Timeless GR

B

BlackHoley

Banned
Banned
It's a loosing battle, for me to explain this subject, because several people are struggling with different area's.

One camp doesn't understand that no matter what, time falls out of general relativity as a symmetry of the theory, it is not a true time evolution. The other camp is finding it hard to understand what an observable is in physics, or why time isn't classed as one, why looking at a clock isn't an observable, ect.

The only person I think can give a clearer picture of this is the man who has actually worked on the problem of time in GR for well over 50 years.

(I believe in this video, Julian explains all the important things and I believe he makes a point of mentioning time isn't an observable. If it isn't this video, I will find it)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOdk-u9wTkM

Now, listen to him closely. Please.
 
I said the other day, in the thread now being spammed with the same posts by it's creator, that time as we know it in physics, is believed to be extrinsic and flowing relative to the human observer. I explained this was a Newtonian view of time which is almost certainly in error. Aside from there being no flow to time, even if there was a time, there is no evidence an external time even exists, it's one of those primordial hypothesis in physics which appears to have remained in fashion, because it feels enlightening in some way.


''It is impossible to measure the changes of things by time...
...quite the contrary! Time is an abstraction at which we arrive
from the changes of things.''

Mach


I once said

''Time measures change in space, it isn't space itself.''

Me
 
Here is some oldish and more modern papers, all providing evidence of timelessness

Anderson, Edward (2004) "Geometrodynamics: Spacetime or space?" Ph.D. thesis, University of London.
Anderson, Edward (2007) "On the recovery of Geometrodynamics from two different sets of first principles", Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys. 38: 15.
Baierlein, R. F., D. H. Sharp, and John A. Wheeler (1962) "Three-dimensional geometry as the carrier of information about time", Phys. Rev. 126: 1864–1865.
Max Tegmark (2008) "The Mathematical Universe", Found. Phys. 38: 101–150.
Wolpert, D. H. (1992) "Memory Systems, Computation, and The Second Law of Thermodynamics", International Journal of Theoretical Physics 31: 743–785. Barbour argues that this article supports his view of the illusory nature of time.

For his research papers on the subject over the last .... handful of decades can be found here

http://www.platonia.com/

There are also other online papers I could find for you, which doesn't treat space-time as a fundamental union.
 
Now some more reading material... for those who don't understand what cosmological time is, it is a time experienced by the universe. The universe however, doesn't have a clock

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler–deWitt_equation

This is our best representation of the universe: Uniting quantum mechanics into the equations of general relativity leads to timelessness. The FWR metric doesn't describe the universe within the fully general relativistic framework: if you did, you would still find timeless.

Simultaneity of events,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

In a nutshell, this shows us there is no past or future, because there is no true order of events or order events which can ever be agreed upon.
 
To describe timelessness, we need some new physical tools...actually, the tools have been around for while. Such as the timeless action which was in fact spoken about in a post in this subforum. It has the appearance of $$\mathbf{p} \cdot d \mathbf{q}$$. There is also a timeless path integral which may prove useful in the future when this idea really begins to kick off

http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5436
 
BlackHoley said:
Because one mans late event can be another mans early event, the relativity of simultaneity may prove the Chronological Conjecture protection to be based on a false premise; that is there is a true order in events in the universe. As it turns out, there isn't according to relativity, so how do you preserve Chronology?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_protection_conjecture
Click to expand...


Though I say maybe wrong. It may turn out that there is chronology of change. Which would replace our use of time... but then the Chronology of change has to be applied to relativity which finds there is no distinction of past or future.
 
One thing I'd really like to see is a good explanation of why the Minkowski metric is {-,+,+,+} (or the converse). That is, why is one of the four spacetime "dimensions" negative, or why subtract the time component from the three space components?

About measurement/observation: this cannot occur logically in zero time, there is always an interval of time involved in any classical measurement. We can't "escape" this in QM, because eventually we need a classical result. But then the time to compute or measure anything in effect vanishes from that measurement, time in that sense is very unlike physical distance, which doesn't vanish.
 
arfa brane said:
One thing I'd really like to see is a good explanation of why the Minkowski metric is {-,+,+,+} (or the converse). That is, why is one of the four spacetime "dimensions" negative, or why subtract the time component from the three space components?
Click to expand...

I don't know if the differences are totally arbitrary, but I do know that mostly particle physicists use (+,−,−,−) while relativists usually use the metric (−,+,+,+). However, in terms of how I understand physics, it's best to use (−,+,+,+) because it implies time has an imaginary coefficient. Time is after all, the imaginary space dimension. Imaginary in every way ;)
 
BlackHoley said:
I don't know if the differences are totally arbitrary, but I do know that mostly particle physicists use (+,−,−,−) while relativists usually use the metric (−,+,+,+). However, in terms of how I understand physics, it's best to use (−,+,+,+) because it implies time has an imaginary coefficient. Time is after all, the imaginary space dimension. Imaginary in every way ;)
Click to expand...

At best your THEORY could be said to be just one interpretation and debatable, at worst, it's just plain crazy and exhibits nothing more than unnecessary pedant, disputable semantics and plenty of rhetoric........



"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""
Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity

http://preposterousuniverse.com/spacetimeandgeometry/
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""



http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html




"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~lambert/SGGR.pdf

Spacetime Geometry and General
Relativity

Gravitational Redshift and Time Dilation

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/phys5770_08/frw.pdf

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
https://medienportal.univie.ac.at/p...n-quantum-mechanics-meets-general-relativity/

According to general relativity, time flows differently at different positions due to the distortion of space-time by a nearby massive object. A single clock being in a superposition of two locations allows probing quantum interference effects in combination with general relativity. Image credits: Quantum Optics, Quantum Nanophysics, Quantum Information; University of Vienna.
The unification of quantum mechanics and Einstein's general relativity is one of the most exciting and still open questions in modern physics. General relativity, the joint theory of gravity, space and time gives predictions that become clearly evident on a cosmic scale of stars and galaxies. Quantum effects, on the other hand, are fragile and are typically observed on small scales, e.g. when considering single particles and atoms. That is why it is very hard to test the interplay between quantum mechanics and general relativity. Now theoretical physicists led by Časlav Brukner at the University of Vienna propose a novel experiment which can probe the overlap of the two theories. The focus of the work is to measure the general relativistic notion of time on a quantum scale. The findings will be published this week in "Nature Communications".
Time in general relativity
One of the counterintuitive predictions of Einstein's general relativity is that gravity distorts the flow of time. The theory predicts that clocks tick slower near a massive body and tick faster the further they are away from the mass. This effect results in a so-called "twin paradox": if one twin moves out to live at a higher altitude, he will age faster than the other twin who remains on the ground. This effect has been precisely verified in classical experiments, but not in conjunction with quantum effects, which is the aim of the newly proposed experiment.
"
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


Time exists, and is inexorably linked to space, the Universe and anything which describes the Universe, including GR.

But you are entitled to your interpretation. :shrug:
 
paddoboy said:
Time exists, and is inexorably linked to space, the Universe and anything which describes the Universe, including GR.

But you are entitled to your interpretation. :shrug:
Click to expand...



In my eyes, it's more than interpretation; it is a natural consequence of relativity that time disappears globally. You keep resorting to stupid popularized links about how geometry involves a time dimension - your understanding is so rudimentary it's without a deep understanding of the physics. You have proven this time and time again.

Your view, is almost universally accepted by all layman alike, but if you want to discuss the true nature of time, you really need to move on and start challenging yourself with the hot topics that scientists are considering at the forefront of the new physics.
 
Also your ''paper'' recited has an error, right in the dialogue you posted.

''One of the counterintuitive predictions of Einstein's general relativity is that gravity distorts the flow of time. ''

Clearly he's talking about gravitational dilation: yet there is no flow to time. This is accepted by most physicists today, irrespective of there being a time dimension or not.
 
BlackHoley said:
In my eyes, it's more than interpretation;.
Click to expand...



In your eyes!!! You mean this is just your opinion?
Yesterday you were putting it as fact.

Either way, my links are reputable and reflect just how idiotic your facts [now opinions] are.

Whatever my understanding of physics is, it at least recognises the fact the the scientific methodology and peer review are essential to that discipline.
My view is not only accepted by laymen, it is also accepted by those same reputable physicists that you so cowardly want to write off as stupid popularisers....remembering of course that you undefined are an unknown, that has no credentials, and need to accept the fact that others here are far more attuned to science than you ever could be.
And of course this layman, will always be ready to refute any and all unsupported, unevidenced, and un peer reviewed claims to the best of my ability.
 
BlackHoley said:
Also your ''paper'' recited has an error, right in the dialogue you posted.

''One of the counterintuitive predictions of Einstein's general relativity is that gravity distorts the flow of time. ''

Clearly he's talking about gravitational dilation: yet there is no flow to time. This is accepted by most physicists today, irrespective of there being a time dimension or not.
Click to expand...

Again, your semantic play with words and pedant are just that.
Time exists....there is no Universal now....time can be dilated. Time is part and parcel of the Universe and the theories we have formulated to describe it. That is GR, and that is the accepted mainstream view.
If it wasn't, you would not have started this thread.
 
paddoboy said:
In your eyes!!! You mean this is just your opinion?
Click to expand...

Just listen to yourself, you can't help but project this on me. When did mathematics and the true consequences of relativity, really have anything to do with an opinion? Sure, I have an opinion, but it's hardly baseless like you are so eagerly trying to paint for everyone.

You need to find some area of interest if you can't understand what has been said to you. Notice how none of the actually competent science writers here don't ever come to your aid? It's because they know my understanding of relativity is correct.
 
Among the many scientists/cosmologists that are of the view that time is inexorably linked to the Universe and GR is of course the notable Kip Thorne.
Other's are Sir Martin Rees [Astronomer Royale] and Mitch Begalman.
How do I know that?
I have the Book by Thorne entitled Black Holes and Time Warps, and another co-authored by Rees and Begalman, entitled "Gravity's Fatal Attraction"
Both books feature discussions on BH's and GR, and both use and reference time profusely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top