You don't have to observe "time reversal" to observe time asymmetry. See the experiment.

@ Mike Massen: A photon doesn't experience time in special relativity. But it does in general relativity where it can loose energy (red shift) and therefore ages with the universe.

"Great Attractor". Inflation assures us that the observable universe is a blown up matter dominated volume. It may be that other observable universes are antimatter dominated, but nothing on a smaller scale. (See "the horizon problem" in an encyclopedia.)

@ GSwift7: Arrows of time has nothing to do with the universal speed limit, which is what prohibits time travel.

"It was exciting to design an experimental analysis that enabled us to observe, directly and unambiguously, the asymmetrical nature of time," "But from the point of view of a single, isolated particle, the passage of time looks the same in either direction. For instance, a movie of two particles scattering off of each other would look just as sensible in reverse – a concept known as time reversal symmetry."

The passage of time in reverse does not affect any isolated particle? When have researchers ever experienced time reversal? They haven't. The concept is still theory, not fact.

They trot out their "time reversal" nonsense while designing an experimental analysis..of what? Saying that the particle can't decide if time is going forward or backward because it's all the same to the particle?
Time can only go forward; while it may seem to lag behind and slow down, it can NEVER go in reverse.

Time direction in reverse would mean destruction of our universe. The chick would have pecked its way out of the egg and then the whole sequence of coming out of the egg would be reversed until the egg is once again unbroken, with the chick back inside. These researchers are either fools or they are looking for more funding.

As to matter and antimatter, I envision 2 universes side by side; one of matter (us) and the sister universe of antimatter. This creates a balance, but some matter leaks into the antimatter universe, and some antimatter leaks into our universe made of matter. Antimatter is created in our universe also under certain conditions, while matter is created in the other.
This balance is essential as negativity and positivity. On a smaller scale, energy derived from charged batteries that are both negative and positively charged are similarly balanced.

Did I explain that correctly? LOL am suffering from jet lag.

Torbjorn,
If you read what I wrote, I'm accusing physics of confusing measurement with cause. In other words, treating time/duration as a vector, rather than an effect of process, is the conceptual basis of "spacetime." Duration doesn't transcend the present, but is the state of the present between events.

The problem with discussions of time, is that it is a concept that isn't very well defined.

Common to all normal definitions however, the core idea is that time is said to have passed when there is a local state change relative to some other local or remote state.

That state change can be the change in apparent position of sun in the sky or the position of hands on a clock, or the position in phase space of an oscillator, or an EM field, etc.

The fact that there can be a transition from one state to another tells us that there are available states to transition to, and if there are states to transition to there are statistical probabilities with which the system can be in one state verses another.

In the macroscopic world our view of time is that it progresses in one direction. This preferred direction of time nothing more than a real world observation that the evolution of entropy has a preferred direction.

CONT...

On a microscopic scale time is less well defined, and there are generally fewer states to transition from and to, as a result the arrow of time is more difficult to find manifest.

But where there is an arrow of time, it's direction is always set by changes in a system's state from a condition of lower entropy to one of higher entropy. State changes in the opposite direction may be interpreted in a closed system to be an example of a reverse flow of time. However, natural bias causes us to always include an observer in our consideration of such things, and since observers are macroscopic and thus dominated by entropy, we never really believe that a transition from state B to state A, is a time reversal of a transition from state A to state B, and if there is such a thing as universal time, then the bias is even greater.

Time is a realization of a state change of a system. The arrow of time is a result of there being a direction of the evolution of entropy.

Cont...

This is true for all scales, from macroscopic to quantum.

Mystery solved.

Reverse time travel, revealed as hokum.

This is true for all scales, from macroscopic to quantum.

Mystery solved.

Reverse time travel, revealed as hokum.

This explanation I find appealing.

Expanding upon it a little, perhaps the observed symmetry violation in transformations of B-mesons and B-Bar mesons might perhaps simply represent the transition from a higher energy state to a lower energy state of the primordial stuff from which all observed matter and energy derives.

In other words, perhaps the observable universe is a Decay Product.

Or maybe a Condensation product.

I suppose that it is possible for some state to exist which is simply TOO energetic for us to measure. Maybe this is the ocean that our island universe sails upon or within.

There I go -gettin' all poetical 'n' shit.

I'm giving you FIVES for your last 3 posts, VD...once for being so damn articulate, the second one for understanding that time is not a true dimension, and the third for not mentioning politics.

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM responded

..doesn't experience time in special relativity. But it does in general relativity where it can lose energy (red shift) and therefore ages with the universe.

"Great Attractor". Inflation assures us that the observable universe is a blown up matter dominated volume. It may be that other observable universes are antimatter dominated, but nothing on a smaller scale. (See "the horizon problem" in an encyclopedia.)

My understanding of photons is an energy exchange, they 'travel' a null geodesic so whether SR or GR from their perspective there is no time experience, as if causes & effects of the intimate relationship between electrons & photons is instantaneous which therefore suggests physical space separation is a rather intimate illusion within a singular entity.

Not convinced loss of energy re GR proves photons experience time !

Isnt the G.A. a very large mass in OUR universe where many galaxy clusters are attracted to?

@Obam
Why worry re votes?

Great experiment which shows also time is merely a mathematical dimension. Blue-B changes into red-B more quickly than red-B changes into blue-B. Yes, both of this processes run in a 3D quantum vacuum and have different velocity. This is all about. There is no "arrow of time", because first time does not run as a physical reality and second change does not run in time. It can not be "time reversibility" as time is not physical dimension. Only change run not time, time is merely numerical order of change, its mathematical dimension.

I still don't buy into the whole time aspect. IMO... Take "time" out of the equation and what do you have left? Surely there is another way, another angle, to see and describe this behavior...

How about the "charge" and "parity" aspects?

You might not like it but its not me making this stuff up about CP violation:-

http://www-dapnia...2-07.pdf

VD is correct.

Time is real, because it underlies physics and a basic aspect of mechanics is a test for reality. (Say, observation-observables in quantum mechanics.) Take out time, and you have no physics (no processes). - Torbjorn

No, time is a conceptual Relation between things. If you remove that Concept, we are unable to explain physics in accord with how our mind evolved to order experience. It's a concept in which we conform reality to. Time is not a physical field or entity that effects things of its own accord. It is not observed independently of its application.

,....

,...

In GR, the invariants are what can be said to be Real, in your sense, as they lead to conservation laws. The coordinate system however, which includes time, is dependent upon the observer and therefore necessarily involves concepts. Time is not a physical thing. There is even a failure of the notion of simultaneity.

In QM, observables are again dependent upon the observer in the experimental setup. In Hilbert space the possible observables are projections of the Real entity, in your sense, onto a given basis. There can be more than one basis representation, dependent upon the experimental arrangement. It is not a physical thing in itself,.. it is a means of conceptualizing the underlying 'real thing'.

It's confusing because we are like fish that don't recognize the water because they are always in it. Our minds, given how it operates, always uses the concept to order experience, so we think it is real, rather than a aspect of thought.

....The notion of a asymmetrical arrow to time usually denotes some epiphenomenon, like entropy increasing, so is not a fundamental aspect of reality, but a circumstantial result, given other more fundamental physics.

The problem with discussions of time, is that it is a concept that isn't very well defined.

It can be defined accurately as a standard, the problem is that it is not generally confined to its physical definition during discussions and interpretations. Instead it is generalized from a intuitive concept to a physical entity of its own independent existence.

,.. I see the "lite"-bot has already rated me 1's. Wouldn't an actual counter argument be more effective? But the lite-bot doesn't know anything so is reduced to tossing 1's. How pathetic.

Time is more related to entropy than it is to space. Space is the stage upon which time acts, entropy is so closely related to time as to be nearly interchangeable concepts. If there is no entropy, or no change in entropy there is no time. Time moves forward because of the second law of thermodynamics, not because there is some universal clock ticking off seconds.

OTOH the fact that something like a Plank second is actually measurable and exists does seem to give time its own manifest properties outside and separate from the mechanics of entropy. On the other OTHER hand a Plank second may simply be a discrete property of entropy below which other physical laws make it impossible to change "faster"...

@ GSwift7: Arrows of time has nothing to do with the universal speed limit, which is what prohibits time travel

In the classical sense, yes, but there are useful applications of the theory when applied to quantum computing and quantum communication. Nobody has done it yet, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. There have been several serious attempts, including work at MIT, to transmit 'information' instantaneously from one place to another, or to determine the result of a calculation before it is done. The 'arrow in time' might apply to this field of research as it relates to entropy and the decay of entangled states, or in other ways. If you can figure out the reason the arrow points towards entropy, then maybe you can get the arrow to point the other way in a small enough domain, as long as the net arrow still points forward. That area is so theoretical at this point, that it's hard to say what is possible. We do things today that were ony theory a few years ago.

In the macroscopic world our view of time is that it progresses in one direction. This preferred direction of time nothing more than a real world observation that the evolution of entropy has a preferred direction.

The problem is the future is probabilistic, so when we project from a determined past into a probabilistic future, the effect is multiworlds. It is the collapse of probabilities that yields actualities. What was future becoming present. The narrative vector only emerges in hindsight, as we examine cause and effect, yet total cause cannot be known prior to the event, because its light cone is not complete. So while laws determining outcome may be deterministic, input cannot be fully known.

"It can be defined accurately as a standard, the problem is that it is not generally confined to its physical definition during discussions and interpretations. Instead it is generalized from a intuitive concept to a physical entity of its own independent existence." - Noumenon

Correct

It is simply a matter of arrangement. If there are n possible states to the front and 0 states behind then the system moves forward.

The change in the system is then seen as time, and the direction is strictly a result of the higher statistical probability of the system taking on one of the n forward states available.

The system only needs to be able to change. The rest is the natural result of statistics.

Now you might argue that there can be no change without time, and I sympathize with that view, but ask that in that instance you define what you mean as time, in the absence of a change of state in the system.

"If you can figure out the reason the arrow points towards entropy" - GSwift

You may ask, that if the system changes from state n plus 1 back to state n, is that a reversal of the flow of time.

The answer is yes.

You may ask that if the state of the system is quantized, does that imply that time is also quantized.

The answer is yes.

Now you might argue that there can be no change without time...

It would have been meaningless to argue that,.. I would rather argue,... there can be no understanding or conceptualization of change without time.

I am feeling a touch of magnanimity in my bones, so I will give everyone else on this page a FIVE...partially to make nice...and partially because Blotto is lurking about like the business end of a scorpion...ever prepared to downvote as lite or as any one of his other characters. While the 5 may not make much of a difference, it is given freely and sincerely.

I will never understand why Time is periodically trotted out to take center stage as the enigmatic and elusive partner of the holy Triumvirate, i.e., length, height, depth.
Time can be measured. We do have the instruments for measuring it and we humans are quite adept at it. Other life forms on Earth also measure time in their own way and with their own methodology.
But I find it annoying lately whereby articles appearing on this site re: Time, are more akin to science FICTION than science fact re: Time.
I have already given an example re: reversal of time in the life of an emerging chick from its egg...gge sti morf kcihc...
:))

It is simply a matter of arrangement. If there are n possible states to the front and 0 states behind then the system moves forward.

Doesn't this then assume absolute time? E.g. Big bang?

Time Reversal, imo, is not possible due to the physicality of the "holy Triumvirate". Physical objects cannot go back in time; alteration of those physical objects would occur in tandem with the reversal.
IF time reversal was possible, it would have to BEGIN AT THE END OF TIME...if there is such an animal. It could not happen anywhere in between the END and the BEGINNING of Time due to Time being continuous and cannot be broken anywhere in its "length".
We allow Time as having length, but only as a variable measurement, and not as dimensional length. One day on Jupiter is not the same length of time as on Earth due to the day/night cycle.

I think that if Time were able to reverse, it would have to bounce in on itself, but the thing that it bounces off could not be anything physical as in 3D. And once it bounced in on itself, there would have to be a kind of "tunnel effect" behind the part that bounced, so that after the bounce, the tunnel would invert (like turning a shirt inside-out

Nothing "moves" forward or backward in time. Change occurs in the configuration of what exists, ie. is present. Time is real in the same way temperature is real, as an effect of this activity. Entropy only exists for closed systems. In an open or infinite system, the conservation of energy trumps entropy, as energy is simply traded around. Closed, singular systems go from start to finish, while energy is constantly building up and breaking down these entities in the larger ecosystem.

Time Reversal, imo, is not possible due to the physicality of the "holy Triumvirate". Physical objects cannot go back in time; alteration of those physical objects would occur in tandem with the reversal.

Before you make a decision on what is possible, keep this in mind: Just a couple years ago, the concept of negative refraction was nothing more than a math trick. The equations could be manipulated so that you could produce negative refraction, but no example existed in nature and no known process could produce negative refraction by man made means either. Since then, we stumbled upon meta-materials which actually produce negative refraction. We have turned a science-fiction fantasy, based on a math trick, into reality.

Allow me to make a huge leap of generalization: If we can now produce a real world example of negative refraction, how can anyone exclude the possibility of negative time, frequency, velocity, etc? Not sure what such terms would even mean, but...

The problem is the future is probabilistic, so when we project from a determined past into a probabilistic future, the effect is multiworlds.

Only the moment is determined. The past is also probabilistic. For some reason the mind conceives the past as something that exists in the present, and yet there is no basis for that supposition. There is no scientific basis for having existed, except by casual projection from the now. This casual chain quickly becomes multivalued just as does the future.

The chirality violation is a dynamic effect, connected with intrinsic rotation of massive object inside of inhomogeneous environment. Every object is surrounded with supersymmetric particles (dark matter of the opposite nature). When this object rotates, these particles undergo axial flow and therefore exhibit a gradient along rotation axis. The chirality violation is a product of rotation in expanding space-time: the axial flow introduces a density gradient, when the space-time is expanding, because it takes some time for matter to travel along axis, during which the space-time expands or collapses.

In AWT a four zones of CP parity violation exist at the distance scale. For example, in AWT the Earth geoide is of pear shape, because it pumps the neutrinos by its rotation and the neutrinos are concentrated at the south pole. The neutrinos are like tiny bubbles of vacuum and if the Earth would rotate in opposite direction, then the south pole would be of the smaller curvature instead. This effect introduces the chirality into Earth shape. Another zone of CP symmetry violation is represented with asymmetry of black hole jets and the last zone is represented with CP-symmetry violation of radioactive atom nuclei.

Time Reversal, imo, is not possible due to the physicality of the "holy Triumvirate". Physical objects cannot go back in time; alteration of those physical objects would occur in tandem with the reversal.

"Before you make a decision on what is possible..." "The equations could be manipulated so that you could produce negative refraction, but no example existed in nature and no known process could produce negative refraction by man made means either. "....we stumbled upon meta-materials which actually produce negative refraction. We have turned a science-fiction fantasy, based on a math trick, into reality."

"If we can now produce a real world example of negative refraction, how can anyone exclude the possibility of negative time, frequency, velocity, etc? Not sure what such terms would even mean, but...

-GS7

Yes, it is true that new discoveries are being made. However, your example of meta-materials still requires processes on a physical plane. (contd)

[q Only the moment is determined. The past is also probabilistic.

It would be more accurate to say the past and present are relativistic/subjective, in that any perceivable reality only exists as a function of perspective/framing and both distance and change, ie. more time, affect perspective. Probability refers to whether something actually occurs. It is probablistic who wins an election, while one's perspective on the result is subjective/relative.

Only the moment is determined. The past is also probabilistic.

It would be more accurate to say the past and present are relativistic/subjective, in that any perceivable reality only exists as a function of perspective/framing and both distance and change, ie. more time, affect perspective.

No you are making casual inferences between information in the moment and states of the past. Those inferences are no more valid that inferences about the future. All inferential systems are incomplete and past information becomes embedded with nonlocal variables just as does future information. You have information about an election. It is a probabilistic inference that that is indeed an accurate sampling of a past event. There is no past only our projection of change onto larger and smaller scales of changes, the correlations of which we call 'time.'

I concur with a prior study that quantum time is simply an aberration of galactic spin, and not universal.

How then would you effect/describe "change" as something other than transition from one configuration to another? As I observed further up the thread, even if the laws determining an event are absolute, the potential input/cause of that event cannot be fully known, because the light cone of input isn't complete until the event occurs. So there is no way to encompass that cause. Therefore I would argue future is potential, present is actual and past is residual.

How then would you effect/describe "change" as something other than transition from one configuration to another? As I observed further up the thread, even if the laws determining an event are absolute, the potential input/cause of that event cannot be fully known, because the light cone of input isn't complete until the event occurs. So there is no way to encompass that cause. Therefore I would argue future is potential, present is actual and past is residual. Yes, our knowledge of any event is conditional, but that is not proof all prior events are probabilistic. The past is simply those events that have occurred, whatever and however the information of their occurrence has been transmitted.

Sorry for the repeat. Phone typing is conditional, not absolute.

How then would you effect/describe "change" as something other than transition from one configuration to another?

In QM there is only action and state. Copies can be made but these must be classical and untangled. The moment and the ineffable qualities of entanglement are lost. Change is inferred by pairs of two actions and their decohered, recorded copies. One may make inferences about differences in these states and known scaling factors [causality cascade length] to describe 'time.' But the time is completely virtual and recordings of earlier states are just that. They lack any physical value and only give us a story which we use to understand the moment. The past and future do not exist they are just potentials and multivalued. There are infinite pasts and futures and they are bound at the moment.

"but these subtle "time travels" still exist for microscopic particles" - natello

This is because entropy still has meaning in the microscopic world.

Light cones do not.

(contd) Everything that is material is within a physical plane and cannot travel into reverse mode as in returning to a Time that is past. That includes at a Quantum level. As I sit here typing within the physical, I project concepts and memories into the future. Shortly after I have typed and decided what else to type, these things I have typed have gone into my past and I can never return to the past. My physical self, along with everything in the room exists on a physical plane. But my thoughts and concepts, AND MEMORIES, continue to be processed and projected into the future, even while my typing remains in the present. Whatever I typed 5 minutes ago is gone and I can't take it back or go back 5 minutes into the past to change it. I can only make changes physically in the present which results will show up on my screen in the future.
If science discovers a way to reverse Time, it can only result in catastrophe. Science might even know God; that is as possible as reversing Time,imo

The experiment implies that there is a standard of time in a specific direction.

But my thoughts and concepts, AND MEMORIES, continue to be processed and projected into the future, even while my typing remains in the present.

The future and past do not exist. They are mental constructs, like dimension, used to order change on one scale with change on the same or another scale of causality cascades. This ordering by our pattern-recognition brains is constructed as 'time.' That evolved because we are low dimension beings embedded in higher space which we cannot perceive directly but only as changes in our 3d wetware.

A 1D creature cannot perceive the curvature of his circle world except by a sequence of changes in measurements he makes. He would perceive the circle with 'time' although to us the curvature is completely spacial.

In a universe consisting of one particle that can take on two states, 0 and 1, when the particle is in position 1 we define t=1 and when in position 0, t=0.

If the particle moves from 1 to 0 then it has gone back in time.

If the universe consists of quantized particles that take on quantized states then the above principle is as true for 2**100 particles as it is for 1 particle.

"Everything that is material is within a physical plane and cannot travel into reverse mode as in returning to a Time that is past." - Sox

Similarly we can not perceive that what we see as physical dimensions are simply eigenvectors in some abstract mathematical object which codes for existence in some unreal form that is not yet realized.

"A 1D creature cannot perceive the curvature of his circle world except by a sequence of changes in measurements" - kochevnik

The future and past do not exist. They are mental constructs, like dimension

Space doesn't exist too, after then. But such solipsism will not help us very much in construction of more general theories and their predictions - it's solely of interpretative nature, so it doesn't lead into testable predictions and therefore it remains redundant. I don't need to know, that the time or space or energy or force doesn't actually exist for anything in similar way, like the concept of God. In AWT a good reason for to consider the time as a physical entity exists, though. For example you can attribute the time multiple dimensions and you can generate new testable predictions in this way. In AWT the entropic time dimension is actually two-dimensional at the human observer scale. The observable objects bellow 2 cm distance scale expand and evaporate into infinity (entropic phenomena) - above it they do collapse with their gravity (negentropic phenomena).

With increasing distance from human observer scale the number of time dimensions increases and their arrows become divergent and even asymmetric. It's because the time dimension plays a role of the orientation of surface gradient, which is forming the space-time foam. The bubbles of foam are formed with two surface gradients, like the membranes of soap foam, which are having two surfaces. At the human observer scale the bubbles of space-time foam are sparse and the flat walls of their bubbles are planparallel. Which is why the both arrows of entropic time dimensions are balanced mutually in pretty reversible way. But with increasing distance from human observers scale the bubbles of space-time foam are shrinking and they become spherical like the bubbles of dense foam above beer. In such bubbles their walls aren't parallel anymore and such a foam exhibits a violation of time symmetry. Therefore I do handle the time dimensions very physically - I can draw their picture at the paper.

At the quantum scale the "multiple path integrals" approach or "many worlds" interpretation becomes relevant. It can be explained like the manifestation of multiple divergent time arrows. Typically, the quantum wave dissolves and emerges at many other places nearby at the same moment. Sometimes some direction remains preferred during macroscopic particle motion - but in most cases (free particle at rest) it cannot be predicted at all. The quantum indeterminism can be therefore interpreted like the result of congruent evolution according to multiple entropic time arrows at the same moment.

In QM there is only action and state.

If you view time as the changing configuration of what is, then there is no such thing as a dimensionless point in time. It would be like taking a picturew with the shutter speed set at zero. Without dimensionless points in time, objects and actions cannot be separated, be they quantum particles, cars, or pretty girls smiles.

There are infinite pasts and futures and they are bound at the moment.

Part of the problem here is that our conventional three dimensional description of space is simply a glorified coordinate system. Three dimensions only map space, much as longitude, latitude and altitude map the surface of the planet. As such, they are the frame of reference for the center point, but space consists of many center points, all mapped by their own coordinate. Just as different people will see the same space from different angles and come to it from different narrative histories.

So the effect of time is more an interlocking tapestry of actions, than a single direction of flow. That said, these actions are interlocking and do exist in a larger whole, so there is some emergent historical effect. Even quantum activity interacts, the observer function. If no interactions occured, there would be no reality for us to observe. So while only one state at a time may exist, its action is converting it from prior to succeeding states. Those prior states, at their point of existence, were also "bound moments." Action causes potential to collapse into actual.

As a interested layman I would like to put a couple of questions in here in relation to whats has been said:

Some seem to suggest that the past is not fixed but variable in some way.

I do not understand this argument - in that our ability to determine past events is completely subjective. The past may be fixed as solid as concrete, just our mechanisms of recording it are weak and flawed. Is this true?

Secondly the discussion that time is the basis of change. Again, some suggest that a change A->B and then back B->A is time reversal. Can anyone point me to a process that can do A->B and then B->A without the input/output of energy to attain a particular state.

Thanks

The past may be fixed as solid as concrete, just our mechanisms of recording it are weak and flawed. Is this true?

Of course, I don't see any reason, why the physics in the past or future should behave differently. The same effect occurs at the space distance scale. You can compare it to the perspective of observation of foggy landscape: from distance it appears fuzzy and blurred, but when you come closer, everything appears sharp and normal.

The past may be fixed as solid as concrete...P9

What event (or state) in nature can lead one to a conclusion that anything past is 'everlasting'?
What mechanism is able to 'record' all states of an event?

Secondly, is time exempt from laws of conservation?

This was attempt to address your questions.
With a possibility that I misunderstood your words.

Thanks for the reply - I suppose I make the assumption that there is no time in the past - there is no change - time exists in the 'present' only. However this is an assumption from observation.

It's important to note they said a 6 to 1 ratio of occurrence, which is not the same as saying "time reversal" isn't happening.

IMO those who think time is an illusion might aswell decide not to write a post in this thread, and philosophize on whether your post will be written anyway. Then check the thread tomorrow.

"Consider that the earth is not traveling some narrative fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, but that tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates."
Time will not stop because the Earth stops rotating.

"as futile as trying to find the square root of a negative number"
No need to search for it, it's i (or x*i), equally valid as, let's say, the squareroot of 2.

"At the fundamental level everything happens at the speed of light, in both directions which have no differences."
The second law of thermodynamics does not agree with you, so I do not agree with you. (continued)

"Time is not a physical field or entity that effects things of its own accord. It is not observed independently of its application."
I do not necessarily disagree with the other thing you wrote, but is *anything at all* observed independently of its application? Energy, mass, charge etc.? In my opinion - no. As long as there's a unit attached to a number it is hard to argue any true independence. Maybe the fine-structure constant is independent, perhaps, I don't know. (I know I sound sour, that was not my intention here:)).

"One day on Jupiter is not the same length of time as on Earth due to the day/night cycle."
The Universe is even more "counter-intuitive" than this; Jupiter and the Earth do not experience the same time at all, there's no absolute, universal time, relativity put an end to it. (continued)

Valeria;
"The chirality violation is a dynamic effect, connected with intrinsic rotation of massive object inside of inhomogeneous environment."
Nice words. Any experiments coming up on this?

"Every object is surrounded with supersymmetric particles (dark matter of the opposite nature)."
No superpartners have been found (yet).

"In AWT a four zones of CP parity violation exist at the distance scale."
In AWT many levels of physics violations seems to exist. (cont'd)

"At the quantum scales all phenomena are reversible"
It seems not. Not the weak interaction. See CP violation.

peter09, good questions. I can't answer the first one. In order to evaluate a retrocausality experiment, I'd have to ask, let's say, my dead ancestors about the result. I have asked, but I've never been given an answer.

"Can anyone point me to a process that can do A->B and then B->A without the input/output of energy to attain a particular state."
Neutrino oscillation might be such a process, but I'm not certain, I'm not an expert on it. But I wouldn't connect it to any time-reversal. (end)

Some seem to suggest that the past is not fixed but variable in some way...The past may be fixed as solid as concrete,

Keep in mind that the present is "not set in concrete." Not only is any method of framing, modeling, perceiving, distilling, etc. reality some form of reductionism, but this essentially negates a purely objective or "God's eye" view of reality. It would be "white noise." Consider taking pictures for example; If we want to take a picture of action, the faster the speed, the clearer the picture. While a slow speed does gather more information, it blurs the information. On the other hand, this is not static, or concrete reality. Some action has to occur, quantum, atomic, molecular, biological celestial, etc. or there is nothing. Then the line between what is physically real, ie. present and what is not, ie. past or future, is blurred as well, since any test of reality falls on the side of what is physically real. Action is action, so any parameter is also dynamic

Secondly the discussion that time is the basis of change.

It may be more logical to consider time as a measure of the change caused by action. Does the earth really travel a fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, or does tomorrow become yesterday because the earth rotates? The problem is that when we retroactively examine actions, it is as static sequence, like frames of a movie, rather than as the dynamic activity churning out those frames. Then physics re-enforces this sequence as foundational by treating time as a measure of interval, much as space is treated as measures of dimension. These then become interchangable, but one could use ideal gas laws to do the same with volume and temperature, since changing the volume of a quantity of gas has an inverse effect on its temperature. We don't do this because we are more objective about temperature. While it is foundational to biology, the effect of time is foundational to logic, be it narrative or cause and effect.

Cranken,
I'm not saying time is an illusion, but an effect of action. If I commit the action of writing on this forum, it appears, otherwise, not.

Hi Brodix! My "illusion note" was actually not directed to anyone here in particular. I've heard the phrase "time is just an illusion" so many times from dubious "new agey" sources that I thought I might aswell start with throwing out something for such people to think about. But I now see that the way I formulated it could be interpreted as being targeted at a wide range of interpretations of time - that was not my intention.

They trot out their "time reversal" nonsense while designing an experimental analysis..of what?

If they told you you still wouldnt understand it. But you would still act like you do, and flood these threads proclaiming it. Why? because you can type?

I will never understand why Time is periodically trotted out

Of course you dont. So why act as if you do?

Science might even know God; that is as possible as reversing Time,imo

...Are you DONE yet you lying imbecile?

If you remove that Concept, we are unable to explain physics in accord with how our mind evolved to order experience.

The word 'mind' has no meaning. You should try expressing yourself using words which actually convey meaning.

And the laws of physics operate whether anyone is there to observe or not. The universe is oblivious to observation.

Cranken,
I suspect "dubious new agey sources" go back to Einstein and the whole 4 D spacetime geometry as cause, rather than model. Given the whole expanding universe cosmology is based on it, you, I and numbers of others, are fighting an uphill battle on that one. I think it arises from trying to treat sequence as fundamental, rather than effect. To say this goes to the dawn of history would be redundant, since it is the conceptual basis of history, as well as cause and effect logic. It is epi-cycles redux. The irony is that sequence is intuitive, since our brains have to quantify information to process it. The left brain makes distinctions, while the right "intuitive" side makes connections. So we are trapped in a box of our own complexity.

If you remove that Concept, we are unable to explain physics in accord with how our mind evolved to order experience.

The word 'mind' has no meaning.

Speak for yourself.

You should try expressing yourself using words which actually convey meaning.

I presumed most people, having minds, would know what I mean by that term. You can think of it as a bio-chemical physical entity that operates on sense experience, or the complex of cognitive faculties that facilities perception, reasoning, and understanding.

And the laws of physics operate whether anyone is there to observe or not. The universe is oblivious to observation.

I never suggested otherwise. Reality is what ever it is, quit independent of us, yes. However, to "understand" reality one must conceptualize it, by definition. This act produces artifacts of thought which are confused with physical realities,.. as in time.

Ok, idjit time deniers...

How do you define change without reference to time?

How do you define a "rate of change" without reference to time?

How do you prove 10m/s is actually faster than 5m/s if time doesn't exist? In fact, the entire basis of the measure would be a fallacy if time doesn't exist.

The predictions made by treating time as a quantifiable entity with real physical properties are too accurate to be disregarded. Landing on the Moon, GPS, weather prediction, driving a car, operating a computer...wow everything we do depends on time being a real entity rather than an artifact of observation.

Nice words. Any experiments coming up on this?

This theory predicts, that the oblateness of planets remains connected with the direction of their rotation. Such a prediction can be easily tested form many massive objects in solar system or even outside of it. H. Hayasaka and S. Takeuchi found in 1989, that the rotating gyroscope loses few miligrams of weight depending on its direction of rotation. This would be an experimental example of time symmetry violation too.

If the concept of infinity is accepted as meaning "the more you think of it, the more there is of it" then this has major implications on the possible modelling of spacetime, the physicalisation of intentionality, the modelling of experiential consciousness, and the nature of time.
We tend to think of an "ever-present moment" moving along a temporal axis from past to future though a continuing moment of "now" where a dualistic dichotomy of temporal modelling first arises: a) is there a fundamental physical dynamic that drives the moment of "now" along an unavoidable tendency of trajectory, or b) is time a function of consciousness measuring rates of change in the configuration of energies in a 3D continuum? An escape from this in appointing an ultimate sense of infinity is that ALL possible configurations of informed and physicalised energies exist in physically actual frames of past and future. Here the future in its probabilistic potentials is the "doable" whereas the past (contnd)

is the "undoably done." The transitional dynamic from future through the infinitesimal moment of "now" to the past, separates the boundaries between the non-manifest and the nanifest, between potential and potency, between actualisable and physicalised actuality. If we accept past and future frames to be physically real, quantised moments in time that exist in actuality which may be congruently resonated with by the intentional continuum (conscious awareness - through subconscious levels) of experiential consciousness, then we may see time in a different way altogether. There is then only a "now" that stretches from an infnity of beginning (there is no "time before time, it never began) to infinite eternity (there is no end of time.)

The past and future are then a bidirectional synthesis from the moment of "now" through an infinity of multidimensional, and multiparallel frames of energy-configuration - all are NOW, and exist in reality. There is enough room in infinity for that. This implies that what you experience is a moving of your egoic consciousness through an infinite variety of versions of yourself resulting from the expression of your continuum of intentionality. The metaphysical implication is also that what you regard as "you" is in actuality a quantized perspective of an infinity - a greater you - which also implies the underlying oneness of all identity.

In that sense, I and you are versions of each other - just micro-fractional perspectives of a greater selfhood. The maximally quantized moment of time we call "now" stretches in actuality into both past and future - it is the way that the unified collective consciousness experiences itself in quantized individuality in an infinity of mutually contiguous reference frames of informed energies. In the same way that there is only a moment of "now" there is also only a "here" which dualistically, and paradoxically, is all "there" as well. Quantum entanglement and non-locality are a beginning insight into this topology.

There is also no doubt that non-local, superluminal connectivity between any subjectifiable thing-process and any other, is capable of information transfer - phase-entanglement is just a "first view" of this. In the ultimate sense we may even model the entire physical continuum of "reality" as a single, massless, "wavicle" which, then capable of infinite velocity, is capable of being everywhere (and "everywhen") at once - interweaving with itself like the nodal interweave of warp and weft in the cloth of physicalisation, to realise all that exists at once. This has been called the "Prime Radiant."

I well realise that this thinking exceeds parametric, empirical pragmatism of the scientific methodology - it is however also an intuitive guide to forming the experimental approach to exploring what we call reality in its extended sense. The first fault of the scientific approach in so many doctines, is ignoring the reality and dynamic potential of consciousness in all physicalisation of potential - and that after all, is what reality is all about.

[FV]

The consciousness and thinking about tachyons doesn't explain the time asymmetry anyway, so it's redundant and OT.

I believe that the results are being misinterpreted - that the researchers are measuring and applying their understandingbased on a belief that time is an absolute and real and not the illusion and simple measuring tool that (I believe) it really is

Sorry but you are wrong. Einstein demonstrated that time will pass at a different rate depending on your speed and gravity fields around you. So it is indeed something real, time is a true dimension that can be observed and manipulated, not an illusion

subjectifiable thing-process..."undoably done."

Why I think work should begin immediately on the development of a Subjectifiable Thing-Process Engine with which we should routinely be able to do the undoable. This will undoubtedly cost a substantial portion of the GDP but I for one think it will be money well spent.

Do you dribble while you type?

The first fault of the scientific approach in so many doctines, is ignoring the reality and dynamic potential of consciousness

No the first fault is obviously not enough drivel. More drivel would undoubtedly lead to more discovery.

The first fault of the scientific approach in so many doctines, is ignoring the reality and dynamic potential of consciousness

No the first fault is obviously not enough drivel. More drivel would undoubtedly lead to more discovery.

Theghostofotto1923 aka Blotto

Indeed, Blotto knows all about drivel, as he spews drivel and inanities in each thread in which he spews...drivel.

Blotto hates the thought that it is consciousness that actually does all the conceptualizing and measuring, and prefers to believe that consciousness has nothing to do with acting on physical stimuli.
Any time that Blotto loses consciousness, his own personal physical stimuli ceases, along with his thoughts and ideas out of which he spews drivel.
Blotto babbles about ideas only coming out of physical stimuli, so that, without thinking about it, he will walk sideways like a crab to avoid physical stimuli such as a moving vehicle. All without knowing what he is doing, and why.
Now Blotto will berate

..time is a true dimension that can be observed and manipulated, not an illusion..

Just the illusions can be manipulated most easily...;-) But I don't recommend to bother with existence of time, until you cannot provide some testable predictions from it. What will change in experimental physics, if you claim the time real illusion or manipulative reality? IMO nothing - such a labellings are just a fuzzy words for philosophers, nothing more. Could we imply some time asymmetry from it? I seriously doubt it.

This is how time and space emerges in AWT, as modeled with condensation of supercritical fluid, which enables the spreading of transverse waves (light). The vacuum condenses and it forms the density gradient, which enables the spreading of transverse waves (light). The remaining direction perpendicular to phase interface is the time dimension. Note that the time dimension has always an "arrow" in this model, because it's oriented by this gradient. The space dimension is parallel with gradient formed, so it has no arrow.

The formation of space-time in the Universe can be therefore described like quite common phase transition. A portion of dense vacuum condenses and it separates two phases: more dense and less dense vacuum. The light is spreading along membranes of resulting foam like ripples along surface of water.

This model doesn't imply the Big Bang and universe formation though, because the red shift can be interpreted like the result of light scattering with remaining density fluctuations of vacuum. If you would sit at the water surface, then the surface ripples will scatter into underwater with distance. The water surface always appears like condensing with time, if you look at it with its own waves. The CMBR anisotropy serves as the observational evidence of evolution of Universe in this model instead.

I believe that the results are being misinterpreted - that the researchers are measuring and applying their understandingbased on a belief that time is an absolute and real and not the illusion and simple measuring tool that (I believe) it really is

Sorry but you are wrong. Einstein demonstrated that time will pass at a different rate depending on your speed and gravity fields around you. So it is indeed something real, time is a true dimension that can be observed and manipulated, not an illusion

-javjav

Time is not a TRUE dimension. Time slows down or speeds up ONLY according to how humans PERCEIVE the speeding or slowing, and that depends on the human consciousness' perception of the clock's response to spatial conditions of speed and gravitational pull. Distances and speed can be measured by Time; and Time can be measured by distance ONLY by knowing the distance measurement beforehand. And only determined by the 24 hour clock on Earth due to the clock dials.

Photons do not experience gravitational pull in general. Therefore, photons are not subjected (ordinarily) to diminished speed.

If it were possible to instantaneously place a similar clock on a similar planet 2 mly from Earth that has a similar 24 hour day/night cycle and gravity, both clocks would have the same exact time even though Earth and the other planet move away from each other. It is only when a THIRD clock does not experience gravity that it can slow down or speed up, unless the spaceship it is in has artificial gravity that mimics Earth's gravity.

Humans speeding along in an intergalactic spaceship would need artificial gravity if they wish to know the Time back on Earth, simply because clocks respond to the physical stimulus of gravity to keep perfect time...unless the clock has its own built-in source of gravity, which would be unlikely.

Ok, idjit time deniers... How do you define change without reference to time? How do you define a "rate of change" without reference to time?

- You have it quit backwards. Change is not defined, it is observed. Time is not observed, it is defined.

- Who is saying that time should not be applied in relating things?

-Reality, apart from minds, doesn't care a wit about Comparing and Relating events, thus can proceed without such notions as Time unhindered. Only once a mind comes about and asked such questions does this Concept become relevant.

Rather than calling others 'idjit", it might serve you better to understand what is being stated, rather than assuming absurdity.

The predictions made by treating time as a quantifiable entity with real physical properties are too accurate to be disregarded.

Again, no one is 'disregarding' the application of that concept. Time is a real aspect of phenomenal reality. Phenomenal reality, however has components that are dependent upon mind.

Time does not have discoverable 'physical properties'. It is always applied in relating things, never observed on it's own. It is not a "field" or a "particle". It is an aspect of mind, in ordering experience. That is all.

In fact time is Defined given some physical system. For example the standard second,... is the number of cycles, "9,192,631,770, of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom". This defines a coordinate that can be used in comparing events.

There is also no doubt that non-local, superluminal connectivity between any subjectifiable thing-process and any other, is capable of information transfer - phase-entanglement is just a "first view" of this. In the ultimate sense we may even model the entire physical continuum of "reality" as a single, massless, "wavicle" which, then capable of infinite velocity, is capable of being everywhere (and "everywhen") at once - interweaving with itself like the nodal interweave of warp and weft in the cloth of physicalisation, to realise all that exists at once. This has been called the "Prime Radiant."

-Tachyon8491

This sounds like Metaphysics, imo. No wonder that TheGhostofOtto1923 aka Blotto, et al, appears to not like you...LOL

Lurker2358 asked: "How do you define change without reference to time? How do you define a "rate of change" without reference to time?"

Quite easily. It's all in the MEASUREMENTS. To measure the distance of a mile doesn't require also measuring time.

Measuring the "rate of change" doesn't necessitate the measuring of time for observation of that rate of change. The rate of change may be defined by the record of the "events" that caused the rate of change. Time needs only to be measured in the rate of change when an empirical record of moment-to-moment circumstances are also recorded, as in the processes in lab work, It requires a 24 hour clock to measure the rates of change and the circumstances, as well as results.

Let's say that we are on a planet 2 mly away from Earth. It's in the habitable zone, but its day/night cycle is 42 H 24 M and 6 seconds. That means that a clockmaker must invent a clock face with those time parameters, since we now have a daytime and nighttime of approx. 21 H 12 M and 3 seconds each. Our 24 H clocks are useless to us on this planet, but we still want to know what time it is on Earth. Our new planet's gravitational pull is about 1 1/2 x that of Earth. What do we do to find out the time on Earth?

Einstein demonstrated that time will pass at a different rate depending on your speed and gravity fields around you. So it is indeed something real, time is a true dimension that can be observed and manipulated, not an illusion. - javjav

The physical system we use to define time is affected given those circumstances, which then results in Our coordinate system being curved.

Einstein made use of an Operational Definition of time. One dependent upon instrumentation, ...a physical system, .. i.e. a light clock. This means he made no statements about the ontological status of time. Such statements are metaphysical, and have no place in physics.

Time keeps everything from happening all at once.

It's as real as that at least....

Unless everything just naturally does not happen at once. If so, then wherefore time?

Photons do not experience gravitational pull in general. Therefore, photons are not subjected (ordinarily) to diminished speed.

By definition a photon must have energy. Since energy is mass and mass is gravitationally attractive and attracted, all photons feel gravitational pull.

Now, if you mean "not much" then I retract -- it's just not clear from the rest of what you wrote.

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with some of the skeptics commenting here. In order to look for time reversal, in physics or anywhere else, one has first to define it. And no matter how you define it, as far as I can tell, all you'll be doing is constructing a meta-time against which your "time reversal" is to be measured.

For example, to claim that a given particle is moving backward in time is the equivalent of saying that it starts out at some given time and then goes backward to an earlier time. But backward with respect to what? Well, clearly, with respect to a more fundamental meta-time which continues to go forward. So, at meta-time A, the particle is located in "the present" and then, at a LATER meta-time B, it is located in "the past." This is not time reversal but only the reversal of a process, measured within a continuous temporal field.

Photons do not experience gravitational pull in general. Therefore, photons are not subjected (ordinarily) to diminished speed.

So, uh, how do you explain gravitational lensing?

Einstein made use of an Operational Definition of time. One dependent upon instrumentation, ...a physical system, .. i.e. a light clock. This means he made no statements about the ontological status of time. Such statements are metaphysical, and have no place in physics.

Fundamental questions about the nature of time are not metaphysical, they are very real and testable. An example is the Wheeler's delayed choice experiment ( http://en.wikiped...periment ).

This kind of experiments tell us that a future event may affect a past event.The fact that we do not now how it works does not mean that the nature of time is a metaphysical question. It's similar to the entanglement "spooky" action at a distance, we simply don't know how it works, but we can test it. We can make experiments and predictions, and finding the true nature of time is of enormous importance as it is related with biggest mystery in physics,which is the origin of the universe

Photons do not experience gravitational pull in general. Therefore, photons are not subjected (ordinarily) to diminished speed.

By definition a photon must have energy. Since energy is mass and mass is gravitationally attractive and attracted, all photons feel gravitational pull.

Now, if you mean "not much" then I retract -- it's just not clear from the rest of what you wrote.

-loneislander

I stand corrected for my lack of specificity. A photon is affected by gravitational forces only if those forces are strong enough to have any effect on the photon. But most often, it doesn't. Gravitational lensing is one phenomenon that does...and we do use that to our advantage in astronomy.

However... https://docs.goog...lens.pdf gravitational lensing photon&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShemai0z89o7stZTlQj9VABY7XvHuCurDKbOjAB5rPZQSn9iOuoyyKlDZI-LjRWoIXXkBv6O58H8xgjcZqKRZOrDGDECBceAFPiP9fq1wyT6CKkt_bVW5UUTi0TpuFQb_ps1Ls4&sig=AHIEtbR4AoFgzPmzSZd214GENRJLY7PYfg

This kind of experiments tell us that a future event may affect a past event. The fact that we do not now how it works does not mean that the nature of time is a metaphysical question. It's similar to the entanglement "spooky" action at a distance, we simply don't know how it works, but we can test it. We can make experiments and predictions, and finding the true nature of time is of enormous importance as it is related with biggest mystery in physics, which is the origin of the universe

What this experiment (and entanglement) shows is that space, time, and causality, are not consistently applicable in qm, amd therefore not physical, but instead a means of conceptualizing that breaks down here. This is why qm is non-intuitive, and is what differentiates it from 'classical physics'.

The experiment you referenced actually supports my 2nd post in this thread.

To make progress, qm had to abandon such intuitive concepts.

Sorry...bad link
Try this:
http://d1002391.m...lens.pdf

The gravitational lensing is rather quantum mechanics phenomena conceptually. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. IMO the photons not only undergo gravitational field, but they even interact gravitationally each other, which manifest itself during distant gamma ray bursts, for example.

I stand corrected for my lack of specificity. A photon is affected by gravitational forces only if those forces are strong enough to have any effect on the photon. But most often, it doesn't.

Uh huh. And uh what makes you think that there is some threshold above which gravity affects a photon, and below which it does not? And Uh what specifically do you mean by 'most often'? Most often in a given day? Most often in the trajectory of a given photon? Most often when photons are sufficiently far from a mass that it has no effect on them? What? Are you talking about some percentage of photons in a given region of space during a given period of time?

Come on. These questions should be easy for any engineer to answer.

Poorly written article that forces the reader to wade through lots of extraneous material before finding the crux of the biscuit. And them it's unclear which form of B meson is more common. I had to think of it like this in order to understand it:

If chickens make eggs 6 times more often than eggs make chickens, wouldn't there eventually be all eggs and no chickens? No, because those eggs will make more chickens, which will make more eggs.

I should be a science writer.

Sorry another few questions

Time is not a TRUE dimension. Time slows down or speeds up ONLY according to how humans PERCEIVE the speeding or slowing

So how does this jibe with the fact that certain particles decay slower at relativistic speeds? Is not time completely objective in at least this respect? This does as you know involve engineering as particle detectors need to be engineered with this in consideration.

The problem of light interaction with gravity field is more complex, than it appears. Due the presence of quantum fluctuations of vacuum every light wave is formed with mixture of photons and gravitational waves. The photons are slower than the light, so they're attracted to gravity field, the gravitational waves are faster. This system is therefore instable, which manifest itself with photon sphere around black holes - whenever the light appears bellow it, it's swallowed with black hole, above it it's expelled instead. The separation of material and antimaterial portion of light is pronounced at the case of strong gravitational field, when not only photons and neutrinos, but heavier particles (electron-positrons pairs) are formed from light. Only the light of the wavelength of CMBR cannot form the photons, because such a photons would disappear in the CMBR noise. The light of such wavelength (or longer) is therefore able to escape from black holes freely as so-called Hawking radiation

The black hole evaporation can be interpreted as a violation of time symmetry too. Only the black hole of diameter corresponding the wavelength of CMBR is in thermodynamical equilibrium with CMBR fluctuations and fully reversible entropicaly. The larger black hole have a tendency to suck the photons from CMBR noise and to grow into account of their energy. The smaller black holes tend to evaporate instead with Hawking mechanism. At the case of rotating black holes the event horizon is thinner at poles than at the equatorial plane and both processes are accelerated and shifted toward higher wavelengths.

Our minds, given how it operates, always uses the concept [time] to order experience, so we think it is real, rather than a aspect of thought. - Noumenon

How the mind operates is not a given. At least not yet. The study of the mind needs to mature before committing to "the concept".

True, however, I don't think it is necessary to know that in detail, to conjecture time as a concept. It is clear enough that to know Reality is to conceptualize it, by definition. And that physics has not in fact discovered some physical 'time field', but instead, it is applied as a concept in relating events. In qm there is no time operator, it is used as a parameter in the classical sense.

Time is only conceptualized by the mind as a necessary tool for measuring in increments of equal proportions. The increments are also conceptualized by the mind, as it doesn't naturally occur in nature. Only the conscious mind produces incremental Time as a way for measuring intervals or variable quantity of events or distance divided into increments.
For the observer, the passage of Time is meaningless unless the effects of the passage is detectable BY the mind. Instruments manufactured for the purpose of detecting the passage of time must still be read by the conscious mind.
It is the conscious mind that CREATES Time as a tool. Everything else is just a series of events.

It is the conscious mind that CREATES Time as a tool. Everything else is just a series of events.

This is wrong.
If "time" is just a mind concept then also "speed" is, by definition of speed. But the fact is speed is much more than a simple succession of events:
- light speed is physically limited to a very specific value, c, that comes from measuring nature, it is not a human invention.
- According to Einstein, the speed of an object will change its mass energy, approaching infinite when speed approach c.
- The speed of an object will change the speed of events in relation to different observers.
As a result, "speed" has too many physical implications, it can not be understood as a human invented concept, and then its components space and time, have to be at least as real as speed is. Time is a physical dimension, not a concept. The "time" dimension is as real as space dimensions. And indeed "time" is at least as real as "events", as "event" can't be defined without time

The AWT is based on philosophy of asymmetric dualities. We are random fluctuation of random Universe, therefore we can see both inside both outside of us, but because we are small portion of larger Universe by definition, these perspectives are biased - we can see more things outside of us, than inside of us. IMO the notion of time is therefore both objective (the time like direction of gradient where we are living in), both subjective (the asymmetry of time and space resulted from fact, we traveled long path in the universe at place). The primitive organisms have only limited memory and perception of time, our consciousness is equipped with memory and ability to extrapolate the presence both into past both into future. Despite this subjective intrinsic aspect of time IMO its objective character prevails.

The elementary particles are behaving like bacteria in many aspects: they're following the density gradient of vacuum (the gravity field) systematically in similar way, like the bacteria are following the sugar concentration. But they're very "silly" in this behavior, because the bacteria have complex inner structure composed of additional density gradients, than just surface one. So that the bacteria can navigate trough complex density gradients of food more systematically and they exhibit a rudimentary memory during it. Well, we as a human are just exaggerated example of this intrinsic complexity: when you walking to the street to your job, you're essentially following the energy density gradient too (the job is the place, where you can get some money for your further living) but during this walk you can still reflect the need to buy the present for your girl, the tickets for your entertainment, etc. Your path along energy density gradients is therefore not so straightforward.

Our intelligent consciousness therefore represents many layers of density gradients which enable us to interact with density gradients of the environment in such a way, you can find an optimal way even at the case, when these external gradients overlap mutually into fractal landscape. IMO our brain is nothing else than the system of many 1D gradients (neural paths) which serve as a subconscious simulator and tester of multiple possible routes. But from macroscopic perspectives we are nothing more than the bacteria or particles, which are following the optimal path along energy density gradient by principle of least action. During it we are collecting the fluctuations of vacuum which are larger and more energetic than we are during it and we are loosing these less energetic ones. As the physical example of this cosmic selection may serve the dense clusters of photons escaping from gamma ray bursts.

Because the photons tend to scatter during their travel across wast cosmic space, they're forced to adopt social strategy for their survival. They do exhibit mutual gravitational attraction, during which the lightweight photons are revolving these heavier ones and they do propagate through space like single body. Such a photons do essentially the same thing, like people following their leaders. It enables the gamma ray burst to travel at long distance without dispersion. And not only this: when such cluster of photons will met with some lone photon traveling in its direction, it can incorporate it into itself, so that the whole cluster tends to grow along path of its travel. This is essentially the strategy of every successful social group, which collects its sympathizers from its environment. The cluster of photons therefore exhibits many aspects of gregarious behavior and the conceptual difference between physical and biological words is therefore smaller, than you may think.

Because all particles are composed of similar social hierarchy like the clusters of gamma ray photons (the heaviest particles are always forming the center of atom) - just at smaller scales, we can generalize the evolutionary principle to all massive particles and massive bodies: they're traveling trough hyperspace and gaining mass from tiny density fluctuations during it, when they're successful in collection of energy and losing it when they aren't. We as a people are just smartest particles, which can profit and lose from weakest energy gradients at shortest path (I mean relatively to size and mass of our bodies) - but as a whole we are all members of this large cosmic family.

"speed" [..] can not be understood as a human invented concept, and then its components space and time, have to be at least as real as speed is. Time is a physical dimension, not a concept. The "time" dimension is as real as space dimensions. And [.] "time" is at least as real as "events", as "event" can't be defined without time - javjav

It is not "invented" out of thin air without relevance to ordering physical observations.

Velocity is a mathematical derivative of space and time. It is not a physical thing existing of its own nature, but instead, a Question posed by mind in relating events. Reality does not ask such questions, we do.

In fact what relativity shows is that the concept of a absolute space and time fail to account for physical observations. A physical space and time, existing independently of observers, fails.

Instead, one must correct these concepts together by invoking a physical invariant, the proportionality constant relating mass and energy, c².

Time is only conceptualized by the mind as a necessary tool for measuring in increments of equal proportions.

-Except when they are unequal, as in logarithmic progressions or acceleration.

The increments are also conceptualized by the mind, as it doesn't naturally occur in nature

-Except in things like dripping water, beating hearts, revolving planets, or particle oscillations used in atomic clocks, as ANY engineer would be aware of. Try to say something you think is profound AGAIN you carking dimwit.

Instead, one must correct these concepts together by invoking a physical invariant, the proportionality constant relating mass and energy, c².

Also "Energy" itself requires a time dimension. The momentum of a particle (energy) requires a physical time dimension. A particle can not acquire kinetic energy from a concept.

Also "Energy" itself requires a time dimension. The momentum of a particle (energy) requires a physical time dimension. A particle can not acquire kinetic energy from a concept.

The four-momentum in relativity is an invariant quantity that expresses something physically Real, however, the components of that vector are not invariant quantities so depend upon the Operational Definition of a given observer.

As I said above, in physics, time has,...

"An operational definition, wherein one says that observing a certain number of repetitions of one or another standard cyclical event (such as the passage of a free-swinging pendulum) constitutes one standard unit such as the second, [..] The operational definition leaves aside the question whether there is something called time, that flows and that can be measured (apart from the counting activity just mentioned) - wiki "

There is no advantage to such ontological statements that time is a physical thing.

For those who still do not comprehend...

Time is like temperature. It is a statistical property of a bulk collection, and grows ever more meaningless as the bulk is reduced.

There is no advantage to such ontological statements that time is a physical thing.

The fact is that its is not clear what is "time", I fully recognize this point. But pretending that the question of "what is time" is a metaphysical question and not a key question of physics is the opposite to science thinking. There are so many evidences (which I am not going to repeat) that time has a real physical meaning, that ignoring them makes you a philosopher, not a scientist.

What the "real physical meaning" is supposed to be? The time is the physical quantity like any other. The mass doesn't exist in the same way, like the energy, temperature or time doesn't exist - they're all just a relative measures of some ponderable, measurable aspect of physical behaviour - no less, no more. Why no argues, that the mass or temperature doesn't exist? Why only the time quantity is the subject of all these never-ending semantic discussions?

.the fact is that its is not clear what is "time", I fully recognize this point..

And what the mass or temperature is? IMO the situation with intuitive understanding of these concepts is the very same here, like with time - but nobody is surprised with it.

Try to answer the following question: you can see the randomly, chaotically emerging and disappearing points on the TV screen after the night show (or the density fluctuations inside of gas or similar system). Does the time run inside of such system at all? If so, in which direction (forward/backward)? If we cannot recognize any trend or direction of motion, does the time runs there at all?

Time is like temperature. It is a statistical property of a bulk collection, and grows ever more meaningless as the bulk is reduced.

More to the point, it's a measure of the actions of that collection. The medium could be cooled to near absolute zero and have very little temperature, or rate of change. The reason there is no "time" at C is because there is no internal activity of light, or anything theoretically traveling at C, therefore no change and no time.

it's a measure of the actions of that collection

Does the time runs faster/slower for hot gas than for cold one?

There is no advantage to such ontological statements that time is a physical thing.

The fact is that its is not clear what is "time", I fully recognize this point. But pretending that the question of "what is time" is a metaphysical question and not a key question of physics is the opposite to science thinking. There are so many evidences (which I am not going to repeat) that time has a real physical meaning, that ignoring them makes you a philosopher, not a scientist.

Postulating things as real that are not themselves observable is what I consider metaphysics. It's just a matter of different perspectives and is not entirely clear in any case. You take a more Scientific Realist position while I take a more Scientific Positivist position.

Events do not unravel. Time moves only forward, in my perspective. Sure, depending on the timeframe, time may seem irrelevant, but not to me. Not to any of us living breathing human beings. And to whom else is the definition of 'time' important?

Try to answer the following question: you can see the randomly, chaotically emerging and disappearing points on the TV screen after the night show (or the density fluctuations inside of gas or similar system). Does the time run inside of such system at all? If so, in which direction (forward/backward)? If we cannot recognize any trend or direction of motion, does the time runs there at all?

Of course time runs forward. If an particle strikes another and causes some other event down the time line, can that ever be reversed?
If an atom of radiating substance decays to a less radiating substance, can it ever reverse the process and return to its former state?

Almost all approaches here in the pursuit of understanding and/or defining "time" orbit around dialectical positivism or empirical pragmatism. Is that really the ONLY approach? Ultimately all scientific orientation and consequent methodology towards modelling is subject to intuitive guidance... This also implies that metaphysics is inductive to the scientific approach. The denial of this is completely counterproductive. The understanding that all modelling is a psychodynamic process, whether supported instrumentally or theoretically, is also subject to bias by *beliefs* - take into account Rosenthal expectational effects; also Tiller's IIEDs - Intelligence Imprinted Electronic Devices, which can alter fundamental sensitivity of instrumentation by up to 100% - and capable of altering the gauge-space in labs. Approach the topic with your MIND to start with - then let science follow...

@noumenon: "Postulating things as real that are not themselves observable is what I consider metaphysics."

As long as time remains unobservable as a physical process, and only its secondary implications are observable (e.g. rates of change) then time by this definition must eternally remain metaphysical...

Let's see where's my shovel...

Almost all approaches here in the pursuit of understanding and/or defining "time" orbit around dialectical positivism or empirical pragmatism. Is that really the ONLY approach?

As scientists do not recognize philoisms as descriptive of the ways they do their work or useful to them in doing their work, they are not really approaches at all are they?

Ultimately all scientific orientation and consequent methodology towards modelling is subject to intuitive guidance...

Uh no. It was only when scientists learned how to ignore their 'intuition' and follow where the evidence led, that they began to make progress.

This also implies that metaphysics is inductive to the scientific approach.

The invocation of the philoword 'metaphysics' only implies an impending flood of useless bullshit. Let me grab my galoshes.

As long as time remains unobservable as a physical process, and only its secondary implications are observable (e.g. rates of change) then time by this definition must eternally remain metaphysical...

First off, scientists do not consider anything 'eternal'. Only philos and religionists would use this concept to wheedle their way into discussions where they don't belong. Your jumping to conclusions such as 'time is metaphysical' and that 'denying metaphysics is counterproductive' is decidedly unscientific.

And you STATING that time will never be 'observable' (despite what you SAID) is also unscientific. Can you recognize this?

Nou thinks that something or someplace which has absolutely no contact with, or influence on, the physical world whatsoever can somehow be real. This is nonsense. The notion only generates income for philos and magicians and voodoo priests.

Does the time runs faster/slower for hot gas than for cold one?

If your clock is based on the thermodynamic effects of that gas, yes. Just as if your clock is based on the cycles of a cesium atom and you change its elevation relative to the earth's gravity. Or if the speed of the rotation of the earth was to change, the length/speed/rate of change of the interval known as a day would change.
The problem is that since we perceive a sequence of events, rather than the larger process generating those events, we think of it as the present moving from past to future, rather than the events coming into being and being replaced, ie. going future to past. In its reductionism, physics only re-enforces this impression by treating time as a measure of duration, but duration doesn't transcend the moment, but is the state of the moment between the occurrence of events, so there is no physical vector external to the present.

First off, scientists do not consider anything 'eternal'. Only philos and religionists would use this concept to wheedle their way into discussions where they don't belong

Other than eternal Universe would violate the causality. Just the concept of creation is, what defines the religious approach in science. The materialists always believed in eternal matter.

Noumenon thinks that something or someplace which has absolutely no contact with, or influence on, the physical world whatsoever can somehow be real. This is nonsense. - GhostofOtto1923

Would you care to explain this? I can't even make sense of your misapprehension here.

Other than eternal Universe would violate the causality. Just the concept of creation is, what defines the religious approach in science. The materialists always believed in eternal matter.

They do not (yet) consider the universe eternal as there is evidence that it has a beginning and an end. The universe as we know it will no doubt end.

Would you care to explain this? I can't even make sense of your misapprehension here.

Lets see if I can paraphrase... 'No information can be gleaned from the metaphysical.' No info = no effect = no influence = no reason to fiddle with the idea that it is there because - why?

Hows that?

How does your comment relate to my posts here. That was the question. Specifically, where have stated that there is some entity, which I regard as Real, that does not have an influence on the physical world? I don't believe in mysticism of any sort, which seems what you are implying here.

This is kindly addressed to the Boast of Blotto's mum - mother that is, unless he was birthed by parthenogenesis which would also not surprise me... Please, consider giving your son an abundance of love and nurture, and ideally perhaps some psychotherapy - anyone who displays so much venom and toxic intentionality must be poisoning themselves and I do worry about this identity's spiritual health - even if he considers the latter purely "metaphysical." It would help to convince him (it?) that it has actual non-epiphenomenal consciousness, real that is, and not just a figment of its imagination and esoteric mysticism..

How does your comment relate to my posts here. That was the question. Specifically, where have stated that there is some entity, which I regard as Real, that does not have an influence on the physical world? I don't believe in mysticism of any sort, which seems what you are implying here.

now now dont be coy. You said

Postulating things as real that are not themselves observable is what I consider metaphysics.

-and I know, without scrounging through prior posts, that you DO believe that the metaphysical cannot produce any info. Right?

anyone who displays so much venom and toxic intentionality must be poisoning themselves and I do worry about this identity's spiritual health

Sorry the spiritual does not exist either.

it has actual non-epiphenomenal consciousness, real that is

Come on nou dont you think this guy wears silk pajamas to prayer meetings?

ok lets do a little research...

"Epiphenomenalism is the theory in philosophy of mind"

-Ok. We could stop right there. But lets continue on for shits and giggles...

"...that mental phenomena are caused by physical processes in the brain or that both are effects of a common cause, as opposed to mental phenomena driving the physical mechanics of the brain."

-...Lets see. Mental phenomena caused by, as opposed to DRIVING, physical MECHANICS of the brain. Well I can see this was written by some philo. As if he can TALK his way past all the hard work needed to actually understand how the brain works. In a dark cave I suppose. With a mirror and an E-meter.

"Some philosophers, such as Dennett, reject... epiphenomenalism ..."

-Of course he has. Dennett has just about talked himself out of philosophy entirely. He has rejected the entire philo lexicon, considering it worse than useless. And as philo is nothing BUT words, what is left?

Your epi-ism word is not a scientific word ie a hoax.

How does your comment relate to my posts here. That was the question. Specifically, where have stated that there is some entity, which I regard as Real, that does not have an influence on the physical world? I don't believe in mysticism of any sort, which seems what you are implying here. - Noumenon

now now dont be coy. You said - GhostOtto

Postulating things as real that are not themselves observable is what I consider metaphysics. - Noumenon

-and I know, without scrounging through prior posts, that you DO believe that the metaphysical cannot produce any info. Right? GhostOtto

How does what you quoted above cause you to conclude (?),...

Noumenon thinks that something or someplace which has absolutely no contact with, or influence on, the physical world whatsoever can somehow be real.

In fact what you quoted should have told you the opposite.

How does your comment relate to my posts here. That was the question. Specifically, where have stated that there is some entity, which I regard as Real, that does not have an influence on the physical world? I don't believe in mysticism of any sort, which seems what you are implying here. - Noumenon

now now dont be coy. You said - GhostOtto

Postulating things as real that are not themselves observable blah

How does what you quoted above cause you to conclude (?),...

Noumenon thinks that something or someplace which has absolutely no contact with, or influence on, the physical world whatsoever can somehow be real.

In fact what you quoted should have told you the opposite.

Since you dont specifically contradict what I say and make no attempt to clarify what it is you DO believe, I see no need to respond to your query.

Since you dont specifically contradict what I say and make no attempt to clarify what it is you DO believe, I see no need to respond to your query. - GhostOtto

If you need clarification of what I posted in this thread, then ask a question,.. rather than misrepresenting 'what I think'.

I specifically contradicted your misinterpretation several times in this thread prior to you posting it, ,....

Noumenon thinks that something [..] which has absolutely no [..] influence on, the physical world whatsoever can somehow be real. - GhostOtto

contradicted by,...

...[Einstein] made no statements about the ontological status of time. Such statements are metaphysical, and have no place in physics. - Noumenon

There is no advantage to such ontological [metaphysical] statements that time is a physical thing.- Noumenon

Postulating things as real that are not themselves observable is what I consider metaphysics.- Noumenon

They do not (yet) consider the universe eternal as there is evidence that it has a beginning and an end. The universe as we know it will no doubt end

Something to consider is whether the concepts of beginning and end are premised on the concept of time in the first place. When the entire universe is viewed as a singular entity, then it goes from beginning to end, but this idea keeps developing holes; Singularity, inflation, dark energy and matter, etc. Something is coming from somewhere and expanding into another unknown. Claiming the universe is hermetic doesn't 'hold water.' Any entity exists in a larger context and any bounds simply place it as another entity in a larger context. So while the process, on whatever scale, is generating and degenerating structure, the concept of beginning and end would only seem to apply to these constituent entities, not the process.

It isn't time that is moving forward. What we are perceiving is "now". The crest of the wave of creation. The life dancing on the foam of a wave. "Time" does not exist. Interval exists as a form a measurement. There has never been any instance in your life that was not "now". It is all "now". The 'future' is creation as now fills the void...well. It is a pleasure to think about at any rate. Y'all have a blast!