Time itself has a biased flow direction.

[RealityCheck]

Hi everyone.

I long ago made the distinction, and have posted about it elsewhere (can't remember where), between the inter-related but absolutely different concepts/contexts of Duration and Time.

In the interests of less cross-purpose misunderstandings which usually leave a discussion of 'time' up in the air with frustration all round, I again post the following timely (pun intended) reminder:

Duration is an 'independent/absolute abstract scalar' concept/context (as in "eternity", "forever", "long time", "short time", "yesterday", "today", "tomorrow", "never", "ever" and such like notions) where no natural physical 'process' may necessarily be directly evident/involved, because it appears in human 'world construct' as a purely 'philosophical' perspective merely requiring intellect and memory to encompass that philosophical perspective, and nothing more; whereas....

Time is a natural physics 'derived/relative abstract scalar/vector' concept/context (as in cumulative 'scalar' counts of 'standard seconds' etc; and as in comparative 'vector' differential 'rates' associated by a physical process which can be 'reversible' and/or vary according to environmental factors affecting the process direction and rate . For example, when some allude to "the arrow of time", they are not speaking strictly about time, but a bout a process which proceeds one way or the other in interactive terms which make 'input' and 'output' and intervening process distinctions/comparisons between same process at different occasions/environments and/or different processes at same occasion/environment and/or a mixture of these two 'observational constructs'. In this concept/context, 'time' is effectively an abstract ANALYTICAL CONVENIENCE associated with the observational construct of real events/processes whose 'rates' and 'duration' are intermingled by the observer/analysis construct into a DERIVED DIMENSION not itself existing except as a modeling/analysis tool of comparison/extrapolation ALONG A GRAPH 'axis' where 'time/rate' values are recorded and related to the 'other axis' values (whatever they may be, eg, temperature, position, density etc etc, depending on what the experiment/observational construct is and what the analysis construct/model requires for specific processes/events under study).

So, I suggest before any more discussion, which perforce of the above may be cross-purpose and frustrating to all concerned, the above distinction should be discussed and understood in a consistent/common way between the interlocutors who wish to discuss 'time' per se as 'derived' dimension, as cumulative time counts, as comparative time rates etc, and 'duration' per se as the 'timeLESS' philosophical perspective, as cumulative duration, as duration in the absence of 'everything' (and/or its obverse) duration in the presence of 'nothingness' etc etc. concepts/contexts. Being careful to preface/clarify what concept you are actually using and in which context and why.

In a nutshell....

Duration/s: is an abstract philosophical scalar concept only.

Time/timerates: are abstract physical scalar/vector concept/s....BUT only as a 'derivative' or relative dimension/measure/concept based on processes and observations and analysis constructs etc involved in comparisons/extrapolations via mathematical modeling etc (which in the case of brain-mind processes/capabilities occurs as part of the pattern recognition, movement/position/rate sensing/comparing etc which is 'simulated' within the neural complex and 'understood/applied' according to programming/experience etc logics and interactions within its 'world construct' representation of what is 'happening' in the outer world reality).

Anyhow, I trust this little reminder of all the subtleties inherent in these subjects/concepts may in future at least give everyone pause to consider well before blithely using these terms without qualification/contextual meanings made clear from the outset, else the usual cross-purpose chaos will inevitably ensue! :argue:

Good luck...and enjoy the conversation!

RealityCheck.

 

[Billy T]

to realityCheck

I may just be tired, but I have no idea what your point was (or even what you are saying) in post 121, but at some points you seem to be speaking of how the brain perceives motion and speed. It does not do it like a physicist would (compute speed from displacement rate). This is because both location and speed of movement are directly sensed in entirely different parts of the brain.

I.e.we have direct velocity detectors - sets of nerves tuned to detect or respond to every speed and every different direction (i.e. all possible velocities humans naturally evolved with in the "V5" region of the brain). If you stare at one speed (or velocity pattern) for a minute or so, those detectors become tired or "fatigued" and then don´t balance out the neural activity of those set up for the opposite velocity.(Most nerves fire at some rate all the time and object is perceived as stationary due to the opposite sets firing at equal rates.) I.e. you can look at a stationary object and it seems to move in the opposite direction than the pattern you stared at.

Experience a version of this here: http://www.michaelbach.de/ot//mot_adapt/index.html

This effect was first noticed (and recorded) by the ancient Greeks by long staring at water falls and is still called the waterfall effect. Years ago, I wrote a simple program in Basic to move horizontal bars up or down my computer screen with lots of adjustable parameters in it. Then you don´t need to keep fixation on the small X of the link´s illustration. My water fall version was much more powerful than this circular version. I had to put my finger on a bar of the screen to be sure it was not moving as my nerves told me it was.

 

[prometheus]

This thread has been circling the drain for long enough. Off to alt theories with you!

 

[przyk]

It isn't emotional, it's rational. Once you understand time you'll come to appreciate that.

No, it's emotional. You have a pet belief about time and you see professional physicists saying different things and you are getting outraged by it out of all proportion.

The reality is that a subject like "the true nature of time" is something that would normally be considered metaphysics to a scientist. It is not considered a very important subject because it is not the sort of thing we can easily get a firm hold on or characterise in a quantitative manner. There is no experiment we can perform to confirm your pet belief, even in principle. From that perspective, it simply isn't very important. Where physicists talk about the nature of time, it tends to be a bit of philosophy on the side, and not their main line of work.

Take George Ellis's essay for example, since you pointed that out. It is clearly an opinion piece. He wrote it for a competition organised by an online community built around a forum. It is not a serious scientific paper that got into a regular peer reviewed journal. Look at his essay in the context of his ArXiv record or his personal homepage. Talk about "flow of time" is not how this guy is making his career.

Try reading Time Explained sometime.

I did, six years ago when you posted it here, and I wasn't impressed. Nor was anyone else with any sort of background in physics. In our judgement you did not do a very good job of supporting your position and failed to respond adequately to the criticism you received. Because of that, we object to you citing your personal view of time as if you had established it as irrefutable fact.

Huge problems for physics. Progress has been poor, funding is getting cut. Look at Fermilab. Look how long the Copenhagen interpretation has held sway, along with "quantum physics surpasseth all human understanding".

All because of some physicists using expressions like "flow of time". Really? Because the way physics gets done, it really shouldn't matter one way or the other for the reason I already explained to you: physicists care about quantifiable behaviour and don't share this singular obsession of yours about the words people use.

Snap out of that conviction przyk. Be rational. You can see that gap, that space, that distance between your hands, and when you waggle them you can see that motion. Learn to see what's there. You can see space and motion, but you can't see time.

You are arguing from a premise that you have never justified: that things really work simply the way they look to you.

It's the other way round. Change occurs.

And that propensity for change to occur in the first place is exactly what I call "time".

It doesn't put a spanner in the works at all. I'm the relativity+ guy remember?

Proclaiming yourself the "relativity+ guy" does not mean you understand relativity.

No it doesn't. You're clutching at straws trying to cling to a conviction.

No, I referenced a very specific implication of relativity that is problematic for your idea, and you do not appear to have understood it. let alone responded to it in any meaningful way. The simple fact is that there is no absolute distinction between space and time in relativity: the Lorentz transformation is a sort of "rotation like" transformation that mixes up the "space" and "time" parts of spacetime, and it is a symmetry in physics. If you want to ignore the implications of that, then I can't stop you. But either way don't tell me I'm the one clutching at straws here. Relativity is not a straw.

 

[przyk]

But logic should stand on its own regardless of the source.

That's the point: the arguments you and others present are all I have to judge you based on.

More than once I'm debating you after it's been established that you and I agree on the subject at hand.

Like where?

 

[przyk]

Billy: stick to your guns. I do declare that pryzk is trying a bit of bamboozling here. Watch out for it. Statements like "The standard convention when dealing with electromagnetism in a medium is to define two new fields" are misleading.

Bamboozling? It's basic electromagnetism taught to roughly second year undergraduate physics and engineering students. It should be a refresher for Billy T.

In Space and Time Minkowski said "Then in the description of the field produced by the electron we see that the separation of the field into electric and magnetic force...". It's one field and two forces resulting in linear and/or rotational motion. It isn't two fields. Minkowski is of course credited with uniting space and time into spacetime. Sadly unlike Einstein he didn't live long enough to understand that space and motion offers a better match to the world we see around us.

That is a) vacuous and I've been over much of it with you before, and b) has absolutely nothing to do with what I was explaining to Billy T. You haven't even understood the point I was making or the physics I was referring to.

 

[RealityCheck]

to realityCheck

I may just be tired, but I have no idea what your point was (or even what you are saying) in post 121, but at some points you seem to be speaking of how the brain perceives motion and speed. It does not do it like a physicist would (compute speed from displacement rate). This is because both location and speed of movement are directly sensed in entirely different parts of the brain.

I.e.we have direct velocity detectors - sets of nerves tuned to detect or respond to every speed and every different direction (i.e. all possible velocities humans naturally evolved with in the "V5" region of the brain). If you stare at one speed (or velocity pattern) for a minute or so, those detectors become tired or "fatigued" and then don´t balance out the neural activity of those set up for the opposite velocity.(Most nerves fire at some rate all the time and object is perceived as stationary due to the opposite sets firing at equal rates.) I.e. you can look at a stationary object and it seems to move in the opposite direction than the pattern you stared at.

Experience a version of this here: http://www.michaelbach.de/ot//mot_adapt/index.html

This effect was first noticed (and recorded) by the ancient Greeks by long staring at water falls and is still called the waterfall effect. Years ago, I wrote a simple program in Basic to move horizontal bars up or down my computer screen with lots of adjustable parameters in it. Then you don´t need to keep fixation on the small X of the link´s illustration. My water fall version was much more powerful than this circular version. I had to put my finger on a bar of the screen to be sure it was not moving as my nerves told me it was.

Hi Billy T.

Precisely why I posted all that. If nothing else it should be obvious that there are many subtleties and takes on the topic of time/duration etc as I briefly outlined. That alone is sufficient to urge all discoursers in this subject to read/think/specify carefully what time/duration concepts/contexts you are discussing/opining on before getting all worked up about a possible misunderstanding at cross-purposes.

And I totally agree with all that you posted. That is why I made the point that our mathematical constructs and our brain-mind processes/constructs treat the incoming evidence/thoughts/perspectives in different ways (the mind-brain analysis treats it all in a survival mode simulation/extrapolation context; while our mathematical constructs/analyses treat it as logical/conceptual context). Also, as you point out, there are limitations to our brain mind 'time' sense/environment because of the neuro-chemistry etc factors which do not apply to the mathematical analysis/interpretations which our brain-mind THEN uses to understand duration/time/rates/process etc etc by combining the subjective/brain 'information/patterns' with the objective information/patterns etc.


I'm sorry I haven't more time to discuss this at present because I have to go to Sydney for a few days. Anyhow, I just wanted to remind everyone to take a second look at the stance they are presenting just in case it's at cross-purposes with the stance their interlocutors are taking, for the subtle reasons/differences I already pointed out.

See you all in a few days! Cheers!

 

[JackFlashdrive]

I'm wondering why time is moving so slowly today, taking a break from work to surf the web and stimulate my mind a bit. The passage of time is also a factor of the mind and it's perception. tick tick tick...

 

[Farsight]

pryzk:Here's your censorship. All too typical on this forum I'm afraid. You get a good conversation going, and some string-theory "moderator" slings it in the trashcan.

This thread has been circling the drain for long enough. Off to alt theories with you!

Are you in the UK and did you see Is time an illusion? on the Discovery Channel last night? There were a few good bits, but there was an awful lot of twaddle. I thought the worst was from Sean Carroll myself with the "evil twin" universe. I have to say I think that sort of thing is bad for physics.

 

[prometheus]

If I had wanted to "censor" this discussion, why would I not have simply locked the thread? I find it very funny that anti mainstream physics quacks like yourself cry censorship and try to claim people that actually do science for a living are running scared from you at the slightest provocation. The reality is that we find you entertaining, in a visit to bedlam way.

 

[prometheus]

How are the book sales going btw?

 

[Farsight]

If I had wanted to "censor" this discussion, why would I not have simply locked the thread? I find it very funny that anti mainstream physics quacks like yourself cry censorship and try to claim people that actually do science for a living are running scared from you at the slightest provocation. The reality is that we find you entertaining, in a visit to bedlam way.

Wow, what a great contribution, prometheus. You don't talk about time, you chuck the thread into the trashcan and throw out insults.

How are the book sales going btw?

The book's no longer on sale. But don't worry, once I've finished working on the house I'll do a new updated version which includes everything I've learned since 2009.

No, it's emotional. You have a pet belief about time and you see professional physicists saying different things and you are getting outraged by it out of all proportion.

I'm not getting outraged, przyk, or emotional. Remember it was you who launched into a mega-post because of a one-liner from me. So spare me comments like "pet belief". Your dismissal of the subject of time as mere philosophy is not good. Nor is your loyalty to people peddling woo, or your fiction re previous criticism.

No, I referenced a very specific implication of relativity that is problematic for your idea, and you do not appear to have understood it. let alone responded to it in any meaningful way. The simple fact is that there is no absolute distinction between space and time in relativity: the Lorentz transformation is a sort of "rotation like" transformation that mixes up the "space" and "time" parts of spacetime, and it is a symmetry in physics. If you want to ignore the implications of that, then I can't stop you. But either way don't tell me I'm the one clutching at straws here. Relativity is not a straw.

It isn't problematic, I understand it. We measure both distance and time using the motion of light. The Lorentz transformation isn't a problem either. Relativity is no straw, please don't try to suggest that I'm attacking relativity, I've already referred to A World Without Time: the forgotten legacy of Godel and Einstein. I'm with Einstein on this.

 

[prometheus]

Wow, what a great contribution, prometheus. You don't talk about time, you chuck the thread into the trashcan and throw out insults.

And you have completely ignored what I wrote. You only have one setting don't you? - Ignoring the facts and claims of conspiracy.

The book's no longer on sale. But don't worry, once I've finished working on the house I'll do a new updated version which includes everything I've learned since 2009.

Umm... Congratulations?

 

[przyk]

pryzk:Here's your censorship. All too typical on this forum I'm afraid. You get a good conversation going, and some string-theory "moderator" slings it in the trashcan.

Censorship? Your thread is still here and open, isn't it? It's just been moved to a different subforum reflecting what a moderator thinks of it. Even your original collection of "relativity+" threads is still here, safely documented, even if it's in the pseudoscience forum.

Are you in the UK and did you see Is time an illusion? on the Discovery Channel last night?

No, I don't live in the UK, and I generally don't get my physics from documentaries anyway. I have much better sources for that.

When watching documentaries and the like, keep in mind that they are essentially a form of entertainment. They are what they are because, apparently, that is what the viewing public is willing to tune in to. In practice I find there is actually very little overlap in what interests physicists and what interests laymen, so you'll get a hopelessly distorted impression of physics if you form it based on what you see in pop science.

 

[OnlyMe]

When watching documentaries and the like, keep in mind that they are essentially a form of entertainment. They are what they are because, apparently, that is what the viewing public is willing to tune in to. In practice I find there is actually very little overlap in what interests physicists and what interests laymen, so you'll get a hopelessly distorted impression of physics if you form it based on what you see in pop science.

Is seems to me from the few documentaries I have watched here in the US, that those sometimes notable physicists who participate have the same interests, as the lay public.., which is money and seems to often trump real science.

Your comparring documentaries with entertainment is right on! Even when scientists participate in providing the entertainment.

 

[przyk]

I'm not getting outraged, przyk, or emotional. Remember it was you who launched into a mega-post because of a one-liner from me. So spare me comments like "pet belief".

I launched into a "mega post" in response to your past posting history here and the fact you are apparently still trying to inject that into discussions here.

When you post something, and you fail to support it, it is intellectually dishonest to bring it up again months later as if that had never happened. That is something I see all too frequently with you.

Your dismissal of the subject of time as mere philosophy is not good.

What? It's perfectly accurate. It's you who has never understood basic founding principles of science like testability and falsifiability. Physics is a quantitative, exact science and as long as you ignore that you are not doing physics. You don't get to redefine what physics is and what should be considered important just because you want to think what you have to say is important.

It isn't problematic, I understand it.

You are demonstrating that you do not understand it.

We measure both distance and time using the motion of light.

I've been over this with you before too. Relativity is not a theory about everything being light or waves. Not all wave equations are Lorentz symmetric, and not all possible Lorentz symmetric models are about waves. Electromagnetism is not the only Lorentz covariant theory we have in modern physics. The weak and QCD sectors of the Standard Model are Lorentz covariant for example. Historically, Newtonian mechanics was quickly modified to make it Lorentz covariant. General relativity is also locally Lorentz covariant and has little specifically to do with light.

The Lorentz transformation isn't a problem either.

It is, for exactly the reason I explained and you keep ignoring: it mixes up space and time, and the fact that it is a symmetry of physics means that there is no measurable absolute distinction between space and time.

Relativity is no straw, please don't try to suggest that I'm attacking relativity

I am not suggesting that you are attacking relativity. I am saying that you are ignoring what relativity is and trying to retroactively redefine it as something it isn't. You are not the only person who can read Einstein. I can also read stuff by Einstein and Minkowski, and in fact am better equipped to do it because I am far more familiar with the mathematical explanations they use. I also have a good overview of how relativity has shaped modern physics and how it is incorporated into modern mainstream theories. So if different ideas were all competing for ownership of the name "relativity", I am in a position to know exactly which one is the one actually supported by and incorporated into modern physics. And I can assure you, the "theory of relativity" that is actually well supported is the same theory that the physics community calls "relativity" and not what you are calling "relativity".

 

[Captain Kremmen]

So there was no start of a clock and yet there is 13.7 billion years that elapsed?

Yes, all the clock does is provide a standard by which other changes can be measured.
There does not need to be a clock, or a person, or any thinking being.
The possibility of change is constant and ongoing.

 

[Farsight]

...When you post something, and you fail to support it, it is intellectually dishonest ...

You're kidding yourself przyk, but you aren't kidding anybody else. I support what I post. Go find a mechanical clock and take the back off it, and look at what you see. Time flowing? Nope. Cogs moving? Yep. Repeat with a quartz clock and you see a crystal oscillating. Et cetera. Clocks clock up some regular cyclical motion, and that's it. The hard scientific evidence of this and the Shapiro delay and the GPS clock adjustment is my support, and you've got nothing to counter it. So please, spare us the bluster. Don't try to bamboozle the guys with off-topic highbrow derails, you'll only get caught out by things like Minkowski's one field and two forces. And puhlease, don't try to deftly dismiss Einstein re A World Without Time: the forgotten legacy of Godel and Einstein. It won't wash, the guys see through it.

Captain/Daddy: think in terms of 13.7 billion light-years worth of change. Before that there was no change. So there wasn't any time either.

 

[przyk]

You're kidding yourself przyk, but you aren't kidding anybody else.

Huh? I've got a pretty good grasp of modern physics and have convinced other physicists of this enough that I've been accepted as a doctoral student. You are the one having to make excuses for why we should take you seriously despite the fact you have no career or publication record in physics (a sign the physics community does not take you seriously) and you demonstrably lack any detailed understanding of physics (e.g. instead of bothering to learn any physics on a mathematical level, you need to keep making excuses for yourself for why you shouldn't need to).

I support what I post. Go find a mechanical clock and take the back off it, and look at what you see. Time flowing? Nope. Cogs moving? Yep. Repeat with a quartz clock and you see a crystal oscillating. Et cetera. Clocks clock up some regular cyclical motion, and that's it. The hard scientific evidence of this and the Shapiro delay and the GPS clock adjustment is my support, and you've got nothing to counter it.

There is a critical flaw in your style of argument that you keep making over and over again: in order to claim that something you observe proves a certain conclusion, you have to establish that it is the only possible conclusion that is consistent with what you observe. You never do that. Time and time again we see you make an argument that basically boils down to "I see this and I choose to interpret it this way", but you never give any reason we should agree with your conclusion and, worse, you very often ignore problems with your conclusions that others point out just like you have done yet again in this thread. To the extent I think about time a certain way, for example, none of the observations you refer to are actually inconsistent with it.

In general, almost everything we observe, including the handful of experimental observations you like to bring up over and over again, is already consistent with mainstream physics just the way it is.

So please, spare us the bluster. Don't try to bamboozle the guys with off-topic highbrow derails, you'll only get caught out by things like Minkowski's one field and two forces. And puhlease, don't try to deftly dismiss Einstein re A World Without Time: the forgotten legacy of Godel and Einstein. It won't wash, the guys see through it.

Like I've said before, I don't get my physics from pop science, and I certainly don't need to complete Farsight's reading list to understand physics. Physics is about what ideas can account for what we observe on a quantitative level. It is not about what famous people might have said.

 

[RealityCheck]

Huh? I've got a pretty good grasp of modern physics and have convinced other physicists of this enough that I've been accepted as a doctoral student.

Hi guys.

I won't comment on the pros and cons of your side discussion, but I cannot go past that 'rationale' without an observation about something in it which stuck out like a sore thumb as 'circuitous-reasoning' and/or 'self-selecting-conclusion' wise.

przyk, can you not see that if you just 'parroted' the understandings which 'other physicists' wanted to hear because they are convinced they have the 'right' take on things too, then naturally you 'pass their test' for acceptance. That is the Achille's Heel with the 'peer review' system when one 'cadre' has THE SAY on what is the 'right' take on things.

We must always be vigilant against using 'acceptance by authority' as an argument/justification in itself. Else we never shall get the TOE completed.

Good luck and good thinking, guys!