The Flux Of Time, A Modern Perspective Of Time Physics

[Aethelwulf]

Well, I am confused because this is exactly what I was showing with my equations of the past, present, future moments. So,if you look again (shown below) you will see that the past and future moments require that the 'present moment' (M2) exists,

 

Right, except it relies on a ''pointer'' existing in the past [math]M_1[/math]. Do you see what I mean?

[Aethelwulf]

 

But, this does not agree with your statement from two posts ago that what you call the 'present moment' can be thought as resulting from a [math]\Delta t_1[/math] concept, which does has a clear meaning of being a past time leading to a moment in the present. Thus, it does make sense to think about a concept of the 'past' if we are to accept your concept of a 'present moment'. Well, I hope you can see my confusion.

 

 

I said it can be thought of that way, because it almost agrees with the experience of time - that is the subjective experience of it. You can only speak of time delays and whatnot running from some past into the current present moment if time truly had a flow.

[Aethelwulf]

If anyone has any questions, whether they don't understand something, or that I haven't made myself clear about anything in the OP, just ask please. I have already had a numpty today either rephrase things I have said about the OP (not here) or they misinterpret what is said.

 

The OP is not easy to handle, does involve many physics jargon's and mathematical concepts on the side.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Aethelwulf

[Aethelwulf]

I've had a reasonable question from someone

 

''Well the best authority that I've known on relativity, says relativity is not on your side as ALL events, past, present and future, exist in space-time. GR is of course, deterministic, so this needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but you certainly cannot argue that just the 'present' foliation ( 3 dimensional ) is all that exists. As for your mention of Einstein, it was he who is most responsible for showing that only past events affect us due to the constant and finite speed of light, the present certainly cannot affect us at any measurable separation. Incidentally are fossil records, old books, etc. almost 'completely subjective' ?

 

I would argue that the past exists through causality. If the past is a figment of our collective imaginations, what causes events to happen in the present ? The causality argument can then also be extended to the future, which again needs to be taken with a grain of salt since certain aspects of QM allow for violation of causality.''

 

Well, indeed. Spacetime is not set out like a past, present or future. However, this is not just the element of argument here.

 

If indeed, the past existed ''now'', you would see multiple variations of yourself as you moved from one corner of your room to another, but we don't. Relativity has based its premises on hard science. The past and future simply don't exist - anything that has a significance physically exists within the present time.

 

I quote Lee Smolin now

 

''All that is real is real in a moment, which is a succession of moments. Anything that is true is true of the present moment. Not only is time real, but everything that is real is situated in time. Nothing exists timelessly.''

 

Smolin, seems to be quite right. There is o real moment, but a present moment. To his comment I add, that nothing can exist outside this moment, because if it did, then the real moment is not as ''real'' as we would think it is. We drag along with time, we measure a past and remember it, which causes a distinct illusion that past itself is something which is experienced and the future is something yet to happen. But in reality, a future state never happens, nor does a past state happen ''now''. Each, or rather, both the past and future are ''assigned'' present moments in which they truly are real. But keep in mind, the present moment is still a loose way of saying... ''the here and now.''

 

Now the question of ''causality'' falls apart when considering your sources point of view. Causality isn't even consistent within the framework of quantum mechanics, http://www.fredalanwolf.com/myarticles/causalityVC.pdf . In fact, let us ignore that paper, only for a moment. Imagine that your world consisted of a defined direction in which you can evaluate everything. On the macroscopic scale, indeed, I would agree. Life seems very ordered with the egg falling from the table and smashing on the floor. However, while there is a direct relationship to a cause and effect, even on the macroscopic scale things become distorted. When realizing that the egg fell in present time, flew to the floor in present time and smashed on the floor in present time, you soon come to realize all there is, is the present time.

 

The present time engulfs everything. Causality or not, what you really have is a bunch of local objects all confined within the sphere of the present ''happening.'' The best bit yet to realize, is that this applies to all objects in the universe. Indeed, no object truly exists in the past, because to each object there is still a present moment. For that information to reach us, it obviously takes time to reach us. But we don't sit stationary in this present time frame. Light also needs to travel through time (relative to us) even though light itself follows null geodesics.

 

(Keep in mind, this ''element of argument'' must be arguing Einsteins view himself. He even admitted that the past and future are simple illusions. Even without forming my own opinions on the field equations, there are plenty reasons oustide of ******'s belief that the world is only consistent within the very frame of present existence... is so heavily agreeable that it surely cannot be denied.)

Edited July 16, 2012 by Aethelwulf

[Aethelwulf]

So what causes an event to happen if the past is a figment of our imaginations?

 

It's simple.. the past is a pre-effect, the present is the only true effect we know about. A thing actually leads from one present moment to the next. Not from one past moment to a future moment, there cannot be such a thing. All succession of real events occur within the present time frame.

 

The only thing which could exist in the world explaining why this is, lyes in biology and the common misconception that time always has a flow and the experience of it should be taken seriously.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Aethelwulf

[Rade]

Keep in mind, this ''element of argument'' must be arguing Einsteins view himself. He even admitted that the past and future are simple illusions.

Well, no, this is not at all what Einstein said.

 

When his lifelong friend Besso died, Einstein wrote a letter to Besso's family, saying that although Besso had preceded him in death it was of no consequence, his letter said "He has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me (Einstein was then 76). That means nothing. For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubborn illusion ". (From Walter Isaacson, p.540, 'Einstein, His Life and Universe')

 

So, Einstein did not claim that the present is NOT an illusion, what he claimed was that the past, present, future all occur simultaneously, and that it is an illusion to think that only the present exists, or that only the past exists, or that only the future exists, that is, to try to separate the present from the past and future given that they occur simultaneously (e.g, any attempt to find distinction among them is an illusion).

 

Einstein never made a claim that either the past or future are an illusion, both are as real as the present because they occur simultaneously with it.

 

Only to clarify.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Rade

[Rade]

... the past is a pre-effect, the present is the only true effect we know about. A thing actually leads from one present moment to the next. Not from one past moment to a future moment, there cannot be such a thing.

Here I do not agree, the past is never any kind of effect, it is always a cause that leads to a real effect.

 

A simple example. Consider a block of marble that exists in a present moment. In a future moment (another present moment) a sculpturer finishes cutting a figure of a man from the block of marble (lets call it Statue of David). We do not say that the block of marble is a "pre-effect" of David, we say it is a "cause" (along with the action of the sculpture) of the "effect" the artist called David.

 

We always say the past is a "cause" of some present effect. Now, a present effect can be the coming to be of something from a past cause(s), such as a statue called David. At the moment David has come to be, then David can serve as a cause of some future effect, perhaps one of the hands is broken.

 

Thus, it cannot be true (as you say) that the present is the only true effect we know about. In this example we known about a past effect (the original coming to be of David) and we know about a present effect (loss of hand). We know both these effects best if we are the sculpture that created David whom lived long enough to see a hand missing, for no human can known David better than the person that created it.

 

I agree with you that a 'thing' does not directly lead from a past moment to a future moment, this is impossible.

 

But, I disagree that there is any such action as a thing leading from a present moment to another present moment to another, etc. unless there is something intermediate between each present moment. So, if [] = present moment, the sequence [][][][][][].... is not possible unless there is something between each [], that is, the present must undergo transformation from the past to the future for the sequence to exist. Again, recall Einstein and his comment that it is illusion to attempt to find distinction between past, present, future.

 

[your present] can become my future at the same time it becomes your past that leads to [my present].

 

We experience this when we sit on a moving train. So, consider a train [T] moving in this direction <--------[T]-------.

I sit in seat A on the train further to the back, you sit in seat B closer to front, thus < ---------[b----A]----------.

We both look out the window simultaneously at some time, say 12:45 pm. What we both observe out the window is a [present moment] at 12:45 pm. In your [present moment] you see a parked car and you call me on cell phone to inform me. At time 12:46 pm I look out the window and I see exactly in my [present moment] the same object you saw at 12:45, a parked car. Thus, intermediate between the two [present moments] is your past and my future, they both occur simultaneously with both present moments.

 

So, I conclude that the sequence [][][][][][]...is impossible unless there is something intermediate between each [], e.g., a past and future. As stated by Einstein, it is an illusion to try to separate the present from the past and future, they all occur simultaneously, which is complete agreement with the definition of time I hold to be true, "time = that which is intermediate between moments". In my way of thinking, all three occur simultaneously AT THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PRESENT MOMENT.

 

Comments welcome.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Rade

[Rade]

Right, except it relies on a ''pointer'' existing in the past [math]M_1[/math]. Do you see what I mean?

Yes, of course. But, your mathematical concept of the 'present moment' [math]M_2[/math], as you said, also can be shown to require a 'time pointer' existing in the past. That is, your equation of the 'present moment' (M_2) in the symbols I used:

[math] M_2 = M_1 + \Delta t_1 [/math]

 

So, I do not see how you can argue that a past time pointer is OK to define a 'present moment'(M_2), but not OK to define a 'past moment'(M_1) ?

Edited July 17, 2012 by Rade

[Aethelwulf]

Well, no, this is not at all what Einstein said.

 

When his lifelong friend Besso died, Einstein wrote a letter to Besso's family, saying that although Besso had preceded him in death it was of no consequence, his letter said "He has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me (Einstein was then 76). That means nothing. For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubborn illusion ". (From Walter Isaacson, p.540, 'Einstein, His Life and Universe')

 

 

There really is no need to ''split'' hairs. I know why Einstein said it. All I said was that he had said that the past and future are illusions, there is nothing incorrect about this statement.

[Aethelwulf]

Here I do not agree, the past is never any kind of effect, it is always a cause that leads to a real effect.

 

 

 

My language is simply breaking down. Just remember the past does not exist. Nothing exists in the past ''now''. The past had a ''now'' but it no longer exists. It's not a real physical ''thing''.

 

Someone the other day said to me, if that was the case, how can we view the past by looking into the universe. You need to remember that the images we see are actually light signals which have been travelling without being disturbed since the early universe. The signals aren't a glimpse for instance, of the universe as it is ''now''. That existence is long gone, and we certainly don't sit in the present as stationary observers while these past signals comes to reach us now. Everything in the universe trucks along present time.

[Aethelwulf]

Yes, of course. But, your mathematical concept of the 'present moment' [math]M_2[/math], as you said, also can be shown to require a 'time pointer' existing in the past. That is, your equation of the 'present moment' (M_2) in the symbols I used:

[math] M_2 = M_1 + \Delta t_1 [/math]

 

So, I do not see how you can argue that a past time pointer is OK to define a 'present moment'(M_2), but not OK to define a 'past moment'(M_1) ?

Neither are ok. You are missing the point. Whether you call it a past time pointer or a past moment pointer, they are both concepts involving the past and so are not actually physically real.

[LaurieAG]

Hi Aethelwulf,

 

So what is a Hamiltonian constraint? One example might have the form of

 

[math]\pi_t + H = 0[/math]

 

Here, [math]\pi_t[/math] is the momentum conjugate to time and [math]H[/math] is the Hamiltonian. If one wanted to quantize this equation, you would replace the momentum constraint with the momentum operator [math]-i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t}[/math], doing so would make it a time-dependant Schrodinger Equation and we will also notice that the equation would be complexified.

 

Keep in mind the inseparable relationship between energy and time. They are conjugates of each other when considering the ''symmetries'' when involving energy conservation.

 

Considering that Pi is a dimensionless constant (no units) what happens when you compare your momentum constraint with your replacement momentum operator i.e. in the form of Pi = x, complexified or otherwise?

[Aethelwulf]

Hi Aethelwulf,

 

 

 

 

 

Considering that Pi is a dimensionless constant (no units) what happens when you compare your momentum constraint with your replacement momentum operator i.e. in the form of Pi = x, complexified or otherwise?

 

Hello Laurie.

 

Yes, its true, in physics we have a dimensionless momentum as [math]\bar{P} = \frac{P}{mc}[/math] but in this work, the canonical momentum is not dimensionless.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Aethelwulf

[Pmb]

So what is a Hamiltonian constraint? One example might have the form of

 

[math]\pi_t + H = 0[/math]

 

Here, [math]\pi_t[/math] is the momentum conjugate to time and [math]H[/math] is the Hamiltonian.

Where did you get that from? There's no such thing as a momentum conjugate to time. Conjugate momentum only has meaniing when there is a corresponding coordinate to be conjugate to. In quantum mechanics time is not an observable, its a parameter.

 

If one wanted to quantize this equation, you would replace the momentum constraint with the momentum operator [math]-i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t}[/math],

That is the operator corresponding to energy, not momentum.

[Aethelwulf]

Where did you get that from? There's no such thing as a momentum conjugate to time. Conjugate momentum only has meaniing when there is a corresponding coordinate to be conjugate to. In quantum mechanics time is not an observable, its a parameter.

 

 

That is the operator corresponding to energy, not momentum.

 

 

 

I'm sorry folks, you are absolutely right. Slight mishap, wrong derivative

 

[math]i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial x}[/math]

 

for the one dimensional case. As for this notation above which you questioned the conjugate momentum, the reference is here: http://www.platonia.com/complex_numbers.pdf

[Aethelwulf]

I fixed the mistake, thank you pmb.

[Aethelwulf]

Pmb, you might like to read this excerpt I got from another site

 

''It can be seen as the generator of system evolution in time. It can also be seen as the conjugate momentum to time, meaning that if time is thought of a generalized coordinate, the momentum corresponding to that coordinate will be the Hamiltonian, just as the momentum corresponding to a Cartesian coordinate is the familiar linear momentum.''

 

http://everything2.com/title/Hamiltonian