Bob,

That some physicists seriously consider that there exists a NOW, that the passage of time is even more fundamental that the known law of physics is refreshing because a timeless platonic world is a very boring place.

What do you mean by `"Time has a quantum value of 9." ?

Some physicists it is Einstein, Louis.

With best regards,

Eugene.

Hi Louis . It was an arbitrary decision on my part that time has a quantum value of 9 . It is up to the experimentists to discover time's true quantum numerical value . I'm only saying time has a quantum numerical value . If you divide any number by 9 ( 23 / 9 = 2.5555 ( infinitely repeated )) you will find that ( 2 X 9 + 5 = 23 ) . If you divide any other number by any other number and get a fraction ( 31 / 3 = 10.33333 ( infinitely repeated ) you have to restore 31 by ( 3 X 10 = 30 + (.3333333 X 3 = .9999999 ) = 31 ) . I haven't read Lee's book but I think he's right in principle . Time seems to be one of those obviously dumb topics that turns out to be fundamentally complicated and is the basis for physics and making the universe run properly .

s = 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ...+ 64+128+... ; s = 1 + 2*(1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + ...) ==> s = 1 + 2s ==> s = -1 Numbers without a base do not mean a thing. Numbers don't give an answer.

Time is a measurement of observed mass change within in a system, given by the same masses studied. Coupling between mass and time is through c, assumed constant so in another frame of reference the time co-ordinate can differ (SR).

Time is in two places. One is space-time where most of these discussions have occurred. There is also quantum time which is a different kettle of fish. I suspect Lee's argument involves our concept of quantum time more than space-time but obviously there is an overlap when we get into the nitty gritty.

Bob,

I read the book but I do not remember any mention of quantum time.

Louis,

1. Time is sequence of events in our mind.

2. There is also Einstein's objective space-time.

Coinside this two times or not?

Eugene,

Humans are the only animal that can evoke fictions in their mind, we call this ''thinking''. Most of this fictive stories are mostly made up as thouht experiments, some are re-creation of past stories of our life. Then we go to school and learned the past story of our nation , of the world, of the universe and can locate our little personal life story. So we are able to create a fictive historical time that correstpond to these story lines.

But like any other animal, we also lives in the now of our experience, not imagine one, but actual one of what we are doing now. When we imagined the historical time of these stories, we do it in the now which is totally different than the historical linear time of the stories. In the stories, we can go back and forth as we can move in space. But in the live time, we are always now and stuck there. We can easily imagine that the past time in the story was a now but this is only true as an interpretation of the story. What is real is not what we imagine but primarily what we live and imagination and conceptualization is part of what we live and not the other way around. This live time is not spatial and cannot be formalized. What is formalized in physics is what can be expressed as a story using a model. What cannot enter this form, whatever is not fixed cannot enter a formal fixed expression, change cannot enter model. Predictive change can enter a model with the time of physics but in space-time nothing change. So if reality is based on change with change stabilizing some aspect in recursive recreation in the now of this patterns then reality will never been expressed except the recurring stabilized patterns. Those recurring stabilized patterns is the phsycical world and those who that this is reality in itself also say that nothing change because effectively change is out with this definition of reality. Those that say that reality is change then accept that all that can be known are stabilized appearance of that unknowable changing/creative ground.

The time of Einstein and the time of Bergson are totally different. The time of Einstein is the time of our stories where nothing change.

Thanks.

Eugene,

Thanks to you for your contribution.

I read Lee Smolin's book “Time Reborn” and enjoyed it quite a bit.  Smolin is a maverick and he has many interesting ideas.  I agree with him that time is probably the fundamental property of the universe.  Of course, we all know that space-time is the fundamental property of the universe and both space and time emerged simultaneously in the big bang.  I agree with his idea that “now” is a real and identifiable characteristic of the universe, not just a figment of human consciousness.   He also discusses briefly his theory of cosmological natural selection - this theory is discussed in more detail in his book  “The Life of the Cosmos”.  Here he, stated simply, postulates that “other universes” can branch off the universe with possibly different values for the fundamental constants.  This leads to a kind of natural selection where universes with maximal  black hole density prosper over other universes.  The problem I have with this theory is the formation of new universes.  From Wikipedia:

“The theory surmises that a black hole causes the emergence of a new universe on the ‘other side’, whose fundamental constant parameters (masses of elementary particles, Planck constant, elementary charge, and so forth) may differ slightly from those of the universe where the black hole collapsed. Each universe thus gives rise to as many new universes as it has black holes.”

The problem I have is that it is postulated that a “black hole causes the emergence of a new universe.”  How is there any way to prove that?  What fundamental theory of physics demands this to be true?  So you have a theory that is based on some fantasy that black holes create universes and then you make predictions based on this fantasy. I respect Smolin as a scientist and I welcome his novel ideas.  But I can’t take his theory seriously without any fundamental principles driving the ideas behind it. I welcome any dissenting points of view.

Paul,

what does it mean "black hole collapse"?

Eugene,

That is from a quote from Wikipedia.  Of course the writer is trying to convey this to a lay person, I presume.  We know that a black hole itself is the collapse of a massive amount of mass and whereby an event horizon emerges.  Smolin, I believe, is not talking about a "black hole collapse", this is a misinterpretation and I probably should have used a quote from somewhere else.  In any case, as I understand it, a black hole hole discussed by Smolin is a "normal" black hole - it has no special qualities from other black holes as viewed from out 3+1 spacetime.   As I said in my first post, I think it is a giant leap to say that these black holes birth new universes.  I do not think you can prove that - it is not falsifiable.  So the theory fails at its basic premise.  Therefore, I believe that the theory of "cosmological natural selection" has no grounds to make experimental predictions.

Paul,

Wikipedia is an ill source.

Our universe may be itself black hole (see Antonio Alfonso-Faus).

Eugene,

The best description I've heard to describe the universe is that it is an "Exploding Black Hole".  This makes perfect sense to me.  There is an horizon where light emitted from an observer's position can never escape, just as "inside" a black hole.   And this horizon has been expanding since the big bang, analogous to an explosion.  Wah lah!

Paul,

I also read “The Life of the Cosmos” where Lee explained his theory of cosmological natural selection. I do not like the theory.  All theory are fantisy.  Some people follow Popper and think that a fantasy is a scientific fantasy as long as it is falsifiable.  I agree with Lee that his theory is falsifiable.  But it is only some minor aspects of it. I think that the theory is ugly and it is the solution to a non problem: the fine tuning of the fundamental constant of physics for an universe with life.  The problem only exists if one posit that these models of the universe containing these constants actually evolved in the reality.  But if one take the position that these constants belong to scientific models of the cosmos , models design to make predictions, models that are not intrinsic to the universe then the problem evaporate.  It is quite normal that such model have fine tuned constants , fined tuned by physicists and not by nature.

Louis,

I have not yet read Smolin's books, but from your words I see, that he is right.

You are also right, Louis.

Regards.

Eugene.

Eugene,

There is no time in mathematics, only a desert of inert forms.  And all we can express about the universe are model in this desert of inert forms.  Galileo invented modern physics by expressing change as form change as parameterized by a variable which is the output of a clock.  He spatialized time and thus allow to enter the invariant dynamic into the desert of static form thus creating the illusition that time is an illustion whence perceived from space-time.  The NOW was evacuated out of physics.  But the NOW is the only thing that exist.

Louis,

try to read Bernd's paper "On motion" on his RG page. It will be interesting to You.

Regards,

Eugene.

Eugene,

Thanks for the lead on Bernd.  I have started reading and it is very interesting.

Central to Smolin’s reasearch is to come up with a quantum gravity theory which is the result of an evolutionary process and so is not a timeless law. The most interesting chapter of the book ''Time Reborn'' is  chapter 12, ‘’Quantum Mechanics and the Liberation of the Atom’’.   Two simple  principles are introduced: ‘’the principle of precedence’’ and ‘’the principle of maximal freedom’’.  The principle of precedence says that what determines the outcome of future measurements of a system is the collection of past cases. As a consequence unprecedented measurements are not governed by any prior law. The freedom of a system is defined by how much information you need about the system to be able to make the best possible prediction about its future. When you assumed that the system obey the principle of precedence and that its freedom is maximized then the system is a quantum system.

Louis,

the question is: Are 4-dimensional objects reality (really exist)? Einstein, 137 and some other say yes. QM says no. Who is right?

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all, 

Have a look at Peter Woit's review of Smolin's "Time Reborn" :

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5769

I have had great difficulty following the scientific motivation of this book, though I learned to follow Smolin carefully, from his "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity" and "The Trouble with Physics."  I find his multiple universes as problematic as the other versions currently on offer, and this suggests to me, at least, that there is a very problematic common assumption going about in theoretical physics. Its as though some common theoretical assumption is running things to speculative excesses, in the absence of empirical constraint for extreme high energies. 

What might it be? 

H.G. Callaway

Dear H.G. Gallaway,

I read the review of Smolin's ''Time Reborn'' by Peter Woit.  I knew this web site and share the same distaste than Woit for String theory: Not even Wrong.  I have read all Lee Smolin books.  I totally disagree with his natural selection multiverse model. I dislike all multiverse models for about the same reasons.   ''Time Reborn'' is a book written for a general public and he is supposed to publish the deeper philosophical version soon.   I share with Lee a notion that Pierce had just briefly enunciated in ''Evolutionary Love'' and which is the notion that we cannot separate the laws of physics from the universe , we now know that all the structure in the universe evolved and so should the laws of physics had to co-evolved; we cannot assume that prior to the universe existed a platonic world where the laws of physics are preform including the conditions for their manifestation and Bang here is the Big Bang.  Big Bang theory is not a theory of origin  because it is based on two theories: quantum mechanics and general relativity and these two theories cannot be both true above a certain energy density.  It does not matter for the predicting power of Big Bang theory at lower energy levels but it matter near the origin.  Lee is trying to solve this problem of origin.  He posits that it should be a no background theory and that it should be an evolutionary theory, a theory whose evolution are the theories we knows.  Like in his book on Cosmic Natural Selection, he found his pattern of answer in Darwin's natural selection theory which is a theory that is on the pattern of the British Common Law evolutionary system.  He assume a principle of precedence that stabilize random event into habit of nature. He derive quantum physics as the stabilisation of laws (order) that maximize freedom.  A Leibnizian principle.  He insisted on time being fundamental or real by opposition to the platonic viewpoint on physics which emphasided what does not change.  Saying that time is real is saying that change is real.  All the multiverse scenarios evacuate change in creating static multiverse.  In his previous book on Cosmic Natural Selection, Lee take the anthopic problem, the fine tuning of the initial conditions as a real problem to be explained and his theory is that explanation.  I think that the big bang fine tuning problem is an artefact of the theorizing method.  The method consist in predicting the actual evolution of the universe by choosing the intial conditions appropriately.  Such method will obviously fine tune the intial conditions.  It is not fine tuned by Nature but by our theorizing method.  Nature did not proceed that way.  But Lee meta evolutionary law is far from being developed in this book.  Most of the book is about criticizing existing physics as being platonic, denying change, Physics in a box type.  I share Lee's emphasis on time , evolution of nature as a whole and will be interested to read his next book.  

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Brassard, 

Many thanks for your recounting or summary of Lee Smolin's book, "Time Reborn." Since the review of the volume by Peter Woit had not been mentioned on this thread, I thought it might be of general interest to the readers and contributors.

The announcement for his latest book, written with philosopher Roberto Unger, can be found here:

http://leesmolin.com/writings/the-singular-universe-and-the-reality-of-time/

Here the multi-universe theme seems to be in for criticism. As the announcement puts it,

There is only one universe at a time. Our universe is not one of many worlds. It has no copy or complete model, even in mathematics. The current interest in multiverse cosmologies is based on fallacious reasoning.

---end quotation

As I recall my Peirce, he held that even the Platonic universals evolved.  Certainly its odd to think that say, "televisonness," was there all along, as it were, among the eternal forms. But on the other hand, many or most contemporary philosophers are likely skeptical of Platonic realism whether static or evolving. One universe at a time seems to bring Smolin closer to Penrose. 

You write just above,

Big Bang theory is not a theory of origin because it is based on two theories: quantum mechanics and general relativity and these two theories cannot be both true above a certain energy density. It does not matter for the predicting power of Big Bang theory at lower energy levels but it matters near the origin.

---end quotation

Here I am unsure whether you are doing exposition of Smolin or perhaps also stating your own view of the question. But in any case, the claim is interesting. I would myself be slow and reluctant to depart from such a highly esteemed and generally accepted astrophysical theory. It seems not so much a specific implication of GR and QM as it is a matter of projecting observed expansion backward in time. More distant observed galaxies are receding ever more rapidly; and then, again, there is the evidence of the cosmic background radiation --which is often viewed as the clincher in favor of the big bang. 

The physics of the big bang itself (or its origin) seems to be usually quite speculative, and there is certainly a widely acknowledge conflict or tension between GR and QM.  A central problem seems to be the simple lack of evidence regarding physics at the Planck length and the corresponding extremely high energies. Still, the big bang is surely a theory of the origin of the observable universe, however incomplete the theory may be. Your suggestion seems to be that Smolin is examining the related difficulties or prospects. My concern is that where evidence is lacking everything turns to speculation--and I don't think for a moment that philosophy will somehow step in to save the situation. Still, I find the interrelations of these theories of "new physics" fascinating. 

Thanks again for your thoughts on the matter. 

H.G. Callaway

Dear H.G. Callaway,

The ideas on the Big Bang were not discuss in the Lee's book.  I am not questioning what Big Bang theory predict in the last 13.7 billion years, nor that the universe is expanding and accelerating and the evidence of the cosmic background radiation. I am simply stating the evidence that all physicists know that the equations onto which Big Bang theory break dow beyond energy level when gravity cannot be neglected compare with the other forces.  The theory does not allows to go there. It does not matter in the range where the equations are valid but it is not philosophyically correct to say that Big Bang is a theory of origin.  It is simply a theory of the last 13.7 billions years but not further in the past.  I am speculating but simply saying the obvious. 

Whatever new quantum gravity will come up and allow further into the past at higher energy level, at some point the theory will break down.  But the most difficult problem is that whatever is said for the beginning, we can always ask : Where this come from?  There will always remain a platonic residual posited as the beginning.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Brassard, 

Many thanks for your further thoughts and clarification. It seems that "origin" is the sticking point.  I don't myself see that the big bang theory cannot be a theory of the origin of the universe, if (as I agree), it does not fully and adequately deal with the high energy physics of the Planck scale. This suggests to me, instead, that its an incomplete theory--and of course, there have been many attempts to flesh it out. 

One alternative here, however, is the idea of a "quantum bounce," which appears in developments/versions of LQG. I recently heard a lecture on this idea, and it seemed to leave behind the notion of an absolute beginning. So, I don't think that a theory of the origin of the observable universe must be a theory of an absolute beginning. There are other similar ideas, all of which are more or less speculative as physics, though the mathematical physics be well developed. Again, Penrose's cosmology seems to get along without the idea of an absolute beginning. Are all such theories doomed by your reasoning about the difficulties of a theory of origins?

H.G. Callaway

H.D. Callaway,

Big Bang theory is incomplete, it just deal with the last 13.7 billion years and not with the origin: what happen before that.

Penrose's cosmology has the same problem as Big Bang.  First Penrose uses the known physics of today for describing a bounce where the equations of the physics of today do not apply.  So he make speculations to overcome the problem but this is not physics anymore.  Even if we accept that  Penrose speculations are correct, Penrose's theory has a huge residual theoretical background. Where does this physics, these equations come from?  It is outside the theory and so the question of origin of this background is left out. So we have two worlds: the platonic world of the theory which has always existed and has no explanation and no support of existence but order the actual world.  That actual world is infinite and has no origin. It solve the origin of the actual world by eliminating it but what about that platonic world!!!  The explanation is timeless and is separed from the world. 

A theory of cosmic origin will necessarily have to include the origin of itself including the origin of the language of its expression. We need a story which is a story of the origin of that story as well. It has to be like Esher's image of a hand drawing a hand.  We will not get there in one step.  The next step will be a meta-theory of evolution of the nature and its law with a small residual and we will move from there to other theories with smaller residual. 

Thank you for the link to the new book of Lee Smolin and  Roberto Unger.  By reading the description I was glad to realized that Smolin dropped multiverse.  I could not figure how he could still sustain his old theory with his new ideas which are contradictatory to it.  Lee Smolin writing a book on physics with a philosopher is the sign of a new trend of reuniting fundamental physics and cosmology with philosophy.

Here where I stand on time:

I see an intimate relationship between order and time.  The orders of nature in all phenomenal domain have been expressed as hierarchical structures and Hiearchical structures are necessily History.  Hiearchy Is History.  So take any theorical structure and it can be decompose hiearchically and this represent its evolution, its history.  It applies to everything, the human body, perception, geology, theoretical physics.  The past totally exists NOW in the structure of the NOW.  There is no dimension of time but only change in the now and the past is accessible as so far as the structure of the now provides.  The past is not a succession of now but the structure of the NOW.  Any form in nature is a deformation or formation and the history of this deformation/formation is accessible as its hiearchical structure of the form.  

Cosmology, the science about the universe's origins, matters beyond a simple scientific understanding. How we think about the stars has implications about how we think about ourselves. Co-authors Roberto M. Unger and Lee Smolin join Steve Paikin for more

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0WECXGUI1A

 review of :

The Universe: A Buyer’s Guide

The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time

By Bryan Appleyard

http://bryanappleyard.com/the-universe-a-buyers-guide/