Time is not linear

[scruffy]

String theory is difficult to understand. Here are the reasons:

1. Abstract concepts: String theory deals with very abstract and complex concepts such as extra dimensions, vibrating strings, and supersymmetry, which can be challenging to grasp without a strong background in theoretical physics.

2. Mathematical complexity: String theory requires a deep understanding of advanced mathematics, including differential geometry, group theory, and complex algebraic equations. This can be overwhelming for those without a strong mathematical foundation.

3. Lack of experimental evidence: Unlike other well-established theories in physics, such as general relativity and quantum mechanics, string theory lacks experimental evidence to support its claims. This makes it difficult for many to accept and understand the theory without tangible proof.

4. Multiple interpretations: There are several different versions of string theory, each with its own set of equations and assumptions. This can lead to confusion and make it difficult for non-experts to understand the theory as a whole.

5. Evolving nature: String theory is still a developing field, and new discoveries and advancements are continuously being made. This makes it challenging for non-experts to keep up with the latest developments and understand the current state of the theory.

Agreed!

The original version of the "extra dimensions" theory by Kaluza seeks to explain the - sign in the metric.

Supposedly, we get this with "curvature", which implies the extra dimension.

But there are other ways to achieve this, in addition to the geometric approach there is the stochastic approach which can mimic it in certain ways, if the appropriate symmetries are present. This is why I point to the brain, because that's what seems to happen there.

You could envision the same thing happening at a tiny scale, one so small the nonlocal interactions predominate. You could mimic an annealing process this way, and there is no requirement the temperature be consistent, or even smooth. All that's needed is a "local average" which is easy to obtain.

Viewed this way, what looks to us like a choice (or a quantum collapse) is actuality criticality, and therefore mathematically accessible.

To complete the analogy, the vibrating molecules or strings or whatever, end up being coupled oscillators, just like in the brain - and therefore the Kuramoto dynamics are in play, and we already know they generate power series solutions that describe the observed criticality pretty exactly.

It kind of makes sense that nature would re-use the stuff that works. If you're familiar with the Green's function for surfaces, we need that same thing for stochastic distributions - which is, I think, where Feynman was headed. The "path integral" (meaning the sum of all possible paths) should be "sufficient" to generate a reciprocal reference frame, given a field with the appropriate symmetries.

I think, ultimately, string theory will resolve to this too. Strings are just coupled oscillators in more dimensions.

 

[scruffy]

Evidence!

The hypothesis is specifically, that what we experience as time, is a "covering" generated by much smaller and shorter events.

More specific than that even - the basis for this covering is an INTERVAL basis, not a point basis. In ordinary linear algebra, everything is points, if you want to do a change of basis all you have to do is calculate the transformation matrix, which can then also be applied to any reference frame. This method relies on the continuity of the coordinate systems - "points".

So let's say you're trying to put together a surface. You can do it with points, but you can also achieve the same covering with intervals. (You can think of an interval like a line segment, it starts somewhere and it has an extent). So when you build your surface, you use a "rule", for example, "place this point HERE" (where the coordinates are given). With intervals, the rules can take a slightly different form.

A well known example is the Cantor Dust. The rule goes like this: start with the interval [0,1], and chop out the middle third - and do this recursively to every subsequent interval. So every cut creates two smaller intervals, and what you end up with is a "dust" of vanishingly small intervals - and the result can be proven to have the same number of "points" as the source and yet it is nowhere dense.

Cantor set - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I said, the brain does it the same way, and here is evidence:

Metrical properties of spatial and temporal reference frames in visual working memory | JOV | ARVO Journals

jov.arvojournals.org

 

[ReinyDays]

But time stops at the speed of light so you really have no way to understand what it means to be light

That's a discontinuity ... we can only say "as speed approaches c, the passage of time approaches stoppage" ... because what you're saying is distance divided by time has meaning when time = 0 ... but we can't divide by zero this way ... at least not a real number answer ...

The best explanation I've been given treats the four dimensions of TimeSpace as all spacial ... and the speed of light in a vacuum is the conversion factor between meters and seconds ... in exactly the same way we multiply centimeters by 2.54 to get inches ... we multiply seconds by 298,000,000 to get meters ...

Of course it's weird ... why we call it a non-Euclidian Space ... the geometry you learned in high school doesn't apply to the larger universe, starting with Mercury ... this video is a little thick, but it does accelerate house cats to the speed of light before they're thrown into a black hole ... and it's not a perfect explanation, not in just 12 minutes ... but it certainly addresses the OP ... time is not linear ... it's shaped like a house cat brain, smooth as can be, just twisted a bit ...

 

[The Duke]

I tell ya wut; Time never goes backwards.

 

[sparky]

Some physicists dispute that time exists at all. Some claim it is merely a projection of another spatial dimension.

this fits here>

Einstein's Theory and Time | American Museum of Natural History

Einstein passed by the clock towers morning on his way home, a route he often took with his closest friend, Michele Besso. The two men regularly discussed science and philosophy—including the nature of time. After one such discussion, Einstein came to a sudden realization: Time is not absolute.

www.amnh.org

~S~

 

[d0gbreath]

Some have theorized that time as we interpret it doesn't actually exist at all, that the past, present, and future are all happening at the same time, but "time" is the way our human brains interpret that sequence of events.

A sequence of events would have to take place over time.

 

[scruffy]

A sequence of events would have to take place over time.

So... do you envision that your sequence has a beginning and an end?

Or do you allow for the possibility of infinities?

The universe "may" expand forever (we dont really know, some say yes some say no), and some surmise the Big Bang was the "beginning of time" while others consider there was something before.

The problem with infinities is they make your universe non-topological. The math term is "compact", which is probably close to how most people envision the universe.

Compact space - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Physicists use a trick to make things compact, it's called "compactification". It basically amounts to removing the infinities (most of the time, unless you have a horribly behaved set in the first place).

But, pay careful attention to the dimensionality and how it's being transformed.

Start with the real number line, which has two infinities, - and +. We can get rid of both of them in one operation, by equating them. The idea is, infinity is infinity, at some point it only matters that it's "sufficiently far away". How you do it is, you BEND both ends of the real number line upwards, until they join. Thereby forming a circle - which is compact.

Compactification (mathematics) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This example is called the "Alexandroff one point compactification", but the same methods are used in 10 and 12 and 26 dimensions in string theory.

Compactification (physics) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The reason compactification matters, is because of waves, which have no beginning and no end. And fields and such. In the math, things tend to run off to infinity, and we can compactify in many useful ways, for example projective space is a compactification, and complex projective space compactifies to a Riemann sphere. In such a construction we can use the ANGLE to represent the original real number - thereby bringing us back to the original dimensionality, only now it's parametrized (note the angle is radius invariant).

 

[d0gbreath]

So... do you envision that your sequence has a beginning and an end?

Or do you allow for the possibility of infinities?

The universe "may" expand forever (we dont really know, some say yes some say no), and some surmise the Big Bang was the "beginning of time" while others consider there was something before.

The problem with infinities is they make your universe non-topological. The math term is "compact", which is probably close to how most people envision the universe.

Compact space - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Physicists use a trick to make things compact, it's called "compactification". It basically amounts to removing the infinities (most of the time, unless you have a horribly behaved set in the first place).

But, pay careful attention to the dimensionality and how it's being transformed.

Start with the real number line, which has two infinities, - and +. We can get rid of both of them in one operation, by equating them. The idea is, infinity is infinity, at some point it only matters that it's "sufficiently far away". How you do it is, you BEND both ends of the real number line upwards, until they join. Thereby forming a circle - which is compact.

Compactification (mathematics) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This example is called the "Alexandroff one point compactification", but the same methods are used in 10 and 12 and 26 dimensions in string theory.

Compactification (physics) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The reason compactification matters, is because of waves, which have no beginning and no end. And fields and such. In the math, things tend to run off to infinity, and we can compactify in many useful ways, for example projective space is a compactification, and complex projective space compactifies to a Riemann sphere. In such a construction we can use the ANGLE to represent the original real number - thereby bringing us back to the original dimensionality, only now it's parametrized (note the angle is radius invariant).

That's a really good post. The "sequence of events" came from TAZ. You'd have to ask him about that.

 

[scruffy]

That's a really good post. The "sequence of events" came from TAZ. You'd have to ask him about that.

Let's consider the meaning of "dimension".

To illustrate, let's consider a surface.

Classically, originally, surfaces were considered as 2 dimensional entities embedded into 3-d Euclidean space. (In other words, a subspace of E(3). For example, to define a directional derivative one makes use of 3 dimensions, not 2.

So, this definition is "external", in my vocabulary it would be called allocentric (that is, referenced to an external coordinate system).

However in topology, we wish to define surfaces without any reference to their embeddings. Thus, we look for an "internal" definition. One which refers only to self, and thus with only a very slight perversion could be called "egocentric".

Surface (topology) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, reason for this post is, I'd like to draw your attention to the way "dimension" is treated in this discussion.

For example - a 1-d complex function is "represented" in two dimensions - the basis being (1, I), or equivalently (radius, angle). Yet it is called C(1).

This imprecise use of vocabulary is made explicit in algebraic varieties - for example consider the Whitney Embedding Theorem.

Whitney embedding theorem - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The strange-enough point being, that 1 dimensional functions are sometimes actually 2 dimensional, if we consider the usual meaning of dimensionality as degrees of freedom.

In the particular case of C, i is "imaginary", it's not the same as a real number therefore it requires its own independent representation, although the flip side of the coin is it's NOT in fact independent, which is why there's "really" only 1 "complex" number.

 

[Rogue AI]

The problem with defining 'time' is that it combines various ideas constructed to fit our understanding. Our understanding is limited to our experience here on Earth and only further explored by theoretical notions. It is quite possible or even likely we understand even less than we pretend to.

 

[scruffy]

The problem with defining 'time' is that it combines various ideas constructed to fit our understanding. Our understanding is limited to our experience here on Earth and only further explored by theoretical notions. It is quite possible or even likely we understand even less than we pretend to.

Well, what we know from phenomenology and from physics, is there are sequences of events.

So, one could define time in terms of "next" - LOCALLY.

The strange thing is, the whole thing is smooth even over great distances, and the choices therefore boil down to two:

Either

A. There's only one "time", or
B. There so many of them the law of large numbers applies

So far we've (historically) assumed A, and B has flown somewhat under the radar screen.

I believe the rate limiting c is genuine, therefore I think it's a good idea to explore option B. The idea is, as long as all the little "nexts" are pointing in the same direction, the big one will too.

 

[Lord Long Rod]

Very Art Bell-ish

 

[scruffy]

So here are two relevant physical mechanisms, from which time emerges.

First, we have quantum entanglement with the background field.

Researchers find new multiphoton effect within quantum interference of light

An international team of researchers from Leibniz University Hannover (Germany) and the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow (United Kingdom) has disproved a previously held assumption about the impact of multiphoton components in interference effects of thermal fields (e.g., sunlight) and...

phys.org

Next, we have "recurrent" neural networks, which learn sequences of events.

Recurrent neural network - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The latter is an example of the directionality of time being "induced" by conduction delays, which is roughly the same concept as having a maximum speed of light.

 

[scruffy]

The key about RNN's is they only work when the units are updated stochastically (one at a time).

The method is called Monte Carlo, and it's used in the Hopfield network and the Boltzmann machine.

WHEN the units are updated stochastically, the result is a smooth gradient descent along a Hamiltonian surface. Something that resembles what "we" perceive as smooth time at the macroscopic level. Even though it's generated by individual "bit flips" happening asynchronously.

So if we take this behavior and apply it to the background field, what happens is the bit flips equate with "exchanges" (in the sense of exchange of elementary particles or virtual photons). The sum total of these microscopic bit flips becomes what we perceive as the "next" state in time.

What ultimately drives this forward, is irreversibility.

Quantum measurements are irreversible. They equate with choices.

 

[Nobody911]

Well, what we know from phenomenology and from physics, is there are sequences of events.

So, one could define time in terms of "next" - LOCALLY.

The strange thing is, the whole thing is smooth even over great distances, and the choices therefore boil down to two:

Either

A. There's only one "time", or
B. There so many of them the law of large numbers applies

So far we've (historically) assumed A, and B has flown somewhat under the radar screen.

I believe the rate limiting c is genuine, therefore I think it's a good idea to explore option B. The idea is, as long as all the little "nexts" are pointing in the same direction, the big one will too.

In the context of classical science, time is typically considered to be linear, meaning that it progresses in a straight line from past to present to future.

here are some examples...

1. Chemical reactions: In chemistry, time is linear in the sense that chemical reactions occur in a linear fashion. Reactions proceed from reactants to products in a specific order and over a specific period of time, following a linear progression.

2. Evolution: In biology, the process of evolution occurs over time in a linear manner. Species evolve and change over generations in a linear progression, leading to the diversity of life on Earth.

3. Geological processes: Time is linear in the sense that geological processes, such as the formation of mountains or the erosion of landscapes, occur over long periods of time in a linear progression, shaping the Earth's surface.

However, in the realm of modern physics, particularly in the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, time can be understood as nonlinear in certain circumstances.

here are some examples...

1. Gravitational time dilation: According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, time is non-linear in the presence of strong gravitational fields. This means that time passes at different rates for observers in different gravitational potentials. For example, time passes more slowly for observers closer to a massive object like a black hole compared to observers farther away.

2. Time travel: The concept of time travel, as popularized in science fiction, demonstrates the nonlinearity of time. In theories such as the "block universe" or "eternalism," time is viewed as a dimension similar to space, where all moments in time exist simultaneously. This suggests that time may not be strictly linear and that the past, present, and future could be accessed in nonlinear ways.

3. Quantum mechanics: In the field of quantum mechanics, time is often described as nonlinear due to the phenomenon of quantum superposition. This means that particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously, and their behavior cannot be predicted with certainty. This challenges the traditional linear view of cause and effect, as events in the quantum realm can occur in non-deterministic and non-sequential ways.

4. Chaos theory: In the study of complex systems, such as weather patterns or the behavior of fluids, time is often considered nonlinear due to the presence of chaotic dynamics. In chaotic systems, small changes in initial conditions can lead to drastically different outcomes, making it difficult to predict the behavior of the system over time. This non-linearity of time is a key aspect of chaos theory and has implications for understanding the unpredictability of certain natural phenomena.

==>Therefore, time can be considered both linear and nonlinear, depending on the specific physical context. What do you think?

 

[scruffy]

In the context of classical science, time is typically considered to be linear, meaning that it progresses in a straight line from past to present to future.

here are some examples...

1. Chemical reactions: In chemistry, time is linear in the sense that chemical reactions occur in a linear fashion. Reactions proceed from reactants to products in a specific order and over a specific period of time, following a linear progression.

2. Evolution: In biology, the process of evolution occurs over time in a linear manner. Species evolve and change over generations in a linear progression, leading to the diversity of life on Earth.

3. Geological processes: Time is linear in the sense that geological processes, such as the formation of mountains or the erosion of landscapes, occur over long periods of time in a linear progression, shaping the Earth's surface.

However, in the realm of modern physics, particularly in the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, time can be understood as nonlinear in certain circumstances.

here are some examples...

1. Gravitational time dilation: According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, time is non-linear in the presence of strong gravitational fields. This means that time passes at different rates for observers in different gravitational potentials. For example, time passes more slowly for observers closer to a massive object like a black hole compared to observers farther away.

2. Time travel: The concept of time travel, as popularized in science fiction, demonstrates the nonlinearity of time. In theories such as the "block universe" or "eternalism," time is viewed as a dimension similar to space, where all moments in time exist simultaneously. This suggests that time may not be strictly linear and that the past, present, and future could be accessed in nonlinear ways.

3. Quantum mechanics: In the field of quantum mechanics, time is often described as nonlinear due to the phenomenon of quantum superposition. This means that particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously, and their behavior cannot be predicted with certainty. This challenges the traditional linear view of cause and effect, as events in the quantum realm can occur in non-deterministic and non-sequential ways.

4. Chaos theory: In the study of complex systems, such as weather patterns or the behavior of fluids, time is often considered nonlinear due to the presence of chaotic dynamics. In chaotic systems, small changes in initial conditions can lead to drastically different outcomes, making it difficult to predict the behavior of the system over time. This non-linearity of time is a key aspect of chaos theory and has implications for understanding the unpredictability of certain natural phenomena.

==>Therefore, time can be considered both linear and nonlinear, depending on the specific physical context. What do you think?

The gravitational dilation is a big clue.

Gravity is "concentrations of matter" which plays right into my theory. One expects certain types of exchanges to occur with more volume when there's lots of source material around.

No one has ever shown a discontinuity in time, to my knowledge. Linear or not, it's continuous from our vantage point. Which may or may not equate with topological compactness, however I know of no theory that explains it otherwise.

 

[scruffy]

Time crystals are another big clue.

Their existence needs an underlying reality.

In time crystals, SYMMETRY is replaced by a lower (population) energy state.

The assumption so far is that physical laws are invariant with translations in time.

The time crystal proves that this is not necessarily so, since they are resistant to entropy.

 

[scruffy]

Here's what we know

Time dilation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Length contraction - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[scruffy]

And this has everything to do with what we're talking about.

Topological near fields generated by topological structures

Metamaterials and metaoptics offer a broad dimension to explore exotic functionalities in physics and optics. In a new report now published in Science Advances, Jie Peng and a team of scientists in physics and interdisciplinary studies at the City University of Hong Kong, China, discovered how...

phys.org

 

[Nobody911]

Time crystals are another big clue.

Their existence needs an underlying reality.

In time crystals, SYMMETRY is replaced by a lower (population) energy state.

The assumption so far is that physical laws are invariant with translations in time.

The time crystal proves that this is not necessarily so, since they are resistant to entropy.

Time crystals are a new and unusual form of matter that has a structure that repeats in time instead of space. This means that they have a pattern that repeats at regular intervals, even when there is no energy or outside force causing them to do so.

That means the arrangement of atoms or particles in the crystals changes over time, rather than being fixed in a specific pattern in space. It's like a dance routine that keeps repeating at specific intervals, instead of staying in one place. This unique property makes time crystals very different from other types of matter.

The atoms or particles in time crystals would spontaneously change their arrangement in a repeating pattern, even at a state of lowest energy or at absolute zero temperature. This would defy the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy, or disorder, in a closed system will always increase over time.

The exact mechanism by which time crystals would achieve this spontaneous movement is still a topic of ongoing research and debate in the scientific community. Some proposed models involve the use of quantum entanglement and interactions between particles to create a self-sustaining oscillation or rotation in the atomic arrangement.

However, the existence and properties of time crystals are still largely theoretical and have not been conclusively demonstrated in a laboratory setting.

Time crystals are still being studied by scientists, but they could have potential applications in quantum computing and other advanced technologies.