The results are in for the Foundational Questions Institute essay competition on “The Nature of Time,” which we discussed here. And the winners are:
First Juried Prize:
Julian Barbour on “The Nature of Time”
The jury panel admired this essay for its crystal-clear and engaging presentation of a problem in classical dynamics, namely to find a measure for duration or the size of a time interval. The paper argues lucidly, and in a historically well-informed manner, that an appropriate choice for such a measure is not to be found in Newton’s pre-existing absolute notion of time, but rather emerges, in the form of ephemeris time, from the observable motions and the assumption of energy conservation. The paper also suggests how this emergence of duration might be relevant to problems in quantum gravity.
Second Juried Prizes:
(1) Claus Kiefer on “Does Time Exist in Quantum Gravity?”
A fundamental problem in quantum gravity is that the “Wheeler-DeWitt Equation,” probably our most reliable equation of quantum gravity, does not refer to or even suggest anything like time or evolution. In this context time must emerge in the form of relations between a given system and some other system that may be considered a clock. Kiefer beautifully reviews this problem, and argues how, via quantum “decoherence,” time as described by the usual Schroedinger equation in quantum mechanics can emerge from this timeless substratum, via entanglement between physical systems within space, and the spatial metric that controls motion.
(2) Sean Carroll on “What if Time Really Exists?”
Drawing on recent developments in string theory, Carroll impressed the panel with an exciting account of how a gravitating spacetime might in fact be just a holographic approximation to a more fundamental non-gravitating theory for which “time really exists.” Contemplating the difficulties raised by strange recurrences in an everlasting universe, he argues for a strong condition on the set of allowed quantum states that would disallow such repetitions. Carroll closes by attempting to reconcile this picture with recent observations that indicate that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, with surprising results.
Tied for second is not at all bad, considering the number of interesting entries. There are more prizes, actually, as there are “community” awards as well as “juried” prizes, so check those out as well. It’s pretty amusing that the top three essays all attack, in one way or another, whether or not the subject of the competition actually exists. (I was in favor, the others were more skeptical.)
Besides the essays themselves, I very much appreciate the huge amount of work it must have been for the various judges to read through all of them and make hard decisions. Thanks to the FQXi for sponsoring the contest, and thanks to all the judges for doing a great job!
March 9th, 2009 at 12:50 am
congrats!
March 9th, 2009 at 1:48 am
Congrats. I am going to read all of them.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:13 am
Welldone !
Not that I am surprised. I thought your essay was remarkable, you managed to make this timeless issue (hum) almost accessible to the motivated neophyte. Thanks for this, and for this blog more generally speaking.
T.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:42 am
Yes, congratulations to all.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:02 am
[...] articles Cosmic Variance had a “writing on the nature of time” contest and has decided on the winners. Here is a link to the prize winning essays. I’ll have to [...]
March 9th, 2009 at 7:24 am
Since when was “jury” a verb?
March 9th, 2009 at 7:33 am
What can I say? You was robbed.
Kiefer is a worthy opponent indeed. But that obscurantist Barbour?
March 9th, 2009 at 7:56 am
Congratulations Sean!
March 9th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Congratulations. We need more of these on a regular basis. This approach could also be an alternative to or complement the 2 minute videos you mentioned previously, at least for the motivated amateur. Nothing better than a physicist talking philosophy: this technique – conveying deeper thoughts about the nature of the world- helps convey the message of QM to lots of otherwise intelligent folks better than hard math.
There were plenty of ‘a-ha’ moments in your essay and the others. Thank you.
March 9th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Congrats! Did you get any loot? Free trip to Hawaii or anything?
March 9th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Peter, “jury” was verbed long ago. Not a recent development.
JoAnne, there is some loot, which ordinarily I would think was quite a lot. Right now I am buying a house, and any ordinary amount of cash just seems like noise.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
It is a bit ironic that the first and second price more or less argue for almost opposite scenarios.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Congratulations! I look forward to reading all three essays.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Congratulations! And Happy Monkey!
Well, just imagine if you’d tried buying a house a year ago. It must be cheaper now. (Sez the guy who’s trying to sell one without losing money on it.)
March 9th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Nice work and congratulations. I appreciate this blog, following along as best I can but always appreciating the thoughtfulness and first rate commentary.
I really liked the piece on the movie review and think you may be onto something with your idea of short, single topic videos but there are some things I think that deserve more of our attention (our deferred gratification),and which occasionally demand some work/effort and time on our part. What was it that the person who once used your desk when a reporter asked him to explain/describe his work–why he was a co-winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics–in near Planck time?
Thanks again to you and to your colleagues for providing a glimpse to rank amateurs like me into your world. I wouldn’t miss it.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Congratulations on the top three!
I’m not sure why you have allowed through an anonymous comment containing a meaningless slight against the winner though.
March 9th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
“I’m not sure why you have allowed through an anonymous comment containing a meaningless slight against the winner though.”
Indeed. Barbour is many things, but “obscure” is not one of them; he is – and has been for decades – one of the most highly respected people in this particular field.
March 9th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
“one of the most highly respected people in this particular field.”
Respected by whom? I just re-read his essay. Now, I’m not going to pretend that I know the answers to the mysteries of time. But I will bet my last Kuwaiti dinar that the problems associated with interpreting the Wheeler-De Witt equation will *not* be resolved by sophomore-level disquisitions on the definition of a clock. All that junk about clocks and meter sticks belongs in antiquated introductions to special relativity — you know, the kind designed for over-eager undergraduates who are judged unripe for Minkowski space and “high-powered” mathematics like that….
Barbour has a following, but I think you will find that remarkably few of them are professional physicists. What the field needs is people like Carroll and Kiefer who can bring the right machinery to bear on it, not yet more vacuous philosophizing about the definition of clocks or “duration”.
March 9th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
And by the way, obscurantists need not be obscure: alas.
March 9th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
“Barbour has a following, but I think you will find that remarkably few of them are professional physicists. “
Deary me. You really haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about, do you?
March 9th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Sean, did you invent a time machine and view
http://fqxi.org/community
some time in the future?
As of `right now’ it says”
BREAKING NEWS
Essay contest announcement is imminent
March 9th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Congratulations! If I survive a day on the ski slopes with my daughter,
I intend to treat myself to an evening of fine Colorado whiskey and your
essay.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:24 am
I rather liked Julians paper. It was well written and had interesting history facts that I was not aware off. Yea ok, I doubt it will shed much light on the problem (or lack thereof) of time perse in quantum gravity, but then again none of the other papers really had anything dramatically new either.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:50 am
Sean I’d be really interested to hear what you think about that winning essay.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:19 am
“..none of the other papers really had anything dramatically new either.”
You’re being timeist.
April 7th, 2009 at 8:21 am
It seems amazing that none of the authors mentioned quantum interference in the time domain. These are actual experiments demonstrating the existence of time in the same way as the classic double slit experiement demonstrates the existence of space.
Horwitz, L.P. (2005) On the significance of a recent experiment demonstrating quantum interference in time. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0507044
“I comment on the interpretation of a recent experiment showing quantum interference in time. It is pointed out that the standard nonrelativistic quantum theory, used by the authors in their analysis, cannot account for the results found, and therefore that this experiment has fundamental importance beyond the technical advances it represents. Some theoretical structures which consider the time as an observable, and thus could, in principle, have the required coherence in time, are discussed briefly, and the application of Floquet theory and the manifestly covariant quantum theory of Stueckelberg are treated in some detail. In particular, the latter is shown to account for the results in a simple and consistent way. ”
The authors also failed to take much note of the “extended present”
See Time and conscious experience
June 17th, 2009 at 10:04 am
[...] the FQXi Essay Contest, I was asked to comment on some of the essays besides my own, but I never did. Mostly because I [...]