Time. /My opinion./
====================
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.
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.
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 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. 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 explains 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.”
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 light quanta 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 tha
t 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 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.
=================..
Is it possible to see the different manifestation of
time in a human being?
Here is an article “ Even the time is pressed from fear”
by Dr. Vadim Chernobrov (collaborator of MAI -
- Moscow Aviation Institute).
He wrote, that we usually think time is a constant quality.
But Einstein’s relative theory says time is relative.
Question. Is it possible to check it in our life?
Answer. Russian and foreign researches say it is
possible. The documents (secret in the past) testify
that “cataclysm of time”, “ phenomenon of time’s
perversion “,” the changes (its deceleration) of time”
often is observed by people whose profession connected
with risk: astronauts, pilots, drivers, soldiers.
1.
The test pilot Mark Gallay wrote in his book
“The test in the sky” when his airplane was caught
with fire “ the time began to go in another scale. The time
almost stopped. Every second took ability of expansion,
and in this situation it was possible to do many things.”
He confirms that tested such feeling many times.
2.
The test pilot Marina L. Popovich said the same,
in the dangerous, catastrophic situations “ the time
is stretches”.
3.
In June 1989 the soviet airplane MIG-29 crashed near
Paris, in Le Bourget airport , in the time of its air show.
The notes of “the black box” showed that during the
four (4)seconds the test pilot Anatoly Kvochur made as
many operations as in normal situation it would take some
minutes. The test pilot later said: ” the time was stretched”.
4.
The captain N.Z.(fought in Afghanistan) remembers:
“the fly of the bullet was so beautiful that I didn’t guess
to evade from it, although I have enough time to do it”.
5.
The sergeant V. Ch (fought in Afghanistan) told:
“ The black barrel of gun seems very big, even enormous.
Time is stopped and full silence came. And I moved slowly
a step a side and the bullet passed close to me.”
6.
Etc…
His conclusions.
The people in a critical situation, on the border of death,
suddenly for themselves begin to see everything as in the
slow down film and in this time their speed reaction and
power increase in tens and hundreds times. And this explains:
a) why a man who escaped from wolves, can quickly reach
up the top of the naked tree,
b) an old woman took out a big trunk from her burned house,
which later two strong firemen couldn’t rise.
c) etc…
=============..
My experience.
The speed on the curve was so fast that I went on other
road line and flew straight at the “forehead’ of a green mercedes.
The driver of the mercedes was in panic. He threw the wheel and
closed his face with his hands in horror. Suddenly the time
stopped for me and I made many actions before my car kicked
only the side back door of the mercedes.
It was long time ago, but writing this article I understood better
what happened. In that time most neurons of my brain stopped
their electric pulse (time almost stopped) and my Light Quanta/
Electron in this new condition (superconductivity) had possibility
to increase my speed reaction and power on a short period of time
and maybe saved my life. I must thank Him.
===================..
Best wishes.

Not being a physicist, I will not pretend that I understand every word you wrote. Nevertheless, I did hear on TV something like the following about time and precognition, and maybe you can understand it. I heard that we are able to make predictions, because time is symmetric. So does your conception of time have more than one direction? If so, then contemplation of spin alone may not be enough.

One comment.
===========
Jud:
/My Opinion/

*Time* is a reificational myth - a helpful fiction and
the ideative product of the human brain.
Like *number, movement, speed, appearance, being, energy, force...
*time* is a metaphysical creation of mankind employed in order
to enable him to interface with other causal objects
(other that is - to the causal, abstracting, reificative object which is ...himself.)

Although utterly unscientific, these abstractions are required in order
for science to do its business of measuring and making deterministically
engendered predictions. Only when scientists grasp that it is not the
* behaviour * of objects that exists - but * behaving objects*
will the big TOE discoveries take place.

Put another way - *time* does not exist ... only (humanly) *timed objects* exist.

Best wishes,

Jud Evans.
================..

Dear Jud Evans.
I have read your comment with interest.
1.
From one hand, it seems you are right. Why?
There are different definitions: * movement,
speed, energy, force, charge, spin, field ...etc *
The physicists take these definitions as independent
physical characteristics and when some of them say:
“ We are always using these concepts but not
a singe physicist in the world today knows what
they really mean * deep down* ”
/ Book “ ABC ’s of Quantum mechanics”
by V. Rydnik. Page 315./
2.
From another hand, it seems you aren’t correct. Why?
Being a boy and a young man I was beaten many times
or as a Jew, or because I was right ,or it seems to
me that I was right but I was fool. So, I know by
my teeth how the physical parameters like
* movement, speed, energy, force, ...* are real and effective.
And now, as an old experienced man, I came to conclusion that
the physicists were never beaten and therefore they didn’t
know that the physical definitions like * movement,
speed, energy, force, charge, spin, field ...etc *
must be bound with concrete particle (object- subject)
which (who ) is a possessor of these characteristics or can
produce these characteristics. When they understand
this fact the situation will became clear.
3.
You wrote:
Put another way - *time* does not exist ... only (humanly) *timed objects* exist.
I think to solve your suggestion is like to solve equation:
“ infinity + 1= ? ”
4.
Maybe it is better to take objects like a light quanta or an
electron and try to understand why they are * timed objects*
5.
If you don’t like words * movement, speed, energy, force...*
change them into formulas and write them down, step by step,
for explaining the Existence as I do;

a) T=0K
b) h=c=0, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, C/D=pi, i^2=-1
c) h=c=1, h=Et, h=kb
d) h=h/2pi, c>1, e^2= ahc.
e) etc…
Maybe you will do this work better then me.
=======..
Be lucky and not being beaten in the future.
Best wishes,
Israel.

There are two kinds of spaces and time:
Relative and Absolute.
1.
One is the Newtonian space.
The space on our planet – Earth is Newtonian space and it
has 3-D, On our planet – Earth the space is an
independent structure and time is an independent factor.
It is possible to say:
“ If we take Descartes coordinates ( Newtonian space )
plus time, then we live in the 4-D = 3-D space + 1-D time.
But that is important that the mathematical calculation with
space and time is possible to do separately, independently.
Time can be separated from the space.

Our planet Earth has its own time and its own space
and for us they are absolute.
But according to SRT and GRT the space and the time are
relative substance. Then we have question:
“ Where does the Newtonian space and time came from ? “

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_time_and_space

2.
There is another space: negative four-dimensional
Minkowski space, which combines the dimension
of time with the three dimensions of space. This space is
absolute different from Newtonian space because mathematical
calculation with space and time must be done only unrequited.
Time cannot be separated from the space.
Herman Minkowski said about this spacetime continuum:
“ Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself,
are doomed to fade away into mere shadows,
and only a kind of union of the two will
preserve an independent reality.”
Question. What is the “a kind of union of the two “?
There are many abstract mathematical constructions ( models)
that try to explain the Minkowski space , but nobody knows
what really Minkowski space is .
Nobody knows if Minkowski space is infinity or limited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space

3.
In Wikipedia we can read:
“ Unfortunately neither the concept of space nor of time is well defined,
resulting in a dilemma. If we don't know the character of time nor of space,
how can we characterize either? “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

4.
My opinion about Minkowski spacetime continuum.
4-D Minkowski space is part of SRT.
The SRT is a real theory. But " 4-D Minkowski space "
is an abstract theory. There isn't any proof of its existence.
And if we mix these two theories then we are surprised
with its paradox. What does the man usually do in such
situation? It is clear, he must understand what
“ 4-D Minkowski space " is. It is impossible SRT to be the
right theory and space around SRT to be an abstract theory.
In another words, if we don’t know what “ 4-D Minkowski
space " is, so it is impossible to take SRT as a finished one.
The proof of SRT isn’t over yet. We must give a real
interpretation to “ 4-D Minkowski space ".
==============..
I say that “ 4-D Minkowski space " is Vacuum.
Why?
1.
Minkowski space has no gravity field, but has negative
parameter. And only pure Vacuum space has no gravity
but has negative thermal parameter.
2.
The negative parameter is united with space/ time , which are
joined together absolutely and this unit we can see only in Vacuum .
3.
The second SRT postulate tells about constant moving
light quanta in Vacuum. In another words the SRT must be
connected with Vacuum and the SRT processes must go in Vacuum.
I don’t know why the physicists scorn this fact.
======================.

Which does negative thermal parameter have Vacuum?
a)
Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
(all elementary particles and all quarks and
their girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks,
all kinds of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational,
muons… gluons field ….. etc.) – was assembled in a “single point”.
It is interesting to think about what had surrounded the “single point”.
The answer is : EMPTINESS- NOTHING….!!!
Ok!
But why does everyone speak about EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
common phrases rather than in specific, concrete terms?
I wonder why nobody has written down this EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
the form of a physical formula ? You see, every schoolboy knows that
is possible to express the EMPTINESS- NOTHING condition
by the formula T=0K.
b)
Once there was a “Big Bang”. But in what space had the Big Bang
taken place and in what space was the matter of the Big Bang distributed?
Not in T=0K?
It is clear, that there is only EMPTINESS, NOTHING, in T=0K.
c)
Now consider that the Universe, as an absolute frame of reference is
in a condition of T = 2,7K (rests relic radiation of the Big Bang ).
But, the relic radiation is extended and in the future will change
and its temperature will decrease. What temperature can this radiation
reach? Not T=0K?
Hence, if we go into the past or into the present or into the future,
we can not escape from EMPTINESS- NOTHING T=0K.
d)
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^-29 g/sm^3) that the gravitation law ( as to whole Universe )
doesn't work. The Newton/ Einstein's gravitation laws are correct only
in the local parts of Vacuum. The Universe / Vacuum as a whole
must be endless .
3.
And when the Infinity comes nobody knows what to do
with the infinity.
One understands infinity as the opportunity to move infinitely
on a straight line, never encountering any barrier.
The other understands infinity as an opportunity to increase the
numbers infinitely (atoms, stars, galaxies, the moments of time) 1, 2.3,
… … … etc, always adding one point to the number already counted.
G. Hegel has named such understanding of infinity as “bad, unreasonable”.
Hegel thought, that in contrast to " bad" should exist also the
“Reasonable infinity “. By his opinion, the REASONABLE INFINITY
should be something positive and concrete.
At the same time he demanded to specify the following:
a) A сconnection between the infinite and the concrete.
b) A сconnection of infinity not only with quantity, but also with quality.
c) To explain an inconsistent character between the infinity and
the concreteness.
For thousands of years people used a concept of God in order
to explain this interrelation. But Hegel would like to find more rational,
scientific explanation.
And how does the modern science refer to this question?
The concept of infinite, eternal, absolute means nothing to a scientists.
They do not understand how they could draw any real, concrete
conclusions from these characteristics. A notions of "more", "less",
"equally, "similar" could not be conformed to a word infinity
or eternity. The Infinity/Eternity is something, that has no borders,
has no discontinuity; it could not be compared to anything.
Considering so, scientists came to conclusion that the infinity/eternity
defies to a physical and mathematical definition and cannot be considered
in real processes. Therefore they have proclaimed the strict requirement
(on a level of censor of the law):
« If we want that the theory would be correct,
the infinity/eternity should be eliminated ».
Thus they direct all their mathematical abilities, all intellectual energy
to the elimination of infinity. Useless work.
Whether it is possible to give a specific
characterization to a REASONABLE INFINITY? Yes. It is possible.
It is Vacuum which /who can create “ virtual particles”.
================.
Of course it is very hard to take that the Universe is infinite.
And this infinity is REASONABLE INFINITY.
It is no easy matter to give up a lifetime of habit.
But Every epoch has its own delusion. For example:
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 abilities with “ trains “,
“ ships”, “balls”, “ astronauts “ 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”.
================.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
http://www.wbabin.net/
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/sadovnik.pdf

Comment by Sue….suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au
=====================..
On Aug 25, 3:27 am, socratus wrote:

I say that “ 4-D Minkowski space " is Vacuum.
Why?
1.
Minkowski space has no gravity field, but has negative
parameter. And only pure Vacuum space has no gravity
but has negative thermal parameter.
2.
The negative parameter is united with space/ time , which are
joined together absolutely and this unit we can see only in Vacuum .
3.
The second SRT postulate tells about constant moving
light quanta in Vacuum. In another words the SRT must be
connected with Vacuum and the SRT processes must go in Vacuum.
I don’t know why the physicists scorn this fact.
======================.

Sue wrote::

You are re-inventing the wheel. But at least it is not
a square wheel.
<“quantum gravity” is the suggestion, typically
attributed to Sakharov, that gravity itself may
not be “fundamental physics”. Indeed it is now a
relatively common opinion, maybe not mainstream but
definitely a strong minority opinion, that gravity
(and in particular the whole notion of spacetime
and spacetime geometry) might be no more “fundamental”
than is fluid dynamics. The word “fundamental” is
here used in a rather technical sense - fluid
mechanics is not fundamental because there is a
known underlying microphysics, that of molecular
dynamics, of which fluid mechanics is only the
low-energy low-momentum limit. Indeed the very
concepts of density and velocity field, which
are so central to the Euler and continuity equations,
make no sense at the microphysical level and emerge only
as one averages over timescales and distance-scales
larger than the mean free time and mean free path.
In the same way, it is plausible (even though no
specific and compelling model of the relevant
microphysics has yet emerged) that the spacetime
manifold and spacetime metric might arise only once
one averages over suitable microphysical degrees
of freedom. >>
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-1...25.html#x34-720006.3

Sakharov's induced gravity: a modern perspective
--Matt Visser
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0204062
The Origin of Gravity
Authors: C. P. Kouropoulos
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
Sue...
======================..

6.3 Emergent gravity

One of the more fascinating approaches to “quantum gravity” is the suggestion, typically attributed to Sakharov [332 , 393 ],
that gravity itself may not be “fundamental physics”. ( !!! )


http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-1...25.html#x34-720006.3

=================…..

Space itself, when one tries to conceptualize it in its immensity, is in size conceivably either limitless (infinite) or limited (immense but finite).

Any lines, curves, or other in space, however, either contain infinite points towards limits or can be limited by humanly assigned parameters.

Whenever anything drawn on paper and thus limited by either its nature or humanly assigned parameters fails to conform to one's understanding, one has to choose between 1) rejecting what one does not need anyway and 2) trying with expanded understanding to include what one does need certainly. Physics is full of invented entities, whose existences we are supposed to believe are justified by such expanded understandings. This is no way to arrive at a theory of everything. Until there is a breakthrough linking the as yet unseen infinitesimal with the as yet unseen immense, we are better off using drawings on paper (or more detailed computer models?) which contain parameters.

The Minkowski space is a conjecture, which although conceivable, may not conform to either how things are or how things work by themselves outside of human intelligence . . . in the realm of realities. Hence again we have to conclude that one should prefer to be in control of possible events with parameters. Effectually, experiments demand such parameters, if we are to come up with certainties. Thus, it seems that a theory of everything must be superimposed on, at the very least, an observable tendency.