Timeless GR

[paddoboy]

This will become a hot field in physics when they realize that we have to work with a timeless model, since, paddo and many others cling dearly to the gravitational four-dimensional interpretation aka. Minkowski spacetime... need I remind that Einstein said the mathematicians butchered his theory.

You keep saying that undefined.
You need to remember that self praise and recommendations very rarely are reality based. They exist because of delusions of grandeur and/or tall poppy syndrome.
It takes on most occasions, an outsider to recognise genius. and I havn't seen anyone claim that of you yet, despite your claims of a ToE.

Honesty/dishonesty....
Well we can chose. I accepted my banning without the need for any dishonest sneaky comeback.
You havn't.

Space, time, space/time, Universe, gravity, matter, energy are all part and parcel of what arose from the BB..
All are real, and all are necessary for each others existence.

 

[BlackHoley]

You keep saying that undefined.
You need to remember that self praise and recommendations very rarely are reality based. They exist because of delusions of grandeur and/or tall poppy syndrome
It takes on most occasions, an outsider to recognise genius. and I havn't seen anyone claim that of you yet, despite your claims of a ToE.

Honesty/dishonesty....
Well we can chose. I accepted my banning without the need for any dishonest sneaky comeback.
You havn't.

Space, time, space/time, Universe, gravity, matter, energy are all part and parcel of what arose from the BB..
All are real, and all are necessary for each others existence.

I am going to bed now. I am going to start writing that paper tomorrow for a full relativistic space theory.

Good night.

 

[paddoboy]

You say nice observation, but his post landing in a question, implying he didn't know what time was. I wouldn't bother too much paddo grasping onto anything you can get a hold of, it's looking desperate.

We may not know with certainty what time actually is...[although mainstream cosmology/physics has a reasonable handle on it] but we certainly know what it isn't. And that is as you are so poorly attempting to describe.

 

[paddoboy]

I am going to bed now. I am going to start writing that paper tomorrow for a full relativistic space theory.

Good night.

Don't forget to get it peer reviewed.

 

[Grumpy]

paddoboy

You keep saying that undefined.

BlackHole is not undefined, his sentences are at least intelligible, if not logical. He's a sockpuppet of another Crank entirely.

Grumpy

 

[Aqueous Id]

paddoboy



BlackHole is not undefined, his sentences are at least intelligible, if not logical. He's a sockpuppet of another Crank entirely.

Grumpy

That's funny, Grumpy, I would have sworn he was posting reiku-isms when I put him on ignore.

Hmm. We need a name for "classifying covert nonsense"-ology.

Of course if all fails "bacteriology" or just "pathology" in general.

Origin was very good at this. Too bad he burned off.

 

[Gremmie]

Undefined, is Reality Checks sock... BlackHoley, is Reiku... These socks never change their posting styles.

 

[arfa brane]

Imaginary time is a concept derived from quantum mechanics and is essential in connecting quantum mechanics with statistical mechanics.

Imaginary time can be difficult to visualize. If we imagine "regular time" as a horizontal line running between "past" in one direction and "future" in the other, then imaginary time would run perpendicular to this line as the imaginary numbers run perpendicular to the real numbers in the complex plane. Imaginary time is not imaginary in the sense that it is unreal or made-up — it simply runs in a direction different from the type of time we experience. In essence, imaginary time is a way of looking at the time dimension as if it were a dimension of space: you can move forward and backward along imaginary time, just like you can move right and left in space.

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

One might think this means that imaginary numbers are just a mathematical game having nothing to do with the real world.

From the viewpoint of positivist philosophy, however, one cannot determine what is real. All one can do is find which mathematical models describe the universe we live in.

It turns out that a mathematical model involving imaginary time predicts not only effects we have already observed but also effects we have not been able to measure yet nevertheless believe in for other reasons. So what is real and what is imaginary? Is the distinction just in our minds?

Another point: velocities are a first order derivative, but fractional calculus says there are derivatives of order < 1, Leibniz used a 1/2 order derivative way back when, the idea is not new at all and differential calculus is certainly a mathematical model that describes the universe we're in; so how real is the "one" dimension a particle with constant velocity moves in?

 

[Grumpy]

:runaway:


AAAH! Math! Runaway, Flee!

 

[Grumpy]

arfa brane

Imaginary time is a concept derived from quantum mechanics and is essential in connecting quantum mechanics with statistical mechanics

Quantum Mechanics was beyond my understanding, I'll just have to take your word for it. Things get really, really strange at small lengths, I accept that, but it's all so hard to understand. Particle physics is barely within my ken.

Grumpy

 

[arfa brane]

The Minkowski metric becomes Euclidean when t is restricted to the imaginary axis, and vice versa. Taking a problem expressed in Minkowski space with coordinates $$x, y, z, t$$, and substituting $$t = -i\tau$$, sometimes yields a problem in real Euclidean coordinates $$ x, y, z, \tau$$ which is easier to solve. This solution may then, under reverse substitution, yield a solution to the original problem.

Usefulness seems to be a more prevalent motivation than disbelief, or whether the idea of time being imaginary (or that we can usefully transform it into the imaginary plane and back) makes us uncomfortable.

 

[BlackHoley]

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


Another point: velocities are a first order derivative, but fractional calculus says there are derivatives of order < 1, Leibniz used a 1/2 order derivative way back when, the idea is not new at all and differential calculus is certainly a mathematical model that describes the universe we're in; so how real is the "one" dimension a particle with constant velocity moves in?

I made a joke saying ''time was imaginary in every way,'' the other day. I don't want it taken out of context, the use of imaginary numbers is very very real. Imaginary numbers are used in quantum mechanics everyday, I am not meaning to say, what makes time purely part of our minds is by assigning an imaginary coefficient... quite the opposite, imaginary numbers are very real, time isn't.

 

[paddoboy]

I made a joke saying ''time was imaginary in every way,'' the other day. I don't want it taken out of context, the use of imaginary numbers is very very real. Imaginary numbers are used in quantum mechanics everyday, I am not meaning to say, what makes time purely part of our minds is by assigning an imaginary coefficient... quite the opposite, imaginary numbers are very real, time isn't.

You have no proof that time is not applicable to GR....You have an opinion based on a flawed interpretation.
The proof of the above sentence is evident in the fact of the diverse opinions that have been forthcoming.

Irrespective of the diversity of opinions, the mainstream position supports time as real as space and the space/time continuum and the Universe which GR describes.

 

[BlackHoley]

You have no proof that time is not applicable to GR.....

It's not a question of whether time is applicable to GR because the facts are it doesn't have a global time parameter. I don't ''need'' proof, this is just the ways things are. You really just need to deal with it.

 

[BlackHoley]

Irrespective of the diversity of opinions, the mainstream position supports time as real as space and the space/time continuum and the Universe which GR describes.

Yes... and I have told you this ''common'' view isn't wrong per se, it's just that the true meaning of time is much deeper than the common mainstream view: A lot of this has to do with a lack of a good deep understanding of relativity... I don't blame half these physicists. While quantum gravity is an active area of research (into the nature of time) it's not something many physicists know a great deal about. So it's always safer to fall back on the science pop books explanations of time in the context of Minkowski space, usually not caring if there is any evidence for a true external time or not.

 

[paddoboy]

It's not a question of whether time is applicable to GR because the facts are it doesn't have a global time parameter. I don't ''need'' proof, this is just the ways things are. You really just need to deal with it.

I am dealing with it. Time is an integral part of the Universe which GR describes.
You seem to be the one with a problem accepting that....
You are the one who framed this thread to get a raise out of reasonable mainstream people....

 

[BlackHoley]

I am dealing with it. Time is an integral part of the Universe which GR describes.

For a parameter, a tool, time has been very useful, but it isn't integral to GR. In GR worldlines are static, systems are essentially static. There is no global time parameter to general relativity. Saying it is an integral part of it, is a lie. It's actually not.

 

[paddoboy]

arfa brane



Quantum Mechanics was beyond my understanding, I'll just have to take your word for it. Things get really, really strange at small lengths, I accept that, but it's all so hard to understand. Particle physics is barely within my ken.

Grumpy

The observations of quantum mechanics are all unexplainable I thought.

 

[paddoboy]

In my eyes, it's more than interpretation; it is a natural consequence of relativity that time disappears globally. .

I'm not going to play your silly games anymore BlackHoley, suffice to say, you did sum up the debate in the first page, with the quote above "In my eyes" ....probably an inadvertent slip, but reveals your position quite admirably.

I'll stick to my time and GR position as I see it firmly entrenched in common sense and logic.
Now you may be tempted to raise some pedant or semantics and your usual rhetorical crap, but that's my position based on the common sense and logic I already mentioned.
[Plus of course all those pop science dudes, [as you so enthusiastically label them] I gave along with their quotes.

 

[BlackHoley]

I'm not going to play your silly games anymore BlackHoley, suffice to say, you did sum up the debate in the first page, with the quote above "In my eyes" ....probably an inadvertent slip, but reveals your position quite admirably.

I say my ''eyes'' because I feel this is the right way. I am almost certain time is not fundamental, so has a number of important physicists including Dirac.

My position is and always has been that you can't just ignore that time disappears from GR's equations, it is a well-established fact that it isn't governed by time evolution, it's governed by an evolution from the symmetry of the theory, involving some very complicated mathematics called diffeomorphism invariance.