I see your point.

Strangely, since this was an filmed interview, in my mind presumably meant to be viewed and listened to by the general public, it did not cross my mind that he might have been referring to such a pointy mathematical argument.

But even then, since the second is embedded into the dimensions of energy any way the SI dimensions could be finely cut and reformulated, wouldn't "completely" factoring time out of the equations factor energy out also?

Could this be what you mean by ending up defining for example a non-trajectory, which by oppositon would define the trajectory?

This question (of factoring out time from physical laws) arose a few years ago. Julian Barbour is an initiator of it  : see e. g. enclosed article on « The nature of time » (2009). In addition, it seems that the non-necessity of time is a basic principle in Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG). Julian Barbour is/was also connected to the people of LQG : see Abhay Ashtekar, Lee Smolin, Carlo Rovelli, …. See also the book of Carlo Rovelli : « Et si le temps n’existait pas ? Un peu de science subversive » - Dunod (2012). However Lee Smolin reintroduced time in the last years (see his recent articles on the subject in ResearchGate - RG). Julian Barbour, Abhay Ashtekar, Lee Smolin, Carlo Rovelli and several others (of LQG) are on RG.

Guibert,

Thank you so much for the complete history. I now clearly see where he is coming from.

I noted however some inconsistency in the building of his equation 3.

Surely you are familiar with the fact that that f=GmM/r^2 is traditionally, and justifiably so, equal to F=ma, which in turn is equalt f=m(v^2/r), which means that E=GmM/r (Barbour's equation 1) is equal to E=mv^2, which is the kinetic energy induced in m at distance r from the central mass.

his equation 2 is actually Newton's very simple and non relativistic kinetic energy equation K=(mv^2)/2 which provides the translational kinetic energy that mass m possesses on its mean orbit at distance r. It so happens that this amount of energy is already part of the energy provided by the acceleration equation, and which is permanently induced at the mass's orbit.

So adding equation 1 and equation 2 does not provide the constant sum in the manner that he expects.

The derivation of f=ma from f=GmM/r^2 can be found here:

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/3197

Please read the paper, may be helpful for you.

A new approach to the correction of

Galilean transformation

Remi

I must say that I am more attuned to SI dimensions as used at the particle level.

At this level, candela and lumen are not used. Energy at this level is dealt with in joules (j) or electron volts (eV). The relation between these two is that if you divide a joules value by the unit charge (1.602176462E-19 Coulomb), you obtain this amount of energy in eV units.

The relation between joules and time (the second) comes to light when you deconstruct the joule into its more basic dimensions. At this level, joules can be expressed as (C^2 m)/s^2, that is, charge in Coulomb squared multiplied by length in meter and divided by time in second squared.

But this particular occurrence of time seems to apply to some inner property of kinetic energy and like you, I am not certain that this has any bearing on time being involved in its motion in space.

How interesting that you would bring up entropy at this point regarding equilibrium states. This is precisely the blueberry patch that I have been plucking at lately. I totally agree that from our macroscopic level, this relates to the number of microstates of the systems considered and that time has no bearing here, because at the particle level, energy is induced as a function of distance uniquely, irrespective of the time elapsed. So when electromagnetic equilibrium states are reached at the particle level, time becomes irrelevant with respect to the amounts of energy involved.

However , such electromagnetic equilibrium states at the particle level (the microstates that you mention) involve adiabatic processes whose impact is infinitesimal as measured at our level when experiments are carried out with masses even as small as grams moving distances compatible with experimental limitations, which has prevented the unreleasable energy amounts involved from being taken account of.

This means that with respect to correlating the principle of conservation, the principle of least action and entropy with adiabatic processes, which have been established from experiments carried out at our macroscopic level, we are in the same situation currently as Newton was with respect to relativistic velocities. There was no way he could have even imagined that the measurable mass of bodies could increase with velocity

In my view, this needs to be looked at in depth.

Sheng Liu

Thank you for the reference. Quite enlightening.

I agree that Newton's classical theory is precise as it is when low velocities are involved, and even for relativistic velocities when his equations are upgraded to relativistic status.

I add the active link to your paper for easier access:

Article A new approach to the correction of Galilean transformation

Dear André Michaud:

For reading this paper, I added note.

Please note the three aspects in this paper:

(1) A logical contradiction has been found hidden in the Lorentz transformation ,which is demonstrated in the paper. And a new space-time transformation is proposed to eliminate the contradiction, which accordingly proves that the special theory of relativity is invalid.

(2) The variable parameters in the transformation formula, which depend on the mass of the particles, connect the macroscopic world with the microscopic world.

(3) The free particles in the quantum state do not follow Newton's first law.

Hi Sheng Liu

I must say that this is no surprise to me that logical contradictions can be found in the Lorentz transformation.

The reason from my own perspective is that whenever charged particles are considered, of which all matter is made, I consider their motion with respect to physical reality instead of with respect to reference frames.

In physical reality, inertial motion does not exist for charged particles. Only two states of motion are possible for them. Either they are captive of some electromagnetic equilibrium state, which does not preclude cyclic motion nor local oscillation, such electrons being captive on electronic orbitals about atomic nuclei or else they are free moving and subjected to constant Coulomb force acceleration that will eventually lead them to be captured in some electromagnetic equilibrium state.

As for Special relativity. I think that confirmation of length contraction of macroscopic bodies is impossible to obtain because obtaining relativistic velocities for macroscopic bodies in conditions that would allow such experimental confirmation is out of reach of our technological capabilities, and may always be.

Regarding time contraction, since the discrepancy between time measured with atomic clocks located at different intensities in the gravitational gradient can be explained otherwise, then, coupled with the impossibility to confirm macroscopic bodies length contraction, this puts in serious doubt the whole concept of spacetime dilation.

Note that Newton did not formulate his first law of motion with respect to reference frames. He wrote that bodies will resist their state of motion being changed by an outside force.

It has been verified as far back as the beginning of the 20th century that electrons possess inertia and resist their trajectories being deflected. So they do obey Newton's first law.

Ref, Walter Kaufman's experiments with electron deflection:

http://gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de/dms/load/img/?PPN=PPN252457811_1903&DMDID=DMDLOG_0025

Please note:

This paper does not involve the case of external forces.

It certainly does.

The electrons were deflected by applying a magnetic field more intense than the electric field. This is the only manner allowing the trajectories of charged particles to be deflected. 

Indeed, any elementary textbook on electricity and magnetism explains how the vectorial cross product of equal intensity electric and magnetic fields being applied to a charged particle apply forces that will generate a velocity vector in straight line forcing the particle to move in a direction perpendicular to both resulting forces. The more intense the fields, the faster the particle will move.

If you increase the electric field while maintaining the electric field stable, the trajectory will be deflected.

Used in all high energy accelerarors:

Ref: Humphries S. Jr. (1986) Principles of Charged Particle Acceleration. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Oops!

I meant "If you increase the magnetic field while maintaining the electric field stable" of course.

Amrit

Thank you so much for your so interesting and knowledge expanding papers:

I fully agree that the only moment that we can be aware of is the NOW moment, that I personally name the "present moment".

I also agree that normal 3D space can only be flat as all experimental data seem to confirm.

From my own perspective, all photons and all particles in the universe exist only during this "present moment" that seems to "move" at a constant "velocity".

Such a simultaneous existence and progression of all existing particles could maybe explain why we seem to be able to become aware of no other moment but the precise moment which is in the process of passing, given that our bodies as well as our brains, which support our awareness, are made of the same particles.

By concentrating our attention on this question, each of us can observe that this "present moment" seems omnipresent. We seem to be swimming in it, so to speak.

Whether we want it or not, we seem to be inexorably living in this “present moment” and to constantly be following it, even when we are not paying any attention to it, or should we rather say, more precisely, that we are plain and simple inexorably taken along for the ride, whether we want it or not.

Considering that its existence and its flow are not under our control, it can be concluded that this present moment has an objective existence.

I must say that I also gave deep thought to the issue of time that stems from the existence of this present moment, subjective time, objective time, progession of time, atc.

If interested in my conclusions, I invite you to read Section "VII The Time dimension" in the following paper:

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/5695

Dear Amrit

Thank you so much for the invitation.

I am currently preparing a different paper for another journal, but I should soon have time to format this one to offer to your journal.

   Dear André,

   The idea of Barbour come from the Wheeler-DeWitt equation trying to unify general relativity theory with quantum mechanics. Their equivalent Schrodinger equation doesn't depends of time because their spacetime is foliated into spacelike submanifolds and it is just constraint condition on every 3-dimensional spacelike subspaces. Thus time appears to be constant at every "suface", but the inmediate prizes to pay are very high:

   1-Their eigenstates are not real wave functions at all and even such Hamiltonian is not one operator to provide eigenvalues interpreted as energies.

  2-The conservation of the energy is due to have a translation symmetry for time, which in this model has many difficulties to be keep.

   3-On the other hand, everyday dynamics that we experiment following Newton's equations or Schrodinger's one is not contained directly.

Dear Daniel,

How interesting! It had never crossed my mind to imagine time as being invariant in a 4 dimensional space-time manifold. From your hint that Barbour's idea stemmed from the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, I did some reading and found this bit from Barry Dainton where he synthesized Barbour's approach as being some form of "Many-Worlds Presentism", that I myself would simply name "Static Presentism", because he goes on talking about "Dynamic Presentism", which he finds easier to believe from the common sense standpoint, that takes the form of a succession of instantaneous "present moments":

Quote "no sooner has one present come into existence than it will depart from it as it is replaced by another present, and the latter will in turn be immediately replaced by another present, and the latter will in turn be immediately annihilated as a new present comes into existence".

Which amounts to quantizing the "present moment" or "NOW" moment" that Einstein already considered and that Amrit and I were discussing about in this very thread.

If interested, Amrit's paper on the "NOW" moment is available from his previous post of May 1, 2016. Regarding my own take on the same concept, that I name the "present moment", I have a paper coming up in about 1 week that I will post here for consistency. Note that Amrit and I see this present moment as not being quantized, but as continuously existing, actually the only moment of real existence that progresses at some sort of constant "velocity" that takes us and the whole universe along for the ride.

  Dear André,

  The model of Wheeler-DeWitt is really a fantastic imaginative contribution and interesting to distinguish so clearly the elapse of time to the simultansty. That is very interesting indeed, but far of simple concepts as trajectories.

   The mixing of gravity and quantum field theory surely needs new concepts, perhaps even stronger that these ones, but which needs always to reproduce the classical ones when their conditions arise.

Hi Daniel

I had not paid attention to the Wheeler-DeWitt model before, but I agree that it lays the ground work bringing focus on the various aspects of what "time" could be. All possibilities now seem to be on the table.

I absolutely agree that whatever new approach or more satisfying global solution reconciling more hanging threads needs to satisfactorily incorporate all already experimentally confirmed facts.

Take any two integrated equations of motion and time can be eliminated.

Another way take a trajectory of a body moving ar one meter per second and take this as a reference position instead of t.

Time is just a convention.  A convenient reference. It ultimately goes to the angle the Earth rotates while something changes. That's all. No big mystery.

Here is finally my paper on the time dimension.

Article The Birth of the Universe and the Time Dimension in the 3-Spaces Model

Dear André,

Your conception of time and Amrit Sorli et al.'s quotation "Past, present and future belong to the psychological time ..." remind me of texts from Lao Tzu and also Montaigne (and probably others ...) :

Lao Tzu (or Lao Tseu) : "If you are depressed you are living in the past. If you are anxious you are living in the future. If you are at peace you are living in the present.”

Montaigne : "Si j'avais à revivre, je  vivrais comme j'ai vécu, ni je ne plains le passé ni je ne crains l'avenir" (Essais, III, II) - (free translation) "If I had to live again, I would live as I have lived, neither pitying the past nor fearing the future"

De sages paroles en effet.

It seems that many intuitively perceive that the currently occurring present moment has as special implications.

The laws of attraction and gravity have time in them but they are attractive with or without the time.

George

I fully agree. The Coulomb force, for example, is an interaction as a function of the inverse square of the distance between charges, irrespective of the time factor. Time is not involved at all.

Einstein and Bresson argued about the relevance of time to physics back in 1922. In my opinion this is an example of anthropomorphizing physics, as David Bohm had described in "Wholeness and the Implicate Order". I have suggested that time is an artifact of descriptive biology (Torday JS. Evolutionary biology redux. Perspect Biol Med. 2013 Autumn;56(4):455-84), and that once the paradigm shifts to mechanistic biology emanating from the unicellular state, that time becomes irrelevant to biology. This may seem counter-intuitive when we think of the life cycle from adult to adult, but once you transition to the life cycle being from zygote to zygote time can be seen as an epiphenomenon......allowing consideration of the superfluity of time in physics as well.

Jonh,

You seem to be on the same page as I am on.

George, perhaps you'd like to be on our mailing list for The Society for MetaDarwinism, comprised of 'out of the box' thinkers? We publish a quarterly newsletter (free).....if so, please send me your email address at [email protected], John

No, in Newtons theory time is linked to the dynamical variables, as they evolve.

If your system or universe is static then you could.

Energy rather than time could be considered a constant, in all forms.