Can Time Exist Without Matter?
1.
According to Newton the answer is “ Yes”.
2.
According to SRT and GRT the answer is “ No”.
3.
Who is right? Who is wrong?
What is the resolution of this apparent paradox?
===========================..

There are two kinds of time:
a) the proper (individual) time and
b) the planetary time.
They are so familiar that we rarely give them thought.
Don’t we know, that time for living being is limited
and the planetary time is absolute for them ? It is.
Maybe therefore Newton declared that time is absolute.
It “ flows equably without relation to anything external”
he wrote in 1687. But Einstein had another opinion.
He wanted to know: “ Where does the conception of time
come from?”, “ What is the essence of time?”.
And to explain these questions he created two theories:
SRT and GRT and declared that time is relative, changeable.
1.
SRT explains behavior and the proper time of light
quanta /electron. Why do I think so?
a)
One law (postulate) of SRT says that speed of light quanta
is constant c=1. Second law ( postulate ) says no another particle
can reach this speed. So there are two incommensurable
quantities. Is it possible to bind them together? No. I was
taught at school from the first class that the incommensurable
quantities cannot be compared. The connection between these
incommensurable quantities is similar to the decision of a
problem: “What will be if the whale attacks the elephant?”
We can see whale in a ocean and elephant in a savanna,
but they never meet and fight in the same “ frame of reference”.
And the same is about light quanta and another particles.
We cannot see them together in SRT. We can meet only the
light quanta in SRT and no other particles in it.
b)
SRT was born from Maxwell’s theory and it is a continuation
of the electrodynamics’ development . The electron is a main
and single hero in the Maxwell’s theory and SRT. There
isn’t the Maxwell’s theory / SRT without electron.
It is not correct to compare electron/ light quanta with another
particles (protons…etc) and bodies (billiard balls, satellites,
astronauts, “twins”) because they cannot produce electromagnetic
fields. The electron and the another particles are also incommensurable
quantities. They are absolutely different objects.
c)
Every epoch has its own delusion. Maxwell and Boltzmann
tried to explain electromagnetic fields using balls, wheels,
cog-wheels, springs…etc. H. Hertz, who demonstrated the
existence of the electromagnetic waves, wrote that the
electromagnetic waves didn’t have practice use. Etc….
Now we try to compare electron/photon
ability with astronaut’s and “twins’ ” opportunities.
It is mistaken, but what to do? We do it because this is
our way of cognition:
” From vague wish to the bright thought”.
2.
So, how SRT explains time from electron/ light quanta point of view.
a)
When light quanta is in state of a rest its time is frozen,
and its own clock shows zero.
b)
When photon moves with constant speed c=1
its time is also frozen, and its own clock still shows zero.
c)
Only when photon moves with speed c>1 its zero time
changes and limited time appears. In this situation we
know photon as an electron. Photon works as an electron
and SRT and Lorentz transformations explain this process.
d)
And when , for example, electron emits from an atom and
interacts with Vacuum all its parameters change. Its limited
time ends and its own clock shows zero again. Now it lives
in infinite/ eternal Vacuum until new incarnation, until its new
work, maybe, in an atom (molecule), or in a cell, maybe, in a blade
of grass or in a tree, maybe, in an animal or in a person.
In another words:” We are living beings until Light quanta/
Electron is present and works in our body.”
Is it true? Yes, it is true. Why?
Because W. Pauli in 1924 wrote:” Each quantum state in the atom
is not limited of two electrons, but only one electron”.
It means in the atom can be only one, single electron.
The electron manages the atom. If the atom contains more
than one electron (for example – two), this atom represents
“ Siamese twins”. Save us God of having such atoms and cells.
And the living being begins its life from one, singe cell.
What I am introducing here is what ‘ thinking photon/ electron’ exist .
I applied the quantum of light/ photon/ electron with a consciousness.
And His own consciousness is not static but can develop.
The development of conscious scale goes
” from vague wishes up to a clear thought “.
This evolution proceeds during hundred millions (billion) years.
e)
Trying to understand “ the electrodynamics of moving bodies”
Einstein wrote that it is the result of time and space changes.
It is not exactly correct , because these changes are secondary
in SRT. And the first point of SRT is that Quantum of light changes
its spin. The former Planck/ Einstein’s spin (h) changes in Goudsmit /
Uhlenbeck’s spin (h = h / 2pi), and as a result of this act all its parameters
change and the time and new space appear.
3.
GRT explains the conditions of gravitation and the secret of
planetary time. Why do I think so?
a)
When Einstein worked on GRT, he asked astronomers:
“ What is the average mass of matter in the Universe?”
The result was lamentable. The quantity of mass was
insignificantly small. It was impossible to keep gravitation
law with such insignificantly little mass and so, the Universe
must be “open”, endless. But what to do with the infinite
space, Einstein didn’t know. Therefore he took (from the
heaven) “ the cosmological constant” in order to “close”
the Universe. The taken mass was enough for creating the
condition of gravitation. Without “ the cosmological constant”
the Universe is endless.
b)
In 1922 Friedman wrote, that we could not take “ the
cosmological constant” in calculation. Instead of it, it is
enough to take “time” and the Universe will be “closed”.
Friedman was correct, but why? Because “time”, by its
nature, is a limited physical quantity and, be taken in
mathematical calculation, automatically gives “closed” result.
c)
So, the detected material mass of the
matter in the Universe is so small (the average density
of all substance in the Universe is approximately
p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that the gravitation law doesn’t work.
Astronomers and astrophysicists know about this fact and
therefore (to save the gravitation law) invented new matter
a “dark matter”, a new energy a “dark energy” and another
abstract objects. This “ invention” is only a result of our
mentality , which says: ” If in a theory you meet infinity it
means the theory is nonsense”. It is very hard to take that
the Universe is infinite. It is no easy matter to give up
a lifetime of habit .
d)
On my opinion it is impossible to use GRT to Universe as
a whole. The Newton/ Einstein’s gravitation laws are correct
only in the local parts of Vacuum. The Universe / Vacuum
as a whole is endless.
e)
So, how does GRT explain time?
According to GRT the time depends on the mass
and speed it means, of moving matter.
It means that different masses and speeds can create
different time. For example, our planet Earth has its
own time but for us it is absolute.
The other planets have another mass and speed and
therefore they have their own time. This time according
to GRT is relative. But their habitants will think that their
time is absolute. But if they know GRT they will
not make this mistake.
=============
According to SRT and GRT time is relative.
SRT says about proper/ individual time of an
electron/ light quanta.
GRT says about planetary time of a Planet..
The time cannot exist without matter and speed,
in another words, without moving matter. But
different reasons and different moving of a matter
create the proper and planetary time.
==========.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=23624&st=15
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2547&st=105
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2548
================== . .

An interesting lecture, one which if I’d have had the time would have liked to have attended physically, rather than virtually, had it not been for my accursed work schedule. It’s also interesting that both you and Lee Smolin are having your books being brought out at about the same time in regards to the subject. When I have a chance I will have no choice other than to pick both of them up, as to compare the similarities and differences. The only problem is in finding the time to read them. If you either of you where to discover a way to provide some of this, along with the book, I could almost guaranty they to become best sellers

Best,

Phil

I was sketching a picture of not just our universe (in the conventional causally connected sense) but a whole throng of them each going through its life cycle, as depicted on a couple of Sean’s slides, such that if suitably coordinated in some higher dimensional space then the overall effect could resemble a wave function, rather like a swarm of flashing fire flies.

This is based on the idea of wave functions in configuration space being capable of construction by integrals involving Dirac Delta functions and, who knows, perhaps these formal artifacts also represent the limit of a physical process at the smallest Planckian scales, with energy comprising similar spikes which dissipate in the shortest possible time but somehow constantly regenerate, to conserve energy as we observe it. This might explain the well-known perplexing 10^120 factor of missing vacuum energy – all just dissipated to a completely unobservable uniform background “ocean”.

It would be a pleasing symmetry if the very smallest conceivable phenomena worked exactly the same way as the largest and, who knows, perhaps these Planckian energy spikes, if they exist, are universes in themselves, and perhaps our universe is no more than one of them, lasting a mere instant, in countless others!

Drat, I only meant to post the Baez reference, but was carried away!

Is it possible that a black hole could become dense enough to spawn a baby universe instead of it being caused by fluctuation in vacuum energy? This would remove the mass/energy from the parent universe and thus making the parent universe a non-closed system.

Are physicists certain about that damned minimum limiting cosmic temperature of 10^-30K or whatever it was you mentioned the other day? This is the only obstacle to all black holes (of mass greater than one of that temperature) eventually evaporating. It seems vaguely plausible their presence is all that prevents a final “great rip”, but this could and would occur as they evaporated.

BTW, it’s a good set of slides and an interesting idea. It makes me think that the universe is decompressing, in the sense of data decompression, as it grows.

Anybody who gives public lectures or volunteers could learn a lot from your choices and delivery.

While every unitary operator is an isometry, not every isometry is unitary. Furthemore the sufficient condition for an evolution operator to be conservative is that it is an isometry, not a unitary operator. The shift operator on functions with a lower bounded domain is a perfect example of an isometry that is not unitary. By definition a unitary operator is a bijective isometry. This point is hammered home in any introduction to functional analysis course, see JB. Conway, A Course in Functional Analysis, for example, I think it is around page 35.

So if you assume a lower bound for time, then by definition, forward translation through time is not unitary, but it is an isometry; and reverse translation is neither since it has a non-trivial kernal.

Here are some basic definitions straight from the referenced text book; using standard inner product notation

A is an isometry iff (Ax,Ay)=(x,y) for all x,y in the space H

A is unitary iff A is an isometry and H/cl(Im(A))={0}

The definitions are equivalent on finite dimensional vector spaces, but not so in infinite dimensional spaces. The tricky bit is that you can stick an infinite dimensional space inside of itself without losing any dimensions. The equivalent is not possible in finite dimensions.

An example of this logic is the infinite hotel: consider an infinite hotel that has been filled to capacity. Now suppose an infinite number of new guests show up. What do you do? You ask the current guests to move the the even number rooms and put the new guests in the odd number rooms.

That if I can do omelet from eggs and not eggs from omelet is due to the conditions of the big bang is, IMOH, at least ludicrous, at most hilarious!

The arrow of time is a local thing that has to do with our idea of causation, and more profoundly the forgetting of initial conditions. I believe this is all an illusion made by the way our neurochemistry of memory is linked to forgetting initial conditions, not to the whole history of the universe, which, from this point of view, makes non sense.

I recently read on the Arxiv a paper explaining that appearance are OK with the Big Bang why a deeper understanding rules it out as an illusion of the way we memorize events, and I agree with that.

I stand that thermodynamics’s second law and all this stuff about time arrow are related to a geometrical view of time which is just an appearance hiding a more fundamental timeless universe, and that your writings, while interesting, are really a naive common approach on the subject…