Absolute Time [Split from: Is Quantum Time Travel Possible?!]

[Schmelzer]

Quantum theory is a theory with absolute time.  So, there is no time travel in quantum theory. 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Schmelzer said:

Quantum theory is a theory with absolute time.  So, there is no time travel in quantum theory. 

No. That’s incorrect 

[Schmelzer]

If you think it is incorrect, explain.  

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Schmelzer said:

If you think it is incorrect, explain.  

I don’t think it’s incorrect. I know it is. There’s no such thing as absolute time. Quantum theory doesn’t magically invalidate this. 

[Schmelzer]

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

I don’t think it’s incorrect. I know it is. There’s no such thing as absolute time. Quantum theory doesn’t magically invalidate this. 

If there is absolute time depends on the theory.  In Newtonian gravity, there is absolute time. In quantum theory too.  In relativity, in its spacetime interpretation, there is no absolute time. The two theories are incompatible, and part of this incompatibility are the different notions of time. This is also named "problem of time in quantum gravity".  

If you think there is no absolute time in Nature, ok, once you have received a revelation, so be it.  But your revelations are not relevant for physics.  Moreover, even in this case you would be wrong about quantum theory.

[Mordred]

Quantum theory does not have absolute time. QM does deal with relativity and in particular so does QFT. The Klien Gordon and Dirac equations are used to calculate relativistic wavefunctions.

 Newtonian mechanics absolute time has been substantially proven wrong

Edited November 11, 2019 by Mordred

[MigL]

I would have to differ Mordred.
The fact that we can tack SR onto QM to obtain Dirac and QFT does not change the fact that QM says nothing about time, and treats it as a background stage on which events happen; An 'absolute' stage.
GR, on the other hand, does say something about the absence of 'absolute' frames; it has no background stage.

[Mordred]

That does not imply that QM teaches absolute time.  QM and QFT both recognize variable time and subsequently has the equations to maintain Lorentz invariance as a result.

[swansont]

13 hours ago, Schmelzer said:

If there is absolute time depends on the theory.  In Newtonian gravity, there is absolute time. In quantum theory too. 

If relativity effects are small, you can ignore them. The theory breaks down when you can’t. 

[MigL]

From Schmelzer's paper...

I. Schmelzer, A Generalization of the Lorentz Ether to Gravity with General-Relativistic Limit, Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras 22, 1 (2012), p. 203-242, resp. arxiv:gr-qc/0205035.

"Does relativistic gravity provide arguments against the existence of a preferred frame? Our answer is negative. We define a viable theory of gravity with preferred frame. In this theory, the EEP holds exactly, and the Einstein equations of GR limit are obtained in a natural limit. Despite some remarkable differences (stable “frozen stars” instead of black holes, a “big bounce” instead of the big bang, exclusion of nontrivial topologies and closed causal loops, and a preference for a flat universe) the theory is viable."

Might be mathematically consistent, but doesn't model reality, as it does not fit observational evidence.

[Schmelzer]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

From Schmelzer's paper...

I. Schmelzer, A Generalization of the Lorentz Ether to Gravity with General-Relativistic Limit, Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras 22, 1 (2012), p. 203-242, resp. arxiv:gr-qc/0205035.

"Does relativistic gravity provide arguments against the existence of a preferred frame? Our answer is negative. We define a viable theory of gravity with preferred frame. In this theory, the EEP holds exactly, and the Einstein equations of GR limit are obtained in a natural limit. Despite some remarkable differences (stable “frozen stars” instead of black holes, a “big bounce” instead of the big bang, exclusion of nontrivial topologies and closed causal loops, and a preference for a flat universe) the theory is viable."

Might be mathematically consistent, but doesn't model reality, as it does not fit observational evidence.

Given that the theory forbidden for discussion here has now been introduced by somebody else, I will answer here, and leave it to the admins (if they find it necessary) to split this part of the discussion and move it to some other place.

Present the evidence.  Have we already observed some wormholes or some causal loops?  Have we any empirical evidence against the Einstein equations of GR, which the theory gives as an approximation?

5 hours ago, Mordred said:

So let me get this straight we have experimental evidence of time dilation at a distance of 1 metre apart. Yet you feel time is absolute.

I do not "feel", but I have a theory which contains absolute time. This is in no conflict with GR time dilation because GR time dilation is simply clock time dilation.  Clocks are influenced by the gravitational field, and my theory makes the same empirical predictions about that clock time dilation.  Absolute time is, in that theory, defined by equations but not measurable with clocks. 

Quote

In all reference frames in Newtonian physics time is absolute. That is not true for reference frames under SR/GR. So how can you claim that Newton isn't wrong in regards to time ?

In fact, you are free to use other coordinates in Newtonian physics as well.  It makes not much sense, that's all.  My theory distinguishes clock time (time as measured with clocks) and absolute time. The formula for clock time \(\tau = \int \sqrt{g_{\mu\nu}(x,t) \frac{d \gamma^\mu}{dt}\frac{d \gamma^\nu}{dt}} dt\) is the same as in GR. And, don't forget, Newton has distinguished two notions of time, absolute time and apparent time, the same two notions of time I distinguish too, and, BTW, are distinguished even in GR (coordinate time vs. proper time). Once Newton already claims that apparent time does not have to 

Quote

More importantly why do you feel GR must be incorrect in regards to time with your knowledge of GR ?

I would have to reject basic principles of science, realism as well as causality, given the violation of the Bell inequalities.  This alternative is unacceptable for me, given that there is a simple viable alternative which preserves realism as well as classical causality.  

Quote

Which from your equation above and your last few posts seem to describe that the equivalence principle with regards to inertial mass and gravitational mass doesn't apply.

The Einstein equivalence principle is a proven theorem in my theory.  It follows from translational symmetry, the Noether theorem, and the action equals reaction principle. 

 

[Markus Hanke]

3 hours ago, Schmelzer said:

I would have to reject basic principles of science, realism as well as causality, given the violation of the Bell inequalities.

These aren’t basic principles of science, they are basic attributes of classicality only. There is no good reason to believe they are scale-independent.

[Mordred]

Ok I have a question according to the above paper you have a Lorentz style eather that is non interacting with regular matter fields. This eather frame according to your paper allows for FTL. So how does it mediate entangled particles to allow supposed FTL signaling between entangled particles in violation of Einstein causality ? Without considering that a form of interaction ? Is there some arbitrary mediator boson as per regular matter fields ? Secondly what property of this eather allows FTL when massless non coupling particles propogate at c in regards to our observable matter and force fields ? Ie via {ct}.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Mordred

[MigL]

Frozen stars as opposed to black holes ?

Would two 30 solar mass frozen stars, where the 'edge' of space-time is the event horizon as per your 'realistic' preferred frame, that spiral toward each other, but 'freeze' at the EH, release 5-6 solar masses as gravitational wave radiation, if they never actually merge ?

Or am I mis-understanding your 'realistic', preferred frame interpretation ?

 

Could one of the mods post a message that this has been split off the other thread.
I wanted to post an answer to Smelzer's reply, but had trouble finding it.
Thank you.