The Real Problem of Time in Physics

[Pentcho Valev]

The conference "Time in Cosmology", June 27-30, 2016, organized by the Perimeter Institute, has just ended - see videos here:

https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/video-library

My impression is that participants were all insane and didn't know what they were talking about. However I am antirelativist so my opinion about Einsteinians should not be taken seriously. Still I am going to extract the REAL problem of time in physics, a problem which was not even hinted at at the conference, from the words of a famous Einsteinian:

http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")."

If a sentient being CAN jump, within a minute of his experienced time, arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, then time is Einsteinian, relative, emergent.

If a sentient being CANNOT jump, within a minute of his experienced time, arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, then time is Newtonian, absolute, fundamental.

Note that the sentient being CANNOT jump arbitrarily far in the future if Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false. If the postulate is true, the sentient being again CANNOT jump arbitrarily far in the future (the deduction of time travel from Einstein's 1905 postulates is invalid).

Pentcho Valev

[mapo...@gmail.com]

I agree. Relativity is a hopelessly wrong theory. Relativists have time completely wrong. Time cannot change by definition and simple logic. A time dimension would make motion impossible. This is the reason that Einstein's spacetime is a block universe in which nothing happens. Why? It's because motion in time is self-referential. Motion in time implies a velocity in time which would have to be given as v = dt/dt, which is nonsense.

So any talk of time travel in any direction is the ultimate in crackpottery. And no, we are not moving toward the future at 1 sec per sec. There is only the present.

Since there is no time dimension, nature cannot calculate durations. All interactions have the exact same durations and there is only one speed in the universe, the speed of light. Nothing moves faster or slower. A particle moves by making quantum jumps at the speed of light interspersed with rest periods. The duration of a rest period is equal to that of a jump. If a particle appears to move at half the speed of light, its motion actually consists of an equal number of jumps and rest periods. At the speed of light, it is all jumps and no rest periods. At ordinary speeds, a moving particle is at rest almost all the time with just a few jumps sprinkled in.

We can only conclude that change in the universe is governed by a single, universal and absolute "clock" tick.

[Pentcho Valev]

Spacetime is an "immediate consequence" of Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate:

http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/2015/04/professor-baumgarte-describes-100-years-of-gravity/
"Baumgarte began by discussing special relativity, which Einstein developed, 10 years earlier, in 1905, while he was employed as a patent officer in Bern, Switzerland. Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."

So if the "immediate consequence" is nonexistent and should be "retired", then the underlying premise, Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false, isn't it, Einsteinians?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

Pentcho Valev

[reber g=emc^2]

On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 4:02:16 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Gravity's force controls the tick of time. Many way to create this force,or stop the flow of time with acceleration that reaches c Trebert

[Pentcho Valev]

The "real problem of time in physics" is aftermath of an invalid deduction performed by Einstein in 1905. Einstein's postulates entail SYMMETRICAL time dilation - either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system. Instead of honestly deriving this in 1905, Einstein derived, fraudulently and invalidly of course, ASYMMETRICAL time dilation - in his 1905 article the moving clock is slow and lags behind the stationary one which is, accordingly, fast (this means that the moving clock and its owner travel into the future - if their speed is great enough, they can jump, within a minute of their experienced time, millions of years ahead):

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."

So even if Einstein's 1905 postulates were true (actually the second one is false), physics would still be dead by now, corrupted by the metastases of the asymmetrical time dilation (moving clocks run slower than stationary ones) invalidly deduced by Einstein in 1905.

Pentcho Valev

[john]

I love the smell of delusional physics
crumbling in the morning

[Tim BandTech.com]

On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 6:50:28 PM UTC-4, reber g=emc^2 wrote:

> Gravity's force controls the tick of time. Many way to create this force,or stop the flow of time with acceleration that reaches c Trebert

This is consistent with Einstein, and rather than dismiss his and Minkowski's construction outright we have to be willing to use their work as a useful portion of the past works and engage in a progression which is what the current state of science is.

I agree that time is a sore point, and when you toss gravity into the mix wouldn't you think that the Higg's boson discovery would causate a collapse of theory? No, instead it seems to be merely another peg in the accumulation and as such cannot be such a momentous gain as the scientists believe. The truly great discoveries will condense the body of knowledge. Maybe this interpretation is forthcoming, but I don't think so. The standard model does not actually lead to a derived construction of atomic structures as far as I can tell. This area is still a curve fitter's paradise of square laws and whacky discrete properties.

When space is going to become bent then isn't it time to take the fundamental math quite a bit more carefully? The real value may be partially to blame for our conundrum. Time's unidirectional quality is misrepresented by a bidirectional structure. Generalization of sign allows the remedy, and that remedy has extensions which indicate support for emergent spacetime through the polysign number.

Astronomers claim that space is isotropic but can they claim that spacetime is isotropic? Let's face it, even space has structure. As soon as you enter the 'on average' stipulation into the verbiage of the isotropic claim then you have thrown away the claim, for anything is isotropic on average. Everyone seems to buy it. You can put the foul odor right under their noses and they will go on mimicing the greats and the best of best who are in fact the greatest mimics. Harsh, yes, but there is more than just a sliver of truth about academia and the human form. As science has divorced itself from philosophy it has engaged in a bifurcation that fails the unification paradigm. The bifurcation goes chaotic and the splits and splinters are many. Well this is how we take apart the tree for now. Still, some will dig for the roots.

So direct contradictions can go undetected by humans practicing science. Above is a short proof. If it occurs once or twice can it occur more times? Is it true that humans in fact have a very difficult time determining the truth? Yes, this is an accurate statement, and nobody can write themselves a ticket out of this situation, other than some orb that we may create some day soon. Skepticism has been relaxed as the tribes inhabit various parts of the tree.

A measure of how much complexity a human can handle is not as fine a trait as academia would have it, and the graded digestion of dubious information as a formal program is damaging. The attempt at reducing that complexity and finding a simple solution, even a partial one, is a finer pursuit.

It sounds pessimistic, but at the heart of this message is a positive kernel: the next generation has cause to treat the problems as open to future superior constructions. They can engage in the progression and need not take the accumulation as a necessary body to digest completely, for that is fraudulent programming. New theories will generate some amount of contradictory information with past theory. The measure is a matter of physical correspondence, and even partial correspondence is worthy. The system clearly is open and is not nearly as seriously correct as scientists claim. I reject the biblical interpretation of science as fact; that the book contains the facts.

I'm playing with spin a little bit as a fundamental constructor. It seems possible that gravity could be interpreted as a cohering of spins via their interaction. This will require a rotational space paradigm, and this is possible on a finite sized universe. Imposing a unit shell on the universe allows an ordinary 3D sense on a 4D shell. Bodies whose motions are coherent and adjacent are obviously in the same spin state. Thermodynamics and gravity are both concepts nearby to here. Even according to modern theory space is mostly empty. Well here in this unit shell model we are looking at rather a lot of empty space. This framework is quite flexible and some obvious first extensions are to allow the shell to flex whereby a black hole may lead back to the origin, but that is about the only way to go back to the origin. Surface tension and the bubble/brane concept can play out in higher dimension even than the three. Spin and rotation are tightly coupled concepts to polysign numbers which already can yield the spacetime model. Interestingly it is the arithmetic product which yields this claim, and that product is rotationally behaved. So what is left is to connect the dots and preferably yield some electromagnetics in the process, but gravity and thermodynamics would be plenty good for a start. Coherent spin in adjacent structures could carry quite some dynamics. Treating it as an arithmetic basis implies forgoing the ordinary geometrical space and instead yielding geometrical space out of this arithmetic.

[Pentcho Valev]

Einstein's 1905 postulates entail SYMMETRICAL time dilation, but then how did Einstein manage to convince the world that asymmetrical effects occur - e.g. the moving clock lags behind the stationary one and the traveling twin remains younger than his stationary brother? In 1918 Einstein declared that, although time dilation is symmetrical and therefore the clock paradox cannot be solved by special relativity, it is his general relativity that provides the solution:

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm
Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogenous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. [...] According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4."

The fraud is obvious - if the calculation showing that the moving clock lags behind the stationary one comes from general relativity, how did Einstein obtain the lagging-behind in 1905? Herbert Dingle asked essentially the same question in 1972 but it was too late - the gullible world had already been fatally brainwashed:

http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf
Herbert Dingle, SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, p.27: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates.....How is the slower-working clock distinguished? The supposition that the theory merely requires each clock to APPEAR to work more slowly from the point of view of the other is ruled out not only by its many applications and by the fact that the theory would then be useless in practice, but also by Einstein's own examples, of which it is sufficient to cite the one best known and most often claimed to have been indirectly established by experiment, viz. 'Thence' [i.e. from the theory he had just expounded, which takes no account of possible effects of acceleration, gravitation, or any difference at all between the clocks except their state of uniform motion] 'we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.' Applied to this example, the question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude FROM HIS THEORY that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?"

Nowadays the scientific community does not need Einstein's 1918 calculation - just tell them "enough strangeness" and they immediately understand that Einstein was absolutely right:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox..."

Pentcho Valev