Universal time constant

[freeztar]

This is also extremely interesting. Whats up with this?

 

SPACE.com -- New Theory of Time Rattles Halls of Science

 

 

Peter Lynds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I'm only about half way through the newest article from Peter referred to at the end of the wiki link above. The impression it gives me is that it is an article about the philosophy of science rather than actual science, though I can't be sure of this claim until I finish the article.

 

I still don't understand how he's presumably solved Zeno's Paradox.

[freeztar]

Just because I was totally off the wall with it doesn't mean it doesn't count? does it?

 

Nope! :doh: It's quite possible he is "off the wall with it" as well. (hey, that would make a great song name)

 

It's highly theoretical. It's interesting that the article first talks about adding one dimension of time, which through necessity requires an additional dimension of space. It then goes on to talk about string theory and how adding a dimension each of space and time could help string theory. From the outside looking in, this all seems a bit bizarre. Unfortunately, my lack of mathematical ability prevents me from exploring this too much further...

 

Nonetheless, it doesn't seem like this second dimension of time would necessarily give rise to a universal time constant.

[Moontanman]

Nope! :) It's quite possible he is "off the wall with it" as well. (hey, that would make a great song name)

 

It's highly theoretical. It's interesting that the article first talks about adding one dimension of time, which through necessity requires an additional dimension of space. It then goes on to talk about string theory and how adding a dimension each of space and time could help string theory. From the outside looking in, this all seems a bit bizarre. Unfortunately, my lack of mathematical ability prevents me from exploring this too much further...

 

Nonetheless, it doesn't seem like this second dimension of time would necessarily give rise to a universal time constant.

 

I wish I could understand Heim theory or have someone explain it to me in terms I could get a grip on but that doesn't seem likely either. ( I have heard the US airforce is wild about the idea and is suppressing any real attempts at explanation):)

[LaurieAG]

I suppose this would be what you are calling the universal time constant. But as soon as one observer starts moving, it's relative again. Since things in the universe don't tend to sit still, I think the concept of the universal time constant is not very meaningful, except as a thought experiment.

 

Hi Freeztar,

 

That might be true if it were impossible to co-ordinate movements and timing between satellites and ground stations as both of them are not standing still in any relative sense. I don't think the satellite people call this universal time although it would be based of some sort of absolute reference point calculation made for each different object each different time.

 

It's also easy to see how relative viewpoints can confuse things in the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise. Viewing things from one relative point or the other lead to perceptual confusion while an observer at the absolute viewpoint, the finish line, would have no doubt about who arrives there first.

[LaurieAG]

Nonetheless, it doesn't seem like this second dimension of time would necessarily give rise to a universal time constant.

 

Why would you add another relative time dimension to your model? Why wouldn't you have a relative time dimension, relative to everything that's moving, and an absolute extra dimension that is fixed, that all relative things move with direct relation to?

[freeztar]

Why would you add another relative time dimension to your model? Why wouldn't you have a relative time dimension, relative to everything that's moving, and an absolute extra dimension that is fixed, that all relative things move with direct relation to?

 

This was discussed earlier in the thread as the idea of an observer being outside the universe. In this case, yes, you would have a universal time constant, but only from that theoretical observation point.

[LaurieAG]

This was discussed earlier in the thread as the idea of an observer being outside the universe. In this case, yes, you would have a universal time constant, but only from that theoretical observation point.

 

Hi Freeztar,

 

I read that bit of the thread and wondered if the observer would actually have to be outside the universe?

 

There has been quite a bit said and theorised about the BB theory i.e. a central point for our universe that everything else expanded from. Obviously this theoretical observation point (and the absolute nature of the time going back to the BB) is in the same league as any observation point 'outside' or 'inside' the universe including the finish point in the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise (which is outside the 'scope' of the paradox even though it is the ultimate and absolute result of the race referred to).

 

Once again I say that there cannot be any judgement made on the relativity of bodies within the universe until we have a complete set of observations that are taken from a relatively stationary viewpoint (that counters three different angles of spin, planetary, solar and galactic). Once we have these (as close to absolute as we can get, and we have at best 1 out of the 3 now) observations we can apply the scientific method to determine if things are actually all relative or adjust our model to get closer to the absolute truth.

[freeztar]

Hi Freeztar,

 

I read that bit of the thread and wondered if the observer would actually have to be outside the universe?

As events appear relative within the universe, it implies that one must be outside the universe to have a universal time constant. Of course, it's a bit silly to talk about being 'outside' the universe. :P

There has been quite a bit said and theorised about the BB theory i.e. a central point for our universe that everything else expanded from. Obviously this theoretical observation point (and the absolute nature of the time going back to the BB) is in the same league as any observation point 'outside' or 'inside' the universe including the finish point in the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise (which is outside the 'scope' of the paradox even though it is the ultimate and absolute result of the race referred to).

 

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, Laurie. I think you are saying that at the big bang, inside and outside have no meaning? If so, I would agree on a philosophical level. I'm a bit perplexed how this jives with Xeno's paradox. Perhaps I'm just not interpreting your post correctly.

Once again I say that there cannot be any judgement made on the relativity of bodies within the universe until we have a complete set of observations that are taken from a relatively stationary viewpoint (that counters three different angles of spin, planetary, solar and galactic). Once we have these (as close to absolute as we can get, and we have at best 1 out of the 3 now) observations we can apply the scientific method to determine if things are actually all relative or adjust our model to get closer to the absolute truth.

 

I agree, it would be great to have more evidence to support the current theories. Still, I don't think we'll find the theories *so flawed* that we have to abandon them. It will most likely be more akin to tweaking. I'm quite confident that relativity theory applies to the universe at large without having empirical data that involves light year distances. Hopefully, one day, we can put this quiver of doubt to rest, or conversely, embrace something new. :naughty:

[LaurieAG]

As events appear relative within the universe, it implies that one must be outside the universe to have a universal time constant. Of course, it's a bit silly to talk about being 'outside' the universe. :hihi:

 

Maybe not that silly Freeztar,

 

My avatar image is the screen capture from a feedback loop that follows convention with regards to many of the developmental (mathematical) aspects of what we call relativity. While the screen capture is an exact copy of what an observer ,who has nothing to do with the actual feedback loop itself (i.e. outside its loopy universe), sees from an external viewpoint, the implications for these types of models (and Lorenzian manipulation etc) are more bizarre when you compare the theory with the practise. IMHO discrete relative puzzles like this can actually exist in relative physical isolation from the rest of the universe but should be able to be observed from outside the area where the phenomena occurs.

 

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, Laurie. I think you are saying that at the big bang, inside and outside have no meaning? If so, I would agree on a philosophical level. I'm a bit perplexed how this jives with Xeno's paradox. Perhaps I'm just not interpreting your post correctly.

 

When you take the viewpoint of either one or the other parties you get a paradox (mainly because the relativity is taken in 'absolute' isolation for each party) when in fact the only true absolute viewpoint for both parties is at the finish line. If you go back in time to the BB (i.e. follow the light particles or 'parties' back) you find the same 'absolute' viewpoint, at least in BB theory anyway (otherwise it couldn't be called BB).

 

I agree, it would be great to have more evidence to support the current theories. Still, I don't think we'll find the theories *so flawed* that we have to abandon them. It will most likely be more akin to tweaking. I'm quite confident that relativity theory applies to the universe at large without having empirical data that involves light year distances. Hopefully, one day, we can put this quiver of doubt to rest, or conversely, embrace something new. :edepress:

 

Unfortunately nobody is even considering this spin free viewpoint. It shouldn't be that difficult to build a sphere (similar to a soccer ball with a lot more sections) made of simple mass produced sub assemblies that hold multiple sensors that can be drawn down or pushed up their own tube (all in sync) to get varying degrees of view depth (zoom) in a very short period of time.

 

Until this happens we are faced with the problem of distortions due to spin and data manipulation (is it actually 'correcting' or creating something entirely different from the spun data?) that is a combination of reality and a paradox.

 

Only time will tell.

 

p.s. The feedback model uses the electronic portion of the loop to substitute for a photon/particle going around the universe and returning back to its start point in finite time, repeatedly. This is completely different to the BB model even though it conforms accurately to what Poincare and Lorentz etc theorise.

[freeztar]

IMHO discrete relative puzzles like this can actually exist in relative physical isolation from the rest of the universe but should be able to be observed from outside the area where the phenomena occurs.

That sounds like infinite regression to me.

 

When you take the viewpoint of either one or the other parties you get a paradox (mainly because the relativity is taken in 'absolute' isolation for each party) when in fact the only true absolute viewpoint for both parties is at the finish line.

 

Ok, I see the philosophical connection.

 

Unfortunately nobody is even considering this spin free viewpoint. It shouldn't be that difficult to build a sphere (similar to a soccer ball with a lot more sections) made of simple mass produced sub assemblies that hold multiple sensors that can be drawn down or pushed up their own tube (all in sync) to get varying degrees of view depth (zoom) in a very short period of time.

 

Until this happens we are faced with the problem of distortions due to spin and data manipulation (is it actually 'correcting' or creating something entirely different from the spun data?) that is a combination of reality and a paradox.

 

Only time will tell.

The 'spin effect' is only highly noticeable while on a spinning object's surface. Satellites are free from spin effect (mostly). In any case, physics is able to calculate for all these different variables. On a basic level, sidereal time is a good example.

 

This is completely different to the BB model even though it conforms accurately to what Poincare and Lorentz etc theorise.

 

Can you elaborate on this?

[watcher]

But this time would be impossible to observe because it is impossible to be all places at once.

 

i think if this is possible, like the effect of a super luminal speed, time will not be absolute but instead will simply disappear. (t=0)

 

I still don't know if I have explained these ideas very well and I'm sure there are things I'm missing. But it's interesting to ponder.

 

you seemed to have used used your intuition to arrived at these ideas. but i think Einstein understood QM when he said the moon was not there when nobody is looking at it. he just can't accept or believed it because it so counter intuitive.

 

spacetime is a relative duality. their existence is co-dependant. one cannot exist without the other. there is no such thing as absolute time. at least not in our universe. IMHO

[LaurieAG]

Hi Freeztar,

 

That sounds like infinite regression to me.

 

Just like the paradox of an object falling into a black hole.

 

Ok, I see the philosophical connection.

 

The viewpoint is actually a physical location, not philosophical position, that turns the paradox straight i.e. stops it from being an infinite regression.

 

The 'spin effect' is only highly noticeable while on a spinning object's surface. Satellites are free from spin effect (mostly). In any case, physics is able to calculate for all these different variables. On a basic level, sidereal time is a good example.

 

Our planet rotates around the sun and our sun rotates around our galactic center. If looking from one or other relative viewpoints leads to a paradox (probably including infinite regressions) then the only proper way is to take observations from a stationary position relative to our planets orbit around our sun and our suns orbit around its galactic center.

 

Can you elaborate on this?

 

The attached images of a Poincare Section and the feedback loop (with 3 different angles of 'spin') show what type of equipment you need to create physically what the mathematics describes (i.e. it's not infinite regression because of the 30 fps hardware limitation). Incidentally my avatar image appears to be very similar to astronomical images of star formation.

 

Maybe we should try to remove the spin and have a paradox free look at things?

[eloxer]

I would like to add two or three remarks on that subject::)

 

- In computer simulations you can compute a relativistic universe in rounds. Every state is computed from the previous state. These steps (or epochs) are the universal time. They can be quite tiny (meaning only few changes or small numeric changes to an otherwise discrete model - by the way: time is a property of discrete models alone - another indicator that the universe should be discrete and should not know continua). If you add distance to play a delaying role in interaction among particles, you'll get a relativistic model. Any complex structure on the inside cannot experience proper time now, since it must rely on state change comparisons, that are relative to speeds and distances. If that simulated structures were human creatures, they would have no means to measure this universal time.

- Even if you provided a program hack and provided an extra particle, that represents the universal time, to the inhabitants of the unverse this clock would be not very helpfull, since it would change its speed all the time.

- Einstein`s GR: One really misunderstood issue about GR is that it describes the physics of observation, not physics itself.

- I frequently observe, that people want to proove their ideas mathematically and philosophy is like the bad pill to take. They forget, that mathematics and current state of physics (which is quite absolete, to my knowledge) are bound by a common set of beliefs. Therefore, it is pointless to question the current state of belief and try to use mathematics that originated from these beliefs. Using math taken from classical physics will lead you to classical physics. Using math from quantum mechanics will lead you to an ever existing uncertainty about everything. Using math from GR will lead you to questions about time. The funny paradoxa that occur to us, and other things that should occur and do not occur, are due to beliefs about the unverse that form the mathematics. Therefore, in first place physics must be discussed philosophically. Mathematics kick in only when two people agree on the premisses. If there is just one thing, that cannot be explained via a set of beliefs, they must be questioned and so the resulting math. That´s the way science goes.

- I have read somewhere on the forum here, that since Universal Time cannot be measured, it doesn´t exist. What a fallacy. :) This argument is sometimes used by people who do not want to care and take responsibility (I didn`t see the guys beat the girl up). They just shut their eyes, so they don`t have to bother. It also reminds me of the behavioristic approach in psychology, where we know today, that behaviorism clearly has its limits.

 

Cheers to the forum: ;)

[modest]

I would like to add two or three remarks on that subject::eek2:

 

- In computer simulations you can compute a relativistic universe in rounds. Every state is computed from the previous state. These steps (or epochs) are the universal time. They can be quite tiny (meaning only few changes or small numeric changes to an otherwise discrete model - by the way: time is a property of discrete models alone - another indicator that the universe should be discrete and should not know continua). If you add distance to play a delaying role in interaction among particles, you'll get a relativistic model. Any complex structure on the inside cannot experience proper time now, since it must rely on state change comparisons, that are relative to speeds and distances. If that simulated structures were human creatures, they would have no means to measure this universal time.

 

There's no need to say structures can't experience proper time - that just opens up a valid objection for someone who wants to disagree with you. Your conclusion here, that nothing has the means to experience universal time, can be proven using only proper and coordinate time. Since these are both well defined and it's most difficult to solve GR with motion and mass, the proof would go something like this

 

The difference between proper time (which objects experience) and coordinate time (or global time) is:

 

[math]\Delta \tau = \Delta t \sqrt{ \left| g_{00} \right| }[/math]

where:

[math]\tau [/math] is proper time,

[math]t [/math] is coordinate time,

and [math]g_{00} [/math] is a component of the metric tensor.

 

In the schwarzschild metric:

[math]g_{00} = 1- \frac{2GM}{c^2r}[/math]

 

which means every area of space is time dilated by:

 

[math]\Delta T = \Delta T_0 \left( 1 - \frac {2GM} {rc^2} \right)^{-1/2}[/math]

 

Since every area of space is at lest some distance r from some mass m then there is nowhere in our universe that experiences coordinate time. So, we can say with confidence that no clock in our universe keeps global time... If we're saying there's a timekeeper outside the universe, well then, I wouldn't know how to make a proof for that :shrug:

 

This argument is sometimes used by people who do not want to care and take responsibility (I didn`t see the guys beat the girl up). They just shut their eyes, so they don`t have to bother. It also reminds me of the behavioristic approach in psychology, where we know today, that behaviorism clearly has its limits.

 

A difference of opinion is good. It stimulates scientific debate. It hardly needs such a description. You also might consider that your idea says something exists which no one can measure or experience in any way. So, people might have some valid objections to that.

 

~modest

[LaurieAG]

Hi Modest,

 

Your conclusion here, that nothing has the means to experience universal time, can be proven using only proper and coordinate time. Since these are both well defined and it's most difficult to solve GR with motion and mass, the proof would go something like this

 

That's a good structure for a proof although the practical application would work more like satellite systems.

 

I read an article recently about how one of the latest GPS systems triangulates the times from 3 satellites with a fourth as a further check calculation to get a resolution of 10 meters.

 

Since every area of space is at lest some distance r from some mass m then there is nowhere in our universe that experiences coordinate time. So, we can say with confidence that no clock in our universe keeps global time... If we're saying there's a timekeeper outside the universe, well then, I wouldn't know how to make a proof for that :cup:

 

That depends on how we define universal boundaries, especially if we use the proximity to mass ratio (m/r) as a guide for the boundaries of objects that can have no physical interractions (apart from sending photons) with others because they are too far away.

 

So a timekeeper, or a series of timekeepers, outside the influence of physical interractions with other objects with mass, could be expected to operate in an environment where time dilation is minimalised (as per your last equation), compared with other areas, and therefore still follow your proof structure.

 

A series of timekeepers in these boundary locations would be able to keep global time and, just like the GPS methods, their timers could be used by other objects to triangulate a relatively absolute position (as long as the timer positions don't spin).

[modest]

That depends on how we define universal boundaries, especially if we use the proximity to mass ratio (m/r) as a guide for the boundaries of objects that can have no physical interractions (apart from sending photons) with others because they are too far away.

 

A clock by itself in a universe all by its lonesome would keep its own global time - granted. That's unrealistic and hardly needs said.

 

So a timekeeper, or a series of timekeepers, outside the influence of physical interractions with other objects with mass, could be expected to operate in an environment where time dilation is minimalised (as per your last equation), compared with other areas, and therefore still follow your proof structure.

 

A series of timekeepers in these boundary locations would be able to keep global time and, just like the GPS methods, their timers could be used by other objects to triangulate a relatively absolute position (as long as the timer positions don't spin).

 

I explicitly said in my post above that the proof doesn't apply for a clock outside the universe. The boundary condition you're proposing (outside the influence of any matter) is no different. You want to isolate a clock by itself and at the same time say it measures some property of our universe - that's not coherent.

 

~modest

[Erasmus00]

relatively absolute position

 

That phrase is a contradiction in terms. You can't be relative and absolute.

-Will