Is 'time' a measurable variable?

[Qfwfq]

Yes, I see your confusion quite clearly. My position is that you are just too immersed in the conventional rationalizations of modern physics to see the problem I am trying to point out.

Now, let's get this straight, this is your usual manner of dodging and making up excuses for yourself. I say that, since X is actually quite central to SR (as understood by academia), I consequently can't see how you can claim that academia aren't aware of it or of Y, which is closely related to X. You call this "my confusion" and blame it on my conventionality and my inability to see your greater picture; this is sniping. You quite simply make false statements about academic understanding of space-time, and don't explain yourself sufficiently when asked for clarification. You then blame the same thing when I tell you what to look up, in order to clear up your misunderstanding of what I said.

 

This kind of deceptive reply is unwelcome behaviour Dick, n-th little warning.

[Qfwfq]

Now, back to the debate:

 

You seem to have a love for simple representations of complex ideas such as [math]i\partial_t\Psi = H\Psi[/math] which actually expresses very little sans the professional training sufficient to interpret the intention. I am moved to give you the "Hamiltonian principle" as I was taught it

Moved to give me something that's fundamental to classic and quantum mechanics, in an elementary form that I first found in Feynman vol. I while at my first year?

 

I am moved to give you the explanation of what tells you very little "sans the professional training sufficient to interpret the intention", as it is one of the things fundamental to the whole of quantum mechanics. You may write it more pedantly:

 

[math]i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Psi = H\Psi[/math]

 

and even put in the right proportionality constants (such as an [math]\norm\hbar[/math]) if you dislike natural units. H is the hamiltonaian operator, which in the case familiar to you is the operator form of[math]\norm\frac{p^2}{2m} + V(x)[/math]. Make the replacement (with the operator for p being the usual gradient) and see what you get. Familiar? Now the operator [math]\norm\frac{\vec{\nabla}^2}{2m}[/math] is only good for a scalar particle and the potential is only a way of treating interactions that (or in cases where they) lend themselves to be so described. There is nothing universal about it, but the form above is much more fundamental.

 

The reason the imaginary unit has a qualitative rather than quantitative importance is that, for each energy eigenvalue, it flips between exponential decay and constant-amplitude oscilation at a frequency proportional to the energy. So, you make statements about what the conventional academic views of physics are, and disagree with my statements about what they are, but it increasingly appears that you have a very limited knowledge on which to base your statements and judge mine.

 

If you googled "Fock space" and came up with a reference to the "Hartree-Fock method" then I must presumed you didn't type the wo words inside quotation marks. This link came first in my results, very, very basic and simple. Considering you say that you're quite a fast and prolific reader and usually read the whole volume rather than just the article, you could further that with Schweber's book which is very pedantic about construction of Fock space and then even Bjørken-Drell which examines Feynman diagrams plentiful. You might find out that "relativistic quantum field theory" is not an oxymoron but just the quantum way of treating "fields" as being "particles" and vice-versa and quite the idea of the "exchange forces" you believe in. Never heard of virtual particles?

[Doctordick]

Hi Will, it's nice to hear from you. Have you looked at my dissertation on the need for special relativistic transformations within my picture and can you comprehend the reason why the approach you wanted to follow was not applicable to the geometry I use? I think some of your comments bear directly on that issue of geometric representation.

 

Believe me, I am well aware of Lagrange and Hamiltonian mechanics. If you go back and examine the roots of that work, you will discover that the central issue was originally the conundrum residing in the equality between inertial mass and gravitational mass. One of the most important aspects of Newton's work was the existence of what we used to call pseudo forces (apparently an idea which has fallen into disuse, at least that is the impression I have gotten). Pseudo forces were apparent forces which were a simple consequence of not working in an inertial frame. The most telling characteristic of a pseudo force was the fact that the magnitude of the force on any object was absolutely proportional to the acceleration. This was true for the simple reason that the acceleration was a consequence of the non inertial frame of reference and thus had nothing at all to do with mass of the object itself (from the perspective of an inertial frame, the free path of the relevant object was a simple straight line).

 

At the time, the identity between the inertial mass and the gravitational mass was taken as a very strong indication that the gravitational force was a pseudo force: i.e., a consequence of working in the wrong frame of reference. Much geometric work was expended in an attempt to discover a geometry which would yield gravity as a pseudo force. All this with the idea, put forth by Poincareé's, that geometry is nothing more than a convenience in representation. During that work, great strides were made in using implied relations related to general coordinate transformations to solve some rather complex problems which were otherwise totally intractable; however, the gravitational issue was never unraveled.

 

Eventually, Maupertuis proved that there existed no geometry with a Euclidean metric which would yield gravity as a pseudo force; however, by that time the work in geometric transforms had acquired a life of its own and, as you have implied, the classical work of Lagrange and Hamilton led straight into the modern realm of quantum mechanics. It was in fact the great accomplishment of reducing gravity to a pseudo force which gave Einstein's theory the final push into "fact" (as seen by the academy). If I may quote a respected book, Adler, Bazin and Schiffer, Introduction to General Relativity, McGraw-Hill Co., New York, 1965, p. 3. According to them, Einstein proved that "a reduction of gravitational theory to geodesic motion in an appropriate geometry could be carried out only in the four-dimensional space-time continuum of [Einstein's] relativity theory". They imply that it was the somewhat strange (might I say "unreal") character of this geometry which broke Maupertuis' proof.

 

However, if you look at the proof, you will discover that the crux of the thing is the fact that entities having different velocities must follow different paths. Einstein's approach works because this very issue is avoided (exactly what is the velocity of an object through the space-time continuum anyway). In Einstein's general picture ordinary spacial velocity is nothing more than a direction in his geometry. In order to achieve this result, Einstein had to sacrifice the issue of time as fundamental concept. I know, you think I am mad, but consider the facts: in Einstein's perspective, time is totally identified with a somewhat strange coordinate in the proper geometry of the universe. Yet they manage to use time as if it is still a parameter of evolution (and please, don't give me the standard rationalizations, I am well aware of them all). I say they do this because, if they presented their geometry as the universal abstract structure they claim it to be, the existence of that sacrifice would become obvious and the hood wink would be over.

 

I, on the other hand, noticed that mass behaved, analytically speaking at least, exactly like quantized momentum (it makes a lot of express relations simpler). And allowing a dimension for that component of momentum utterly removes the issue of "velocity" from the picture (velocity becomes nothing more than the relative angle between that quantization axis and the direction of motion of the relevant object). It also makes any interaction relationship look like an EM field (that is, all interactions propagate at exactly the same velocity). And finally, it defeats that proof by Maupertuis. Since everything moves at the same velocity, it is entirely possible that there exists a geometry (a four dimensional Euclidean geometry) which makes gravity a pseudo force.

 

Not only does such a geometry exist, I can display it explicitly and, as I didn't have to sacrifice the time parameter of temporal evolution in order to accomplish the result, general relativistic quantum mechanics becomes a simple straight forward step.

 

Oh, and regarding your question,"I believe he as asking what happened to your equation in the cases when the Hamiltonian was not simply the total energy of a system", since classical mechanics and its three dimensional representation is an exact approximation to my equation so long as relativistic velocities are not significant, all of the work based on classical mechanics goes through exactly as it did originally so the answer is simply "nothing different from what is in the books". One can even say the relativistic generalization go through though the route now goes down to nonrelativistic relations and then back up (a rather wasted way to get there).

This kind of deceptive reply is unwelcome behaviour Dick, n-th little warning.

No deception of any kind was intended. I am sorry you took it that way.

Now, back to the debate:

I am curious as to what you think we are debating.

So, you make statements about what the conventional academic views of physics are, and disagree with my statements about what they are, but it increasingly appears that you have a very limited knowledge on which to base your statements and judge mine.

So I guess I have totally failed to reach you. Sorry about that, but it has at least moved me to post some of the stuff I have deduced.

If you googled "Fock space" and came up with a reference to the "Hartree-Fock method" then I must presumed you didn't type the two words inside quotation marks.

Oh but I did; but I didn't stop there. I have no interest in reading that stuff as I find nothing there that carries our understanding of the universe beyond where it was when I left forty years ago and I have no expectations of success down that path. I was just commenting that I had used the Hartree-Fock method in my work with Oak Ridge as a graduate student.

You might find out that "relativistic quantum field theory" is not an oxymoron but just the quantum way of treating "fields" as being "particles" and vice-versa and quite the idea of the "exchange forces" you believe in. Never heard of virtual particles?

I said, "in my head is rather an oxymoron" which was intended to convey the fact that it was an opinion. Personally, I think it's pretty dumb to start with "fields" and work out quantization. It's putting the horse before the cart. And what's this garbage, " Never heard of virtual particles?" what the devil do you think mediates exchange forces? And you don't need fields to have exchange forces; have you ever done any actual calculations based on Feynman diagrams? Nothing tee's me off more than people who toss around Feynman diagrams like they know what they are talking about when they couldn't do the first calculation implied by the diagram.

 

I knew I was asking too much when I expected a serious examination of my deduction of Dirac's equation. Your n-th warning will be sufficient. Bye!

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

PS, if anyone out there is still interested in anything I have to say, let me know, I'll still check this forum out now and then. I may even post the derivation of Maxwell's equations as the constraint on the behavior of the expectations of gamma if I see any interest.

[Qfwfq]

Well Dick, I only meant that exchange forces are somewhat the essence of the thing that you judge to be an oxymoron. You appeared to be contradicting yourself in the space of a few lines. You should try to be clear about what you say, clear enough for the common mortals.

 

If you know all about the method, perhaps you've seen that it successfully predicts the Coulomb potential. Yet, you plainly said you knew nothing of Fock space. I guess you consider it an oxymoron simply because you don't see the reason it's called quantum field theory. :)

[Southtown]

Time is most certainly a measurable variable.

Oh, come on. Prove it...

 

Newton was right... Einstein was too.

Right how?

[Doctordick]

If you know all about the method, perhaps you've seen that it successfully predicts the Coulomb potential. Yet, you plainly said you knew nothing of Fock space. I guess you consider it an oxymoron simply because you don't see the reason it's called quantum field theory. :wave:

No, my position is that the idea of quantum field theory is based on the quantization of field theories. This places preeminence on the field theories. I hold that quantum theory, properly developed, is the correct approach. Field theories are only approximations and thus quantization of fields is simply the wrong attack. After the universal success of quantum theory, I am astonished with the common presumption that something else is more fundamental. But that’s just an opinion. :)

 

Have fun -- Dick

[HydrogenBond]

Everyone makes time much harder than it has to be. If one looks at quanta of energy they define distinct measures of distance and time that we measure as wavelength and frequency. These two combined define the magnitude of the energy (plus Plancks constant). As such, energy is composed of distance and time potential both of which are quantatized variables. These are quanta of nature.

 

The bias of tradition typcially defines distance and time as only reference values that we use to compare things. But even when we compare things, it is usually requires energy, such as light for the eyes, to make these measurements. The energy is defining what we measure and the energy contains both distance and time potential. If one took away all affects of energy when making measurements of distance and time one would not be able to make any measurement.

[Doctordick]

Everyone makes time much harder than it has to be. If one looks at quanta of energy they define distinct measures of distance and time that we measure as wavelength and frequency. These two combined define the magnitude of the energy (plus Plancks constant). As such, energy is composed of distance and time potential both of which are quantatized variables. These are quanta of nature.

The problem with that definition (which, by the way, is essentially the standard physics perspective) is that it fails to represent a very important aspect of what is ordinarily thought of as time! Your perspective grows directly out of the common physics concept that “clocks measure time”. Please note the title of this thread, “Is ‘time’ a measurable variable?” If you presume “time is what clocks measure” (which is exactly what you are doing when you begin to talk about “energy”, “measures of distance and time”, and/or Plank’s constant) the answer is of course “YES, what you have defined is a measurable variable” (the thing you have define is measurable!)

 

However, that is not the aspect of time which I had in mind when I started this thread. If you look through this thread you will find comment after comment about the “flow of time”, “the perception of time” or perhaps “the arrow of time”. The evidence of confusion is overwhelming and it is utterly ridiculous to hold that no confusion exists. I say that the confusion arises because people do not understand what they are talking about and relativity itself is the most powerful indicator of this fact.

 

The concept “clocks measure time” works fine so long as the clock moves with frame of reference being used to describe the universe (including the issue of simultaneity by the way). However, the issue of simultaneity does not transform from reference frame to reference frame in Einstein’s picture. This means that the concept “simultaneous” can not be used in his picture.

 

The problem with throwing out the concept of simultaneity is that is disallows specification of “the present” (i.e., that simultaneous boundary between the past and the future) which is, in fact, a very important aspect of the concept of “time”. It is the existence of that boundary which is being talked about when people refer to “the flow of time”. “the perception of time” or “the arrow of time”.

 

Einstein’s picture is a four dimensional geometry with “time” (what clocks measure) as an imaginary axis. What I have done is add a fifth dimension, to represent time, and let “tau” (what a clock measures) be a real axis (totally equivalent to x,y and z). Define mass to be momentum in the tau direction and examine the physical consequences of such a picture.

Please note that the fact that all experiments are performed with equipment constructed with mass quantized entities will project out that tau dimension. As a consequence, the information content of the two pictures is equivalent: i.e., we both end up with four independent axes.

It turns out that, in such a picture, time is not a measurable variable (and use of clocks to define time yield what is refered to as the twin paradox); however, the behavior of clocks ends up being exactly the same as what is seen in Einstein’s picture.

 

The issue of relativity (physical law being independent of your frame of reference, and that includes the behavior of clocks which must also behave in a manner independent of their frame of reference) leads everyone to reckon events in their own frames of reference against their personal clocks (clocks at rest in their personal frame) and call the reference time. This is exactly what leads to the confusion and their failure to see the simple all encompassing solution to the issue of relativity which I have discovered.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[infamous]

It turns out that, in such a picture, time is not a measurable variable (and use of clocks to define time yield what is refered to as the twin paradox); however, the behavior of clocks ends up being exactly the same as what is seen in Einstein’s picture.

 

 

 

Have fun -- Dick

Much of this debate is far beyond my scope of learning, nevertheless, I find this question of measurable time to be very interesting indeed. Having no credentials myself to either support or deny your positions, I still find myself viewing the character of time differently after examining your attempt to define these positions for the rest of us. Let me just ask one question for varification if I may? Does the second law of thermodynamics and it's relationship to the question of entropy equate in some respect to what you're trying to explain for us? Like time, entropy has a direction and like time, entropy is only the course within which change takes place. The pace at which change occurs can and does vary enormously irrelevent of how we define the time which passes between events. Are you then saying that the character of time then make the measure of it somewhat misleading?........Infy

[Erasmus00]

No, my position is that the idea of quantum field theory is based on the quantization of field theories. This places preeminence on the field theories.

 

I hold that quantum theory, properly developed, is the correct approach. Field theories are only approximations and thus quantization of fields is simply the wrong attack. After the universal success of quantum theory, I am astonished with the common presumption that something else is more fundamental. But that’s just an opinion. :hihi:

 

I believe you are confused sir. Quantum field theory is merely the relativistic extension of quantum mechanics. Also, mant of the "universal successes" of quantum theory are actually from extensions of quantizing fields.

 

I don't understand, for instance, why you would suggest that Maxwell's equations (a field theory) are approximations, and hence we shouldn't try to quantize electricity/magnetism? Is that the implication I'm supposed to be reading?

 

Certainly in condensed matter some field are approximate (often the result of taking a lattice spacing to 0 as a limit). However, there are obviously fundamental fields (the forementioned electricity/magnetism).

-Will

[IDMclean]

I have only had precissious little time to review this thread but something caught me. DD describes massless interactions, and the idea of mass as something other than a fundamental property, to the effect of [pseudo-math]m = kt[/pseudo-math], or similar. Where mass drops out of the model.

 

This is simply astounding to me, as I have been examining the whole of physics piece by piece for quite sometime now and have come to the conclusion that the difficulties faced by Quantum Physics and Relative Physics lies within the definition of mass.

 

I am going to take this week to read through all of DD's work, as I think I know of an area in which DD's model becomes less contentious. As DD has expressed his model is a geometric model and as I have expressed before the question to my answer is a geometric model. This combined with the Poincare conjecture and Geometrization Conjecture should combined well into a description of three to four fundamental qualities and quantities. Of which I lack the mathematical prowess to express. charge[math]^1[/math] [math]^2[/math] [math]^3[/math], Distance (difference of position of points), Time, and spin.

 

DD, Your genius and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

 

This thread is a Drawing links: Matter, Mass-energy, Space-time, and the Geometric Universe Candidate

[LaurieAG]

You misunderstand what I am saying. What I am saying is that, if you take into account the difference between "time" and "what clocks measure" in a careful and logical way, the difficulty with the problems between QM and GR simply vanish.

 

I agree with you on that one Doctordick.

 

Time is merely a 'duration' with identical durations in a continuum becoming 'units' of time. As any type of clock, atomic or otherwise, is effected by its 'relative' physical circumstances, the durations of the units can vary greatly due to the changes of the physical circumstances of the measuring device.

 

The error is merely the inability of mechanical devices to be consistent, independently, with 'absolute' time in varying physical circumstances.

[Doctordick]

Hi Will,

 

I was trying to find a post I wanted to reference in my answer to Bombadil when I ran across your post to “Is 'time' a measurable variable?” to which I had failed to respond. I apologize for my failure.

No, my position is that the idea of quantum field theory is based on the quantization of field theories. This places preeminence on the field theories.

I believe you are confused sir. Quantum field theory is merely the relativistic extension of quantum mechanics. Also, many of the "universal successes" of quantum theory are actually from extensions of quantizing fields.

I don't disagree with this at all. Essentially, what I was trying to express was the fact that quantum mechanics was fallen upon by accident via analysis of relationships discovered within the classical study of what is called Hamiltonian mechanics. That is to say quantum mechanics was a “postulated” theory, not a deduced theory (which it is in my analysis).

I don't understand, for instance, why you would suggest that Maxwell's equations (a field theory) are approximations, and hence we shouldn't try to quantize electricity/magnetism? Is that the implication I'm supposed to be reading?

No, that is certainly not the implication I am asserting. What you must understand is that I am deriving quantum mechanics from fundamental principals, not from physical experiments. When I do that, I discover that Maxwell's equations are an approximation to my fundamental equation: i.e., the correct quantum mechanical relationships are not to be deduced from quantization of the electro-magnetic fields of Maxwell's equation but rather that the electro-magnetic fields are properly to be deduced from the my fundamental equation itself. And I will show you exactly how that can be done.

Certainly in condensed matter some field are approximate (often the result of taking a lattice spacing to 0 as a limit). However, there are obviously fundamental fields (the forementioned electricity/magnetism).

And I am saying that the electro-magnetic fields are approximations and not fundamental at all.

 

Likewise, any field theory is a postulated theory and not a deduced consequence thus quantization of a field theory has no bearing at all on what I am doing. What you need to show is that you are aware of something which can not be deduced from my fundamental equation. If that be the case, then you have something fundamental; however, I am aware of no such thing. Being unaware does not mean that no such thing exists but, from what I have already been able to deduce, I suspect very strongly that "field theory" is not a rational starting point and, if we ever get into actually discussing the extent of what I have discovered (rather than concentrating on the value of looking at my work) I will show you exactly why I have those doubts.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Hello Gentlemen,

 

I thought I'd come back briefly and dip my toe back into this discussion.

As change occurs and one moment leads into the next, a reference frame is created in a conscious mind aware of the change.

 

This could be said to be the definition of consciousness.

 

But outside of a conscious mind viewing the change or rather, the state of the current moment compared to a previous moment captured in memory, no change exists. Only snapshots of what is current.

 

I think it's critical to realize that change is an internal construct. As is motion. As is Time. We project these mental 'existents' into existence and commit a fundamental mistake.

 

I guess my point here is that if time actually is just an internal construct, something else is driving change. Because I am not saying that change doesn't take place, I'm disputing its cause.

 

Just thought I'd leave that in the pool.

 

Cheers,

 

steve

[Doctordick]

As change occurs and one moment leads into the next, a reference frame is created in a conscious mind aware of the change.

Or, it could be seen as a change in what one thought comprised reality. There is an interesting phenomena which occurs quite readily in the conscious comprehension of most everyone: the repeated occurrence of expected phenomena usually leads to the event being ignored. Essentially, what impacts our conscious awareness is those things which are unexpected.

This could be said to be the definition of consciousness.

No, this could be said to be the definition of “awareness”.

But outside of a conscious mind viewing the change or rather, the state of the current moment compared to a previous moment captured in memory, no change exists.

The change you describe can only occur when the events of the past are identified with those newly experienced events: i.e., the newly experienced events are somewhat altered from the events they are presumed to be identified with.

Only snapshots of what is current.

Or more important, snapshots of issues which are different from what existed in the past: i.e., what is known.

I think it's critical to realize that change is an internal construct. As is motion. As is Time. We project these mental 'existents' into existence and commit a fundamental mistake.

With this comment I very much agree.

I guess my point here is that if time actually is just an internal construct, something else is driving change. Because I am not saying that change doesn't take place, I'm disputing its cause.

Is “cause” the real issue here? Or is it really a mechanism which allows us to identify events of the past (that which we know) with events of the present (the changes in what we know). What one must realize is the fact that the central issue of all this caca is the existence of a perception which seems to make sense (i.e., a mental view which resolves into an internally consistent picture).

 

I think you are very close to comprehending the issues I am confronting.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

This could be said to be the definition of consciousness.

DD

No, this could be said to be the definition of “awareness”.

Ok. I agree with that. Consciousness would be a special form of awareness then. Perhaps an awareness of self?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

But outside of a conscious mind viewing the change or rather, the state of the current moment compared to a previous moment captured in memory, no change exists.

DD:

The change you describe can only occur when the events of the past are identified with those newly experienced events: i.e., the newly experienced events are somewhat altered from the events they are presumed to be identified with.

I need to take baby steps here. Perhaps I should have said, "But outside of an awareness viewing the change or rather, the state of the current moment compared to a previous moment captured in memory, no change exists". An event is triggered by a change in state and by some sort of value tag to one of the objects 'in frame'. That also implies that awareness, by definition, has the ability to form objects from the data stream. That also implies a consciousness at work (with respect to the value tag). Objects would be persistent patterns. Value would be assigned to the important ones. Value implies a sense of self. A change to a tagged object would generate an event. (just thinking out loud here so you can see the structure, or lack of it, that i've got)

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Only snapshots of what is current.

DD:

Or more important, snapshots of issues which are different from what existed in the past: i.e., what is known.

Sorry to be stuck here. 'Issues' has me confused, unless it's similar to what I described above. Hmmm. Your use of the word 'issue' might mean 'that which is generated'. And the use of the work 'important' carries 'value' with it. So maybe we are talking the same thing.

[Rade]

Doctordick, I have some questions about the OP question--sorry if you have already provided answers but it is a long and convoluted thread at this point.

 

It would appear that you find what clocks to measure to be 'tau' (real and proper time), a fourth dimension of space related to (x,y,z) deduced from the presentation of your fundamental equation.

 

If so, we still have "time" as a fifth dimension in your model and your OP post question was, 'Is time a measurable thing" so I take it that you refer to this fifth dimension concept of time that you are asking about--and not 'tau', since tau is a measurable thing--it is what clocks measure.

 

So, what is this 'time' as a fifth dimension in your presentation ? As I understand it, time in your deduction is an imaginary mental variable that brings order to change in information.

 

If so, would it be correct to say that you would find it to be true that time, as you define it within your five dimension model, would be a measurable variable in the form of the amount of quantum energy of work required (in the mind) to perform the function of changing information of what you know (the past) to what you do not know (the future) within 'the present" ?

 

That is, can we not say that time can be measured by a delta energy function related to change in variety of information content at any moment. Thus, the answer to your OP question is yes, but not for the reason most would assume.