Assertion of an "absolute now" from "What is 'spacetime' really"

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

This thread is on the ontology of spacetime, and often will focus on the component parts, like "What is time, really?"

I would expect such. As I have said earlier, there is a distinction between the concept
of time (as we view it) and time itself (if there is an itself per se). The passage of time
is ascribed by people by agreement. We all agree to what value is one second. As a
representation of what we view, we can consider time as an additional coordinate (with
the appropriate conversion factor - c). Time then just becomes another form of space.
This notion is Not an "is", instead a working principle to view the world. In this way
we can label this "spacetime" as "space" and "time" combined. It is the Ontology of
what this represents I think is what you have attempting to get at. I am maybe others
here have been confusing what you were driving at as to "what is [the representation]
'spacetime' really?" Where we differ is you use the "glasses" of Euclidean Geometry to
perceive that Reality, I allow the possibility of a Differential Geometry with some local
Radius of Curvature.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Do you actually think that dropping the phrase "Higgs field" explains where everything in the universe came from.... as in "someting from nothing?" This is the most elementary level of ontological absurdity. "Ontology 101" starts with the obvious fact that everything in the universe (the real stuff) did not magically appear "out of the Void of Space." It all actually had to always be in existence. None of "it" is created or destroyed. It just constantly changes form.
Seems that this discussion must start in ontological kindergarten and then progress toward more complicated *theories* like the Higgs field.

If that is your a-priori assumption... that the Higgs field is the cosmic "Magic Hat", then we left serious science behind before the ground rules of ontology were even established.

Your version seems a bit Aristotelian doesn't it ? Actually the notion of "something from
nothing" or Vacuum Fluctuations has strong theoretical grounding and can happen.
The probability is low so as to be inconsequential yet is why you can never attain a
temperature of exact Absolute 0 degrees Kelvin.

As for the Higgs Field, I am not sold totally on the idea. I am aware it is part of the
current Standard Model (it took me more that 10 years to warm up to QCD... ... ).
It is not a "Magic Hat", did not come from a Harry Potter novel. It is a sombrero and
is a representation of Symmetry Breaking. I just wonder if some other mechanism is
going on here.

maddog

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Ummmm.... "Reality slows down"??
Say, just for a moment, that you took a flying leap out of the "relativity paradigm" and landed in what most folks *think* is impossible... a cosmic perspective on "Reality.
(Just for a moment... please... you can go back to relative perspective immediately after this little "thought experiment. But *please* "go with it" for this exercise.)
"Seeing" (or even Being!!... a thought experiment, remember!) Cosmos aa a whole... everything everywhere is all happening right now. The speed limit of light only limits what local perspectives can "see," and even the sunlight we see now left the sun over eight minutes ago. So, there is, of course, a time delay in what we can see... the farther away the event/lightsource, the longer the delay.
OK... back to "Reality" with a capital 'R'. Everything everywhere is moving... on all scales from subatomic to universal/cosmic. We all know about these cycles on all scales ('cept maybe the Big Cycle of a possible cyclic cosmos!) Earth spins in "real time*" "one rev a "day" and orbits sun once a "year." Etc., etc... Galaxies spin one rev every so many million "earth years"... etc. (*Real time* in this sense is "absolute* meaning natural cycles that have nothing to do with human (or other intelligent life form) "observation" or the limits of relative perspective.
Are you with me so far??

Yeah, I am with on this thought problem...

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

So... from this "cosmic perspective" what would be the meaning of your phrase, "Reality slows down?" It would lose its meaning outside the paradigm of relative perspective.
So then, what would the concept of gravitational slowing down of time mean? Absolutely nothing! It is just a myopic, relativistic paradigm... as if human perspective and our poor instruments of measurement... (like clocks that slow down under variable gravitational conditions) actually dictate that "Reality slows down!"
Is there anyone here who can see the anthropomorphic absurdity of this?

You have now gone and concluded the effect you created in your "thought problem".
You can't go and create world in your head and conclude the effect as "proof", "justifcation" or anything of the kind. That is quite bogus!

Now lets say I create "thought problem" example. In my world, Euclid's 5th Postualte
has been relaxed such that the presence of mass or energy density determines the local
curvature of space. A 4-dimensional coordinate system "labeled" "spacetime" can guide
me through this world so that I know where I am. Knowing the velocity I am moving
with respect to an alternate observer, I can compare my clock with his to know whether
there is a difference in passage of time. Viola! I have now just done what you proceeded to
do (in reverse).

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Now, granted, this was presented as a "thought experiment." But then so was the Minkowski/Einstein/relativity *theory* of "spacetime" and in particular "dilated time."

It is true that Einstein (borrowing from Minkowski) use "thought experiments" to derive
the answer of dilation in time and contraction in space. However, Einstein used that
Experiment to form the groundwork to conclude something outside of the Experiment.
You have used a "thought Experiment" to conclude you answer. Not the same.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

So... the above can be seen as just another thought experiment. It is in fact, the way I have "seen" Reality all my life. ... And It doesn't "slow down" just because our clocks can't keep absolute cosmic time under the stress of various gravitational and other inertial changes "relative to each other."

I guess you don't use GPS to calculate where you are. The Coordinate system used
as part of GPS takes account of the dilation of time from both GR & SR. The discrepency
may only be a few microseconds. Though that accuracy allows the resolution in distance
to be within 10 M in space.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Just a little food for thought to sleep on.
Hope it doesn't give anyone nightmares!

No nightmares here.

maddog

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

...And then you keep saying "Time is what clocks measure." ...
With the same logic we can say that "Auras are what aurameters measure" or "Ley lines of force are what specially tuned dowsing rods measure."

Get my point? Ontologically none of the above establishes the "reality" of time as a dilating (etc.) medium... or "bioplasmic energy" or "ley line earth forces" as "real."...

AHA!!!

You have asked a really, really intelligent and challenging question here!

I love the analogy between "time" and "ley lines". Why is the one "real" and the other not?

It just occurred to me that nobody ever bounced an electron off a chronon, thus proving that "time" existed and was mediated by a particle.


Seriously what IS "time"? I'm just brainstorming here.

Time is not a static "thing" like distance or dimension.
Time is a manifestation of changes of state.
Time is a manifestation of the sequential nature of state change; a thing or collection of things goes through a sequence of states.
Each state is observably unique in some way.
Time is a manifestation of the monadal identification of state; a thing or collection is in exactly ONE state at the boundary between past & future.
Therefore, time is a manifestation of a sequence of singular, monadal state changes.
Since these state changes cannot be simultaneous, then these states must be "spread out" over some locations within a state-space; like a sequence of points on graph paper.
This separation of the individual state-space locations is a measure of "occurrence".
Individual state-spaces "occur" at different points within this continuous state-space metric.
This state-space metric is what we "locally" call Time.
Time derives from vastly ongoing, continuous, global and micro sequences of singular monadal state changes in matter/energy. These state transitions can, at some convenient scale, be observed and tracked.
The clock does not track Time; the clock tracks its own carefully configured internal state transitions.
Time could then, in theory, be brought to a halt if matter/energy could be configured such that it was permanently in one state and there were no state transitions possible.
The internal state transitions of matter/energy are not driven by "time"; they are driven by fluctuating gradients of mass density and energy density; from the cosmo-macro scale all the way down to the sub-atomic quantum scale. At every scale, gradients of mass density and energy density "flow" like waves in all directions; their "flow" is itself a self-organizing, self-actuating sea of directed state transitions. And these "flows" perpetuate and trigger all "events" (state transitions) at ever increasing scales of distance.
There is a joke that "Time" is that property of the Universe that prevents everything from happening simultaneously. It's not a joke. But it isn't "Time" that does this; it is the property that any subset of the space/mass/energy can only be in one singular state.
Observation in its most basic sense, requires an observer that has continuous internal state transitions; the only way to observe an "event" (state transition) outside of the observer, is for that "event" to affect a corresponding "event" (state transition) inside the system of space/mass/energy that we call an "observer".
It is this self-organizing pairings of external/internal events that make up what we call "perception".
Our perception of Time (in a local sense) is merely a measure of the number of sequential events that we can perceive; this is a function of our atomic and chemical makeup, in that very simple space/mass/energy systems can "perceive" more external events than can a very large complex space/mass/energy system.
The Rate at which our internal space/mass/energy system can identify or perceive external state transitions is our perceived flow of time (local).
Time (global) can be tracked only to the extent that there are space/mass/energy systems, at a specified location, which respond to global (at all scales) gradients; if there are many such systems independently responding to gradients, then Time (global) at that location "flows" at all Rates to which the systems respond.
Therefore, , outside of a sentient space/mass/energy system with a well-defined local time scale, time (global) flows at all time scales.
At any given point (and only a point) there is no one flow of time or scale of state transitions. There are potentially state transitions at ALL scales, and therefore, rather than there being "no time", I posit that there is (are) ALL times, ALL time scales, ALL rates of state transition, as the point is bombarded by mass/energy/gradients of ALL values.
Our self-aware sentience, complex as it is, experiences only a very narrow bandwidth of mass/energy/gradients and the corresponding internal "perceptive" state transitions.
We think of our local Time sense as an appreciation of Time as it is & as only it can be. The way TIME REALLY IS.
We are blind.
Just as our eyes can only perceive the EM spectrum in one tiny bandwidth, so can we only perceive TIME in a tiny bandwidth.
Does TIME "exist"?
Wrong question.
Do continuous monadal singular state transitions exist at every spacial scale? Yes.
Are they driven by continuous, from every spacial direction, mass/energy/gradients of every conceivable amplitude? Yes.
That's what exists.
All else is semantics.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

AHA!!!

You have asked a really, really intelligent and challenging question here!

I love the analogy between "time" and "ley lines".

I like it too. I think it was originally brought up in post #137

Originally Posted by modest

Think of the magnetic field lines a person could draw around a magnet. The field lines are not real physical things. But, that doesn't mean electromagnetism isn't a real physical thing. It doesn't mean that Maxwell's theory of the electromagnetic field is wrong.

One might be tempted to say that magnetic field lines are not real and not physical but are rather something like a map and therefore magnetic field lines must be straight (they cannot be curved). This is analogous to saying the spacetime manifold is not real and not physical but is itself a map and therefore it must be straight and uncurved (i.e. space and time cannot be curved).

As I've previously said, that line of reasoning does not seem sound to me.

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

Modest:

One might be tempted to say that magnetic field lines are not real and not physical but are rather something like a map and therefore magnetic field lines must be straight (they cannot be curved). This is analogous to saying the spacetime manifold is not real and not physical but is itself a map and therefore it must be straight and uncurved (i.e. space and time cannot be curved)...
As I've previously said, that line of reasoning does not seem sound to me.

I would not be so tempted. Magnetic fields are obviously curved. The Earth's... a bar magnet's... solar flairs... the aurora borealis. We can see the curvature as expressed by iron filings on paper over a magnet... or in the display of ionized gases near the poles.
As above... you usually totally misunderstand what i am saying. Your example above was a totally false representation of my "line of reasoning."

Like the curved path of light around masses, the curved force field of magnetism does not establish "The Curvature of Space." It is a "fabricated medium"... only a model... unlike magnetic force fields and curved light paths.
Amazingly enough, straight lines, however "geometric" are still straight lines... both on paper and through space...
And the "objective distance" (however much you hate that phrase!) "through space" between two objects (or points on paper) is still a straight line... not the light path by which we 'see" objects.

. Would you please step aside and let this thread progress without your distortions of what I am saying here??

Pyrotex: "I love the analogy between "time" and "ley lines".
Modest:: "I like it too. I think it was originally brought up in post #137:"

Originally Posted by modest View Post
Think of the magnetic field lines a person could draw around a magnet. The field lines are not real physical things. But, that doesn't mean electromagnetism isn't a real physical thing. It doesn't mean that Maxwell's theory of the electromagnetic field is wrong.

Your magnet example completely misses my point... as usual. (as per my above comments.)

A brief exercise in logic...
Assertion: "Time is what clocks measure." (Implication: If clocks measure "it" then "it" must be "real" (as an entity of some kind.)

Assertion: "Ley lines are what specially designed dowsing rods measure." (Implication: If dowsing rods measure "it" then "it" must be real (as a real Earth Force of some kind.)

Your curved magnetic field doesn't even approach the ontological debunking of 'time as established by clocks' presented above.

The sorry truth as I see it is that you have no idea what I just said!
Michael

[Boof-head]

Clocks don't measure time; clocks make ticking noises.
We measure what a clock 'says', a clock just keeps ticking, because we make it.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Boof-head

Clocks don't measure time; clocks make ticking noises.
We measure what a clock 'says', a clock just keeps ticking, because we make it.

Yes. I just said that. Clocks measure their own internal changes of state.

[Boof-head]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

Clocks measure their own internal changes of state

No, they don't.
Clocks don't measure a thing; we just tell ourselves "clocks keep track of time", but this isn't really the case, we keep track of time, by looking at a clock, or listening to a talking clock, or seeing where the sun is or how dark or light the sky looks.

We're the measurers, measurement isn't something inanimate matter is capable of.

[Essay]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

Clocks measure their own internal changes of state.

Yes, and so couldn't we just talk about reality, instead of clocks?

Clocks measure reality (their reality). Am I wrong to say that it is reality that slows down in a higher gravitational field? Atomic decay events (clocks) on our GPS satellites are speeded up (as are chemical reaction rates) due to the lower gravity.


p.s. [I think I recall this correctly] Overall, there's a net slowing of reality on the GPS satellites, due to the velocity--which outweighs the "speeding up of reality due to low gravity" --but that's another part of the equation.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

I would not be so tempted. Magnetic fields are obviously curved.

Spacetime is obviously curved in the presence of mass.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

The Earth's... a bar magnet's... solar flairs... the aurora borealis. We can see the curvature as expressed by iron filings on paper over a magnet... or in the display of ionized gases near the poles.

We can likewise see curvature expressed by earth, mars, mercury, comets, light—and all other paths made through the solar system or galaxy.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

the curved force field of magnetism does not establish "The Curvature of Space."

Indeed—magnetic field lines are curved in flat spacetime.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

It is a "fabricated medium"... only a model... unlike magnetic force fields and curved light paths.

Magnetic field lines represent a vector field and should not be reified. In a similar way, the dimpled depictions of spacetime like a bowling ball on a rubber sheet that you see in textbooks represent a tensor field and should not be reified.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Pyrotex: "I love the analogy between "time" and "ley lines".
Modest:: "I like it too. I think it was originally brought up in post #137:"



Your magnet example completely misses my point... as usual. (as per my above comments.)

My magnet example did not address your point. It was neither a response to it nor a response to you. I will, however, address it now.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

A brief exercise in logic...
Assertion: "Time is what clocks measure." (Implication: If clocks measure "it" then "it" must be "real" (as an entity of some kind.)

In special and general relativity space and time are what clocks and rods measure. That is the definition of time in those constructs and so too is it the definition I've given. It's also, incidentally, a definition I'm rather fond of. It is simply a definition, not an ontological element.

Your stated implication that "time is what a clock measures" somehow advocates the idea that time is an entity of some kind (presumably an ontological entity) is not an implication I've made. I've simply defined the terms I'm using.

Incidentally, there is no significant difference between my definition of time and yours:

Originally Posted by modest

Time is essentially duration (which we might think of as being measured with a clock or any regularly repeating phenomenon)

post #590

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Time is the *concept/measure* of event duration, like... one rotation of earth... one earth orbit around sun... the great cycle of the precession of the equinox...

post #576

So you might just consider how fervently you are objecting to my given definition of time and all the implications you think I'm making with it when it is indistinguishable from the definition you've given.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Assertion: "Ley lines are what specially designed dowsing rods measure."

This is a valid definition. If you created charts full of ley lines which were found by dousing then you could most properly define "ley lines" as "what the dowsing rod measured". This makes the least amount of assumptions about the nature of what the lines represent.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

(Implication: If dowsing rods measure "it" then "it" must be real (as a real Earth Force of some kind.)

This would not be a logical implication. It's a fine analogy you're making. If someone said "time must be a real physical entity because clocks reliably measure it" then you could rightfully use this analogy and this objection. I haven't seen anyone in this thread say that or make that implicaion, but we're now fully prepared if somebody does

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Your curved magnetic field doesn't even approach the ontological debunking of 'time as established by clocks' presented above.

I don't know what this means. If you're trying to debunk my definition (which I stole from Einstein) then you're debunking your own definition as well. I'm fully open to defining space and time differently, but only if it is a useful or usable definition. As far as the ontology of time...

I personally do not believe distance or duration are ontological entities. I must admit that I do not understand their fundamental nature, so I could certainly be wrong. But, to me the time between events seems like a function of whatever matter or energy is interacting with the events. The distance between the earth and moon is not an ontological element in and of itself. Anything moving from one object to the other (including light) would include the property of distance, but the distance need not exist of its own accord.

~modest

As an aside, Michael, you might want to look up "inertia" and "momentum". In your second to last post to me you used the phrase "change in inertia" as a proposed cause of time dilation where I'm sure you're confusing inertia and momentum. I also noticed you're still saying "event duration". An event has the same meaning in philosophy and physics—it has no duration. I'm sure you'll take this constructive criticism like I'm trying to debate you... but