Timeless GR

[BlackHoley]

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9448/
Abstract

It has been argued that the existence of a minimum observable interval of space and time (MOIST) is a model-independent result of the combination of quantum field theory and general relativity. In this paper, I promote this result to a fundamental postulate, called the MOIST postulate. It is argued that the postulate leads to the existence of a maximum signal speed and its invariance. This new result may have two interesting implications. On the one hand, it suggests that the MOIST postulate can explain the invariance of the speed of light, and thus it might provide a deeper logical foundation for special relativity. Moreover, it suggests that the speed constant c in modern physics is not the actual speed of light in vacuum, but the ratio of the minimum observable length to the minimum observable time interval. On the other hand, the result also suggests that the existing experiments confirming the invariance of the speed of light already provide observational evidence to support the MOIST postulate."
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Paddo what has this got to do with the time problem?

Are you just finding any old paper that uses the words ''spacetime'' in it and presenting it here?

If you want to tackle the issue of their being no time, you need to quote the scientists who actually know about the problem or understand why it is important.

 

[paddoboy]

Paddo what has this got to do with the time problem?

Are you just finding any old paper that uses the words ''spacetime'' in it and presenting it here?

If you want to tackle the issue of their being no time, you need to quote the scientists who actually know about the problem or understand why it is important.

An error on my part...posted the wrong paper, that of course supports the valid concept of the absolute speed of light that some other nuts were disputing...I did retract it, but you in your indecent haste, grabbed it to quickly.

 

[BlackHoley]

An error on my part...posted the wrong paper, that of course supports the valid concept of the absolute speed of light that some other nuts were disputing...I did retract it, but you in your indecent haste, grabbed it to quickly.

At least I can read a paper and know whether it has anything to do with the discussion, which in my (lol) ''indecent haste'' I knew it had nothing to do with what we were discussing.

 

[CptBork]

At least I can read a paper and know whether it has anything to do with the discussion...

No you can't. I doubt you can even find the area under a simple polynomial curve, let alone understand tensor calculus and graduate theoretical physics. Heck, asking you to solve a simple grade 10 quadratic equation might even be asking too much. You've been dodging my questions in other threads, so I'll just post it right here on yours.

If General Relativity makes no reference to time, then show us how to write down the GR Geodesic Equation which governs inertial motions in gravitational fields, while eliminating any reference to time in the equation.

 

[BlackHoley]

No you can't. I doubt you can even find the area under a simple polynomial curve...
If General Relativity makes no reference to time, then show us how to write down the GR Geodesic Equation which governs inertial motions in gravitational fields, while eliminating any reference to time in the equation.

So you cram in loads of ad hominems then ask me a question below? You do realize that if you aren't particularly nice with people, you don't always get your way?

I asked you if a photons frame of reference was dilated to the extent that it doesn't experience any time at all. I specifically asked you, a yes or no will suffice.


But no... you'd rather take the ad hominem route because you know you would have to confirm it with a ''yes'' which by the way... before you started this deranged issue with geodesics, all I said was it followed null geodesics, but in relativity doesn't have a frame of reference and so no time passes for them.


If you are still refusing to answer my question, would you kindly fuck off? thanks.

 

[BlackHoley]

If General Relativity makes no reference to time...

Clearly you don't have a clue what I am talking about. I never said it makes no ''reference'' for time, I said there is no global time evolution! I said locally, you can define time rather well with moving observers, it somehow integrates the special understanding of relativity.

So please, get the facts straight about what I say. This isn't about using time as useful parameter, of course it is. The question is whether it is fundamental to the universe and it turns out, no it isn't. There is no global time evolution.

 

[CptBork]

So you cram in loads of ad hominems then ask me a question below? You do realize that if you aren't particularly nice with people, you don't always get your way?

You think it's nice to lie to people about your complete lack of understanding, and that preaching nonsense under the guise of being knowledgeable is performing a service for anyone but yourself? You think it's nice to pretend that you, Reiku, Mr. Data and all your other alter egos are different people reaching a scientific consensus, and not simply one person evading repeated bans?

So please, get the facts straight about what I say. This isn't about using time as useful parameter, of course it is. The question is whether it is fundamental to the universe and it turns out, no it isn't. There is no global time evolution.

Do you mean to say that clocks don't tick for all observers in all physical reference frames? A beam of light does not constitute an observer, as it has no reference frame of its own, there's no physical reference frame in which light appears to be at rest. In general, there's no such thing as "global time" in Relativity anyhow.

 

[paddoboy]

So you cram in loads of ad hominems then ask me a question below? You do realize that if you aren't particularly nice with people, you don't always get your way?
.

Translation:
I havn't a clue how to do what you ask.

 

[BlackHoley]

You think it's nice to lie to people about your complete lack of understanding....

Whose lack of understanding?

You started to pick an argument and attack the post by challenging my view of time. Now, before this, I was in a conversation where I was correcting some posters here thinking that radiation fields can define time. Now, I know it can't define time, Penrose even makes use of it in his Cyclic universe theory, basically when no more matter exists (just radiation fields) time disappears. You butted into that conversation and challenged it and I asked you, very kindly to either confirm with a ''yes'' or a ''no'' whether photons experience time at all. That's what the conversation was... then you started some petty fight on geodesics. You're a desperate little troll trying to find anything to argue about.


So am I going to get that ''yes'' or ''no''....


... once you answer this, then I have defined how it is timeless - a photon travelling a null geodesic doesn't experience any time pass at all. You can't fault the statement. You're dying to though.

 

[paddoboy]

Whose lack of understanding?

You started to pick an argument and attack the post by challenging my view of time.

Your view of time???? So?
Again, after claiming 100% faitre complei certainty of your crap, at least you have now accepted that this is just your own particular interpretation. I'll give you a point for that.
But after completely claiming that others have picked an argument, after I have shown you through the numbers of threads you have started over this concept of yours, in anything but a humble approach, in fact quite aggressive, and continually answering yourself at least 6 times in one particular thread before you got a bite, have shown that it IS YOU PICKING AN ARGUMENT, and undeniably so.
So for that, I retract that point.

 

[Undefined]

Hi BlackHoley. Since this is also about 'time' and such abstractions, I will post it here as well...

Hi BlackHoley. I was doing more light reading and thought you migt be interested to read this excerpt from my posting of a fuller wiki quote in my thread: ( http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...is-just-maths-construct&p=3182134#post3182134 )

It explains why the abstract math construct of 'space-TIME' is meaningless unless the matter features/events etc are included in a way to make meaningful analysis using such a construct that includes UNREAL 'time' in its math construct instead of the dynamical features/processes themselves in the form of the 'ENERGY-space' construct I use for my ToE explanations.

...

It basically involved accepting that these two solutions are physically equivalent by claiming that how the metric is localized over the spacetime manifold is physically irrelevant and that individual spacetime points defined in terms of spacetime coordinates have no physical meaning in and of themselves (this is the source of the problem for manifold substantialism). To provide meaning to `location' Einstein generalized the situation given in the above paragraphs by introducing two particles, then physical points (inside the hole) can be defined in terms of their world lines coinciding. This works because matter gets dragged across together with the metric under active diffeomorphisms. Without the introduction of these particles one would not be able to define physical spacetime points (within the hole); see quotes of Einstein given below in the section Einstein's resolution.

The highlighted bits tell precisely why TWO OR MORE EVENTS/FEATURES (ie, 'particles' in the above context) MUST BE INCLUDED above and beyond the otherwise purely abstract and meaningless 'space-time' construct in order to give any REAL PHYSICAL MEANING to 'space-time' descriptions/coordinates etc.

That is why the 'energy-space' construct is more real and why I coined it, because it implicitly already involves the dynamics/processes of REAL 'energy-space' FEATURES/EVENTS as part of the real 'energy-space' construct! (I can't say more at this stage, because it will form part of the complete and consistent REAL maths-physics ToE to be published as soon as it is ready.)

I trust that this suffices to explain where I am coming from?

Cheers all.

That, combined with what Einstein himself said about 'time' being a 'simultaneous events' based concept/comparison analytical tool derivation/abstraction; and about the conceptual Relativity 'space-time' 'abstraction' analytical math construct that 'leaves behind all vestiges of real mechanistic properties of the underlying substrate', should finally put it beyond doubt that 'time' was merely included in a math combined 'space-TIME' construct because on its own it was UNREAL and UNRELATED to anything except REAL ENERGY events/features processing in REAL SPACE...hence the better construct of "energy-space' which I have been using and which is becoming more in vogue in mainstreamer conversation/explanation in the context of the GUT 'unified forces' context especially. Cheers.




PS: BlackHoley, don't waste time with the troll. The crooked mods obviously use him as a stalking horse to get a rise out of their predetermined targets so they have an excuse to ban the targets. It was done to me while the troll got away without a ban. Ignore him, and don't respond at all to his baitings and repetitive opinionating from ignorance; he isn't worth the ink. Good luck.

 

[paddoboy]

PS: BlackHoley, don't waste time with the troll. The crooked mods obviously use him as a stalking horse to get a rise out of their predetermined targets so they have an excuse to ban the targets. It was done to me while the troll got away without a ban. Ignore him, and don't respond at all to his baitings and repetitive opinionating from ignorance; he isn't worth the ink. Good luck.

Sure..... And then of course you would like all and sundry here, to believe that you, cav755, Farsight and Blackey Holey, are all in the process of rewriting 20th/21st century physics.
That's actually what you want everyone to believe isn't it?
I mean this isn't just interpretations by you lot, this is straight out derision of some of the greatest minds ever to set foot on Earth, and their well supported theories, with new revelations that will change science/cosmology forever.
And this forum is just plain lucky enough to have the four of you together. [tic mode on]
Yeah sure, the rest of us are wrong, 100 years of science and cosmology is wrong, and you lot are the light at the end of the tunnel....You with your never ending ToE and Blackey about to write a scientific paper.
I may just be a layman, but I find the trash that the administrators of this forum allow in science and maths as disgraceful. You all refuse to use the Alternative sections just so you can peddle your revelations here for the rest of us.
Other forums are more strict. Forums like cosmoquest do not allow such crap.
Any alternative stuff must be backed up by evidence and the person pushing it has one month to do it...then the thread is closed.
This is why you are here. You can all get away with it.
That's OK...I'll go along with the administrators, but I will also refute when I am able, in whatever manner I see fit, including pushing the scientific methodology and peer review reasoning, which you all seem to detest.
The reasons for that detesting are painfully obvious.

 

[brucep]

Sure..... And then of course you would like all and sundry here, to believe that you, cav755, Farsight and Blackey Holey, are all in the process of rewriting 20th/21st century physics.
That's actually what you want everyone to believe isn't it?
I mean this isn't just interpretations by you lot, this is straight out derision of some of the greatest minds ever to set foot on Earth, and their well supported theories, with new revelations that will change science/cosmology forever.
And this forum is just plain lucky enough to have the four of you together. [tic mode on]
Yeah sure, the rest of us are wrong, 100 years of science and cosmology is wrong, and you lot are the light at the end of the tunnel....You with your never ending ToE and Blackey about to write a scientific paper.
I may just be a layman, but I find the trash that the administrators of this forum allow in science and maths as disgraceful. You all refuse to use the Alternative sections just so you can peddle your revelations here for the rest of us.
Other forums are more strict. Forums like cosmoquest do not allow such crap.
Any alternative stuff must be backed up by evidence and the person pushing it has one month to do it...then the thread is closed.
This is why you are here. You can all get away with it.
That's OK...I'll go along with the administrators, but I will also refute when I am able, in whatever manner I see fit, including pushing the scientific methodology and peer review reasoning, which you all seem to detest.
The reasons for that detesting are painfully obvious.

I'm seriously annoyed with 'what's happening' in this forum. Doesn't look like much change, for the better, is in the future. Just the opposite. Actually since I've been a member it's been the slippery slope at relativistic speed. Geez it must be me.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Fundamental is very important. When you want to study a system, using classical physics is fine.... if it can be applied to the system. This is where quantum mechanics comes in, reformulates classical mechanics (not because it is wrong) but because it isn't fundamental. Classical physics fails to describe the world of the small because it is doesn't represent the fundamental picture and so gives us the wrong answers.

Um, no. Classical physics works on large scales and quantum physics works on small scales and neither works in the scale of the other. That has nothing to do with either being more "fundamental" than the other.

This problem is very much the same. Newtonian time, not Einsteinian time, flows from past to future; this view of time is almost universally accepted to be wrong...

By whom? Crackpots? Not much value in something that is only "universal" amongst crackpots.

By the way, what is "Einsteinian time" if there is no time in GR?

...which means our pretty picture of time (one which flows relative to the human being) is built from classical concepts and faulty premises about the nature of time itself. If time is not fundamental, then there is a better, dare I say it, more correct approach than the one we are using. If time is not fundamental like the equations are telling us, then we find this will also have drastic implications on the model we use to describe the universe in grand unification theories.

Basically, what you are saying is you think there is something deeper than what we think we see with the current understanding of time. That's fine - you're free to believe that if you want. But it has nothing to do with currently accepted physics. Indeed, clearly, you are arguing against currently accepted physics here. Why lie about what you are? Be proud of it!

 

[Russ_Watters]

Clearly you don't have a clue what I am talking about. I never said it makes no ''reference'' for time, I said there is no global time evolution! I said locally, you can define time rather well with moving observers, it somehow integrates the special understanding of relativity.

So please, get the facts straight about what I say. This isn't about using time as useful parameter, of course it is. The question is whether it is fundamental to the universe and it turns out, no it isn't. There is no global time evolution.

Facts? No, you didn't say those things until recently. You said, repeatedly, "there is no time in GR".

Why the change? Why lie about the change? We're really not stupid, BlackHoley, you can't just pull crap out of your ass and fling it at the wall and hope some of it will stick. We can easily see through it.

ThereisnotimeinGRoopsImeanthereisnoglobaltimeooopsImeanthereisnotimeevlolution.

Jibberjabber.

 

[arfa brane]

Can anyone here explain in simple terms why Einstein's relativity theories have this "problem of time"? What does it mean and does it have any bearing on the question of whether time is real, or whether time flows in one direction?

I was under the naive impression that it does address such questions, so what up?

 

[Russ_Watters]

Can anyone here explain in simple terms why Einstein's relativity theories have this "problem of time"?

Try googling it (with the quotes).

Find anything? No? That's because there is no such thing. Some people cite a "problem of time" in quantum gravity (which is a theory that doesn't exist yet), but that's all there is:

The problem of time in quantum gravity occurs because `time' is taken to have a different meaning in each of general relativity and ordinary quantum theory. This incompatibility creates serious problems with trying to replace these two branches of physics with a single framework....

http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.2157

BlackHoley cited the problem of time along with GR because he simply doesn't have any idea what he's talking about. He's just mishmashing sciency sounding words and has no real understanding of the subject he's trying to discuss.

 

[BlackHoley]

Can anyone here explain in simple terms why Einstein's relativity theories have this "problem of time"?

Diffeomorphism invariance. Very technically, basically Einstein realized that spacetime points could be shuffled freely within the theory. In fact, someone posted a really nice excerpt the other day in which Einstein arrived at this model because spacetime points in themselves are not physical. This is actually true, only interactions are.

 

[BlackHoley]

BlackHoley cited the problem of time along with GR because he simply doesn't have any idea what he's talking about.

I've studied the problem for about 10 years. I think if anyone knows what it is about, I should know. Funny how when I came here, half of you couldn't believe what I was telling you. Now some of you talk about the ''problem of time,'' as though it were common knowledge...


....well thanks to me, it is where this site is concerned.

 

[BlackHoley]

... or whether time flows in one direction?

Even outside of the time problem, the ''direction of time'' is heavily under dispute at the moment as well. Quantum theory is telling us there is no flow, which means the sense of time must be completely subjective. Some physicists didn't want to loose this definition of time, because it fit their everyday experiences so well. All it does it fit the psychology of the human.

Last time I checked in science, we didn't tailor theories to satisfy human-dependent models. Or at least fundamentally we shouldn't.