Motion Vs Time

[Aethelwulf]

The Paradox of Time and Change

 

In contemplating my time theory and also related slightly to my other thread on the unification of physics (how we shall too soon see) involves the concept of whether things actually have a motion.

 

Keep in mind, the idea currently held by many scientists (and mostly forwarded by Julian Barbour) is that there is no such thing as time, there is only change. But like a complimentarity we actually come to a problem of change if one actually considers time itself.

 

To understand how one might question whether there is true motion, arises from the conjectures made in my time thread - the main one being is that all there is, is the present moment. Past and future fail to have real physical significance. The question arises, ''can you have more than one present moment?''

 

No moment is truly the same, so the answer may appear to be ''yes.'' But since one cannot say that the present changes to the future, is it easy then to say all there is, is a an ever-changing present moment? How can the present moment for instance change, if it always stays the present moment?

 

We have reached a paradox of time. One may even take this paradox to mean that... there cannot be such a thing as a change in time.

 

 

My Approach

 

My approach didn't throw out time however. Instead, I accepted that all there was, was the present moment so for at least with my current hypothesis on this area of physics, I do believe for now at least, that time exists but in a unique set of forms: One has to understand the present moment is all that exists and anything that has importance exists in a moment (a snapshot of reality). You may find these thoughts in my time thread.

 

These ''snapshots'' measure particles in their respective positions relative to each other and in a sense allows us to measure a change if you make more snapshots later. Interestingly, these where idea's I have had for a while, but while searching through J. Barbours papers, I came across a paper yesterday which actually talks about this dichotemy.

 

''In the spirit of Tait’s note, suppose a system of N point particles that

are said to be moving inertially. We are handed ‘snapshots’ of them taken at

certain unspecified instants by a ‘God-observer’. Since only dimensionless

quantities have physical meaning, we take them to give us dimensionless

separations [math]r_{ij}[/math] (1) :

 

[math]\hat{r}_{ij} = \frac{r_{ij}}{r}[/math]

 

[math]r = \sqrt{\sum_{i<j} r^{2}_{ij}}[/math]

 

where [math]r_{ij}[/math] are the separations measured with some arbitrary scale.

 

... Tait’s problem is: how can one use the snapshots to confirm that the

particles are moving inertially, and how many snapshots are needed? The

solution to the problem is simple but instructive.''

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.3368v1.pdf

 

Consider Julian's words here in light of what I have told you. I have already demonstrated that whilst one can try and avoid timelessness and state that a present time is all that is ever existent, we do continue to have the dilema...

 

''If all there is, is the present time, then how can it change?''

 

You see, we often think of time as change. I have shown there are fundamental errors thinking that time and change are synonymous (2), we should keep in mind that the two often seem inseparable to the human being. Moreso, that we have the illusion that the future exists and for change to occur, we often think things physically pass from some present state into a future state.

 

Whilst this is conceptually wrong and also experimentally wrong, it tells us about the nature of the present moment. For the present moment to change, we think of it changing to a new configuration (which we call the future). But if there is no future, how can there be a new configuration change in the concept of time itself? The only way we could possibly measure such a change is by measuring particles relativistically - but when we take a snapshot of reality, the motion does not exist.

 

This may even bring us to the question of the zeno paradox of motion. Before we do tackle this paradox, I feel the need to quote Aristotal, but take it with a pinch of salt

 

''We may say a thing is at rest when it has not changed its position between now and then, but there is no ‘then’ in ‘now’, so there is no being at rest. Both motion and rest, then, must necessarily occupy time.''

 

Actually, Barbour would argue that motion does not need to occupy time. In fact, he has stated that ''motion does not exist in time.'' (4) However, Aristotal does make an interesting point about about the concepts of ''now'' and ''then'' concerning position, but as he explains, there is no ''then'' in ''now'', which according to the understanding of physics I have came to, is akin to saying there is no ''future'' in the ''present'' there is only ''the present.''

 

Going back to Zeno's Paradox, he states ultimately that change is an illusion. However, in his Arrow Paradox, he does state that for motion to occur there needs to be a change in the position of thing - in a sense, this brings us back to the idea of displacements of particles in the universe (from my time thread) but we are left with the snapshot problem: In a snapshot small enough, motion ceases to exist - and my present time problem - if the present time is something which does not change (from past to present, from present toe future) then does time as we know it actually change?

 

Perhaps motion occurs when you measure different snapshots of reality, but perhaps the degree of freedom known as time is actually static?

 

If after all, time and change are completely different entities, then change can occur without time changing, just as I have proven time could possibly change without physical and dynamical systems changing. The separability of time and changing physical systems can be understood another way. Time is not physical as it is not an observable. Physical things are observables, the things we associate changes to. So maybe time doesn't change in aspect of there only being a present time frame.

 

To the Arrow Paradox, Aristotal writes:

 

''If everything when it occupies an equal space is at rest, and if that which is in locomotion is always occupying such a space at any moment, the flying arrow is therefore motionless.''

 

Final Words

 

I would have called this ''final conclusions'' but I have none. My idea's are still developing but I can see clear things within the speculations to reason that it is possible that motion itself is an illusion if the facts of the investigations are taken into consideration. I for now, have wavered away from timelessness, rather adopting the peculiar but obvious nature of time: that being an eternal present moment. But as I questioned once whether the universe was timeless, I am now questioning whether time itself needs to be something ''which changes.'' If change does not need to occur in time as Barbour seems to strongly believe, then one can easily conjecture that time does not need to change for physical changes to occur either.

 

 

 

 

(1) This is how my unification thread mangles into the discussion, because if one looks closely enough at my equations, one can see that I use the seperation [math]r_{ij}[/math].

 

(2) The zeno effect can halt the changing physical aspects of a particle through a series of observations by freezing the quantum evolution of the state of the system - however, while your system does not change, we normally don't expect time to halt also. Time simply trucks on. So change does not have to encompass a change of time.

 

(3) http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Markopoulou_SpaceDNE.pdf

 

(4) You can read that in his summery of the timelessness of quantum gravity http://www.platonia.com/papers.html

Edited July 24, 2012 by Aethelwulf