A Debate Over the Physics of Time

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

 

 

 

A Debate Over the Physics of Time

 

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160719-time-and-cosmology/

 

 

" Many physicists argue that Einstein’s position is implied by the two pillars of modern physics: Einstein’s masterpiece, the general theory of relativity, and the Standard Model of particle physics. The laws that underlie these theories are time-symmetric — that is, the physics they describe is the same, regardless of whether the variable called “time” increases or decreases. Moreover, they say nothing at all about the point we call “now” — a special moment (or so it appears) for us, but seemingly undefined when we talk about the universe at large. The resulting timeless cosmos is sometimes called a “block universe” — a static block of space-time in which any flow of time, or passage through it, must presumably be a mental construct or other illusion. "

If a ticking clock "measures" time, does that imply that time passes?

 

 

 

 

If the flow of time were making the clock move, like above,

then I would agree that clock really measures the velocity of time flow,

or empirically detects its physical existence.

However, the physical reason that clocks move (tick) is not that

some physical time flows through them, so clocks neither detect

nor measure anything other than themselves,

I am afraid ....

 

 

WHAT IS THE REASON THAT CLOCKS STOP ?

CLOCKS ONLY STOP MEASURING TIME, WHEN TIME STOPS !!!

 

 

 

What if time is only an illusion? What if it doesn't actually exist? Palle Yourgrau, a Brandeis professor of philosophy, explains that Einstein's general theory of relativity may allow for this possibility. It was first realized by the great logician Kurt Godel in a typically brief paper written for a Festschrift to honor his friend and Princeton neighbor Einstein. Godel is best known for his incompleteness theorem, one of the most important theorems in mathematical logic since Euclid. Palle Yourgrau writes that Godel's paper was almost universally ignored, and he claims that since the logician's death, philosophers have gone out of their way to try to denigrate his work in fields other than logic. In 1942, the logician Kurt Godel suffered a major episode of depression that required a stay at a mental hospital. Upon his release, Albert Einstein, his colleague at the Institute for Advanced Studies, took Godel under his wing and, to cheer him up, gave him "relativity lessons." The two became close friends; they walked to and from their offices at the Institute every day, exchanging ideas about science, philosophy, politics and the lost world of German science in which both men had grown up. By 1949, Godel had produced a remarkable proof: In any universe described by the Theory of Relativity, time cannot exist. Einstein endorsed this result – reluctantly, since it decisively overthrew the classical world-view to which he was committed. But he could find no way to refute it, and in the half-century since then, neither has anyone else. Even more remarkable than this stunning discovery by two of the greatest intellects of all time, however, was what happened afterward: nothing. Cosmologists have proceeded with their work as if time were the linear phenomenon familiar to Newton or Galileo (with some allowances for relativistic distortion); philosophers have refused to recognize Godel as an important philosopher of time. While arguing that these failures constitute major scandals of modern intellectual history, Palle Yourgrau also offers a mitigating explanation. Godel's cosmological findings, he says, are so advanced as to be beyond the ability of modern science to deal with them. A World without Time is a sweeping, ambitious book, and yet poignant and intimate – it tells the story of two magnificent minds put on the shelf by the scientific fashions of their day, and attempts to rescue from undeserved obscurity the brilliant work they did together.

Edited November 12, 2016 by zbigniew.modrzejewski

[fredrik]

I bought Smolins book when it came out but only now, 3 years after i started to read it. If you take the inference perspective of science seriously the argument against "timeless" law is imho very compelling. The timeless law can be nothing but a metaphysical fantasy or at best a rational expectation in the light of past experience. To extrapolate that to a constraint on the future seems like a logical jump. I think we need a new understanding of the scientific method as well as falsification alone is a simplistic view that is on par with the view of timeless law, thats either forever true - or wrong.

 

Look at biological evolution, thats not how nature evolves.

 

I think these Stubborn paradigms root back to the scientific paradigm. If we are lost on our ever more inflated map, we need someone to question the way we devise the map.

 

I have the last part of the book left to read. But while i agree with the initial analysis i see other possibilities. Apparently smolin does not like the information interpretation om qm, which sutprised me. As information connects tighly to the scientific inferencprodcess which i see as the main argument against timeless law simply because there is no real finitr physical inference process that can be attached infinite confidence. I draw the conclusion that smolin doesnt make that parallell, which is where he looses me as well. His cosmological natural selection is imo not radical enough as it takes existing parameter space as input. I think we should be able todo much better. Its way too much baggage and thus have not so much explanatory power?

 

/Fredrik

[proximity1]

 

Interesting topic and very nicely presented here. I've so wanted to read this by Smolin and still haven't had a chance to do so.

 

I look forward with pleasure to the discussion here. I think we need answers we still lack in order to make some further important breakthroughs in thinking about the nature of time.

[swansont]

Interesting topic and very nicely presented here. I've so wanted to read this by Smolin and still haven't had a chance to do so.

I look forward with pleasure to the discussion here. I think we need answers we still lack in order to make some further important breakthroughs in thinking about the nature of time.

!

Moderator Note

Please note that this thread is not about the nature of time, but of the physics of time.

[fredrik]

I think we need answers we still lack in order to make some further important breakthroughs in thinking about the nature of time.

I also think lets not forget also the "nature of law" which is really the other side of the coin here.

 

Smolin well argued what "nature of law" is NOT. But so far in my reading of the book there arent much about alternative view except its effectiv laws that evolves. Which somehow seems like unavoidably correct, but i think there is more to be said. I would expect evolution of law not to take place in a fixed configuration space as that resorts to the same fallacy as was critiqued? Doesnt it? I think We must also see how hypothesis space itself can be understood from the intrinsic perspective.

 

/Fredrik

Edited December 28, 2016 by fredrik

[studiot]

5 posts and I still have no idea what the debate about the Physics of time is about.

 

There is, anyway, far too much Physics (of time) to fit into one thread here so can someone (since the OP is not listed as having returned since starting this thread last November) establish a simple discussion point please?

[proximity1]

5 posts and I still have no idea what the debate about the Physics of time is about.

 

There is, anyway, far too much Physics (of time) to fit into one thread here so can someone (since the OP is not listed as having returned since starting this thread last November) establish a simple discussion point please?

Q. Did you read the article linked in the OP?

 

 

→ https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160719-time-and-cosmology/

[fredrik]

!

Moderator Note

Please note that this thread is not about the nature of time, but of the physics of time.

Yes i even like that phrase better, good point.

 

The same applies to "nature of law". If we instead call it "physics of law" the hint becomes more clear - are there in fact physical constraints on law and inference processes i nature? (Think information capacity and limits of complexity of the physical observer)

 

/Fredrik

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

instead of piggybacking on/hijacking a thread from someone who has not returned after being suspended, and as such isn't likely to participate, why don't you just start up a new thread? Eliminate the crackpot basis of the discussion.

If you want to discuss the nature of time, go over to the philosophy area and click on start new thread. It's easy.

[fredrik]

!

Moderator Note

instead of piggybacking on/hijacking a thread from someone who has not returned after being suspended, and as such isn't likely to participate, why don't you just start up a new thread? Eliminate the crackpot basis of the discussion.

 

If you want to discuss the nature of time, go over to the philosophy area and click on start new thread. It's easy.

Sorry, i didnt notice the op was suspended.

 

I responded for one reason:

 

The topic of Smolin is deep and worthy discussion/commwnt, but it was obscured by a terrible formatting of the originaö post without own comments.

 

So i just aimed to stand up for and comment on the OT.

 

I suggest for tou all to read smolins book. Or gooogle his perimeter talks with roberto unger. You find mp4 versions of essentially the same content as the book.

 

/Fredrik

[proximity1]

!

Moderator Note

Please note that this thread is not about the nature of time, but of the physics of time.

Good work! By throwing your "moderator" weight around, you've succeeded _again_ in spoiling a thread I happened to find interesting and yiu did that by asserting that my "nature of time" just couldn't possibly be effectively the same as "the physics of time," --all without the slightest effort on your part to imagine such a possibility and ask me about it.

 

By intervening in this way, unless I'm mistaken, you maintain a perfect record of never once addressing a positive initial comment in an initial reply to me.

 

So, correction: I _was_ looking forward to thus discussion. Thanks to you, with your first comment, that's no longer true.

 

"_physical_" nature of time--since Swansont dictates for us what every thread is and must be "really" about.

[swansont]

"_physical_" nature of time--since Swansont dictates for us what every thread is and must be "really" about.

!

Moderator Note

No, the OP did that by posting this in physics and entitling it "A debate over the physics of time".

 

[Phi for All]

Good work! By throwing your "moderator" weight around, you've succeeded _again_ in spoiling a thread I happened to find interesting and yiu did that by asserting that my "nature of time" just couldn't possibly be effectively the same as "the physics of time," --all without the slightest effort on your part to imagine such a possibility and ask me about it.

 

By intervening in this way, unless I'm mistaken, you maintain a perfect record of never once addressing a positive initial comment in an initial reply to me.

 

So, correction: I _was_ looking forward to thus discussion. Thanks to you, with your first comment, that's no longer true.

 

"_physical_" nature of time--since Swansont dictates for us what every thread is and must be "really" about.

 

You seem old enough to pick your battles more wisely. Swansont offered you a much better deal than trying to squeeze some sense out of this tainted thread. If you don't remember, he asked you to START YOUR OWN THREAD, nice and pristine, where you craft the OP to point the conversation in a meaningful direction, a direction you'd like to explore.

 

Why are you doing this instead of that?

[proximity1]

 

You seem old enough to pick your battles more wisely. Swansont offered you a much better deal than trying to squeeze some sense out of this tainted thread. If you don't remember, he asked you to START YOUR OWN THREAD, nice and pristine, where you craft the OP to point the conversation in a meaningful direction, a direction you'd like to explore.

 

Why are you doing this instead of that?

 

 

Why is it a "battle" (your term) in the first place?

 

Congratulations : a snide insult, a not-so-veiled threat and a shifting to me of some responsibility to second-guess the vagaries of the house-bullying here--a rolled into one.

 

This thread was open to replies. How was I supposed to know it is or was "tainted"? Am I supposed to check first before every post to make sure that the author to whom I'm replying isn't on suspension? Frankly, that didn't occur to me. And, if this thread is/was tainted, why was/is it left open for comments rather than locked down?--as is so frequently done here. If it better belongs in "Philosophy", then, again, why didn't a member of staff move it there? That's done all the time, too, here.

 

 

RE: "Swansont offered you a much better deal than trying to squeeze some sense out of this tainted thread. If you don't remember, he asked you to START YOUR OWN THREAD, ..."

 

For one thing, I didn't see anything that clearly indicated that the comment to which you refer ( #9 : http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/100727-a-debate-over-the-physics-of-time/#entry963916 ) was even addressed to me.

 

For another, he can just as easily go there and intervene to inform me on what the thread is really about or what it ought to be about. Nothing I can do about that. If I objected, I'd get a comment like yours here, it seems to me.

 

RE :

 

"instead of piggybacking on/hijacking a thread from someone who has not returned after being suspended, and as such isn't likely to participate, why don't you just start up a new thread? Eliminate the crackpot basis of the discussion" ...

 

This is "piggybacking"? "Hijacking"? :

 

proximity1, on 28 Dec 2016 - 2:29 PM, said:

Interesting topic and very nicely presented here. I've so wanted to read this by Smolin and still haven't had a chance to do so.

I look forward with pleasure to the discussion here. I think we need answers we still lack in order to make some further important breakthroughs in thinking about the nature of time.

 

 

Start my own thread-- right. I really feel welcome to do that. If there's one thing that people here feel, it's "welcome".

[studiot]

Q. Did you read the article linked in the OP?

 

 

→ https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160719-time-and-cosmology/

 

As the author of post#5, did you read the rules here?

 

Why should I go rambling over the net to find out what should be summarised in a post?

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

The OP is "tainted" by its crackpottery, so moving it doesn't solve that problem, all the more so because of the multiple indications that this was to be about physics and not philosophy. Threads are usually moved when the OP has erred in placement, rather than responders attempting to hijack the discussion.

Don't pretend that you're innocent of escalation and antagonism here. Not following the rules and not following moderator notes is a choice. And you have chosen to respond, and whine, several times. As for not feeling welcome, well, when the guest starts upending the furniture, you ask them to stop. Making them feel welcome is no longer the first priority. Grow up.

If you want to discuss the nature of time, do so in a new thread. This one is now closed