The Real Problem of Time in Physics

The conference "Time in Cosmology", June 27-30, 2016, organized by the Perimeter Institute, has just ended - see videos he

https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/video-library

My impression is that participants were all insane and didn't know what they were talking about. However I am antirelativist so my opinion about Einsteinians should not be taken seriously. Still I am going to extract the REAL problem of time in physics, a problem which was not even hinted at at the conference, from the words of a famous Einsteinian:

http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth.. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")."

If a sentient being CAN jump, within a minute of his experienced time, arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, then time is Einsteinian, relative, emergent.

If a sentient being CANNOT jump, within a minute of his experienced time, arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, then time is Newtonian, absolute, fundamental.

Note that the sentient being CANNOT jump arbitrarily far in the future if Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false. If the postulate is true, the sentient being again CANNOT jump arbitrarily far in the future (the deduction of time travel from Einstein's 1905 postulates is invalid)..

Pentcho Valev

On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 4:03:28 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
The conference "Time in Cosmology", June 27-30, 2016, organized by the Perimeter Institute, has just ended - see videos he

https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/video-library

My impression is that participants were all insane and didn't know what they were talking about. However I am antirelativist so my opinion about Einsteinians should not be taken seriously. Still I am going to extract the REAL problem of time in physics, a problem which was not even hinted at at the conference, from the words of a famous Einsteinian:

http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")."

If a sentient being CAN jump, within a minute of his experienced time, arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, then time is Einsteinian, relative, emergent.

If a sentient being CANNOT jump, within a minute of his experienced time, arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, then time is Newtonian, absolute, fundamental.

Note that the sentient being CANNOT jump arbitrarily far in the future if Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false. If the postulate is true, the sentient being again CANNOT jump arbitrarily far in the future (the deduction of time travel from Einstein's 1905 postulates is invalid).

Pentcho Valev

I agree. Relativity is a hopelessly wrong theory. Relativists have time completely wrong. Time cannot change by definition and simple logic. A time dimension would make motion impossible. This is the reason that Einstein's spacetime is a block universe in which nothing happens. Why? It's because motion in time is self-referential. Motion in time implies a velocity in time which would have to be given as v = dt/dt, which is nonsense.

So any talk of time travel in any direction is the ultimate in crackpottery.. And no, we are not moving toward the future at 1 sec per sec. There is only the present.

Since there is no time dimension, nature cannot calculate durations. All interactions have the exact same durations and there is only one speed in the universe, the speed of light. Nothing moves faster or slower. A particle moves by making quantum jumps at the speed of light interspersed with rest periods. The duration of a rest period is equal to that of a jump. If a particle appears to move at half the speed of light, its motion actually consists of an equal number of jumps and rest periods. At the speed of light, it is all jumps and no rest periods. At ordinary speeds, a moving particle is at rest almost all the time with just a few jumps sprinkled in.

We can only conclude that change in the universe is governed by a single, universal and absolute "clock" tick.

Spacetime is an "immediate consequence" of Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate:

http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/20...rs-of-gravity/
"Baumgarte began by discussing special relativity, which Einstein developed, 10 years earlier, in 1905, while he was employed as a patent officer in Bern, Switzerland. Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."

So if the "immediate consequence" is nonexistent and should be "retired", then the underlying premise, Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false, isn't it, Einsteinians?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

Pentcho Valev

The "real problem of time in physics" is aftermath of an invalid deduction performed by Einstein in 1905. Einstein's postulates entail SYMMETRICAL time dilation - either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system. Instead of honestly deriving this in 1905, Einstein derived, fraudulently and invalidly of course, ASYMMETRICAL time dilation - in his 1905 article the moving clock is slow and lags behind the stationary one which is, accordingly, fast (this means that the moving clock and its owner travel into the future - if their speed is great enough, they can jump, within a minute of their experienced time, millions of years ahead):

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."

So even if Einstein's 1905 postulates were true (actually the second one is false), physics would still be dead by now, corrupted by the metastases of the asymmetrical time dilation (moving clocks run slower than stationary ones) invalidly deduced by Einstein in 1905.

Pentcho Valev

Einstein's 1905 postulates entail SYMMETRICAL time dilation, but then how did Einstein manage to convince the world that asymmetrical effects occur - e.g. the moving clock lags behind the stationary one and the traveling twin remains younger than his stationary brother? In 1918 Einstein declared that, although time dilation is symmetrical and therefore the clock paradox cannot be solved by special relativity, it is his general relativity that provides the solution:

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm
Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogenous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. [...] According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4."

The fraud is obvious - if the calculation showing that the moving clock lags behind the stationary one comes from general relativity, how did Einstein obtain the lagging-behind in 1905? Herbert Dingle asked essentially the same question in 1972 but it was too late - the gullible world had already been fatally brainwashed:

http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_S...Crossroads.pdf
Herbert Dingle, SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, p.27: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates.....How is the slower-working clock distinguished? The supposition that the theory merely requires each clock to APPEAR to work more slowly from the point of view of the other is ruled out not only by its many applications and by the fact that the theory would then be useless in practice, but also by Einstein's own examples, of which it is sufficient to cite the one best known and most often claimed to have been indirectly established by experiment, viz. 'Thence' [i.e. from the theory he had just expounded, which takes no account of possible effects of acceleration, gravitation, or any difference at all between the clocks except their state of uniform motion] 'we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.' Applied to this example, the question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude FROM HIS THEORY that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?"

Nowadays the scientific community does not need Einstein's 1918 calculation - just tell them "enough strangeness" and they immediately understand that Einstein was absolutely right:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox..."

Pentcho Valev