Maybe it is time to add something to the discussion. I always enjoy a good argument irrespective of whether I agree with it or not. The present discussion has been very illuminating and creative. Behind the exactness of physicalist reasoning lies of course

a very subtle philosophical point, i.e. whether the unity of the language of science (physicalism) holds in the strict sense, i.e. if all scientific laws can be derived from the laws of physics, and will reduce the different branches of science to physical theory.

As follows from Kassner’s answer the concept of time becomes a highly complex undertaking due to physical fragmentation. Concepts like Einstein’s four-momentum or Kant’s a priori perception of space and time may be a natural base for the description of physics in the classical domain, not to mention extensions to the cosmological ranks, while the microscopic level demands entrenched positions. Obviously we might need to somehow include scales as Donald suggests, but this has to be handled manually as standard quantum mechanics does not automatically dictate which level we need to consider. For instance quantum mechanics turns out to be macroscopic in e.g. problems of superconductivity and Bose condensation, while relativity enters the description of the properties of e.g. heavy atoms.

The assessment above necessitates that we dare to confront deep-seated contradictory issues, which confront us when we try to correlate various key concepts comparing fundamental formulations at both the macro- and microscopic levels. For instance the relation between the cause and the effect (a fundamental prerequisite in the communication between macroscopic life forms) appears to disappear in the microscopic realm; temporal irreversibility in the former becomes legitimate time reversible laws in the latter (leaving the CP arrow for a moment). Another problem relates to thermodynamics (cf. the discussion initiated by Rajat on “work”). In fact, we lack a microscopic derivation, since it cannot be derived from the position of statistical mechanics (despite the truly great work of Boltzmann, cf. also contemporary discussions on the thermodynamic arrow of time). Besides the problem is not only to unify quantum mechanics with general relativity, but also in order to understand the psychological arrow of time; we need to incorporate the functionalistic aspects of biology.

I do not intend to mention these challenges as hopeless conundrums and to show that the situation is impossible. On the contrary there is great hope to consider these problems in the future, but we need to be aware of them by proper location and identification. This is underscored despite the logical conundrums, which seem to follow from Gödel’s incompleteness theorem(s). The key, as I see it, is to come to grips with, and not to avoid, the problem of self-referentiability and furthermore to understand gravity from this point of view. If this is carried out properly, – the assertion is a bit more serious than the present proposition sounds, but is far from outlandish. The crucial idea is not to fall in the Gödelian trap. To give an example: in string theory the vibrating string is not merely dictating the properties of its host particle – it is being the particle and this requires a “Gödelian” protection which string theory so far does not seem to have.

It is perhaps surprising that gravitational interactions can be “vaccinated” against “Gödel”, which motivates a general arrow of time to be called Gödelian. In a deeper context this means that the “time capsules” as advocated by Barbour (cf. also The A–B–C time series analysis of McTaggart) becomes untenable since the Gödelian nature of time is protected from decohering into past, now and future (thereby avoiding any contradictions). Hence, even if we clearly can perceive yesterday, today and tomorrow as a macroscopically meaningful concept of utmost importance for us to evolve, it does not stand a fundamental inquiry into a holistic reality governed by Gödelian self-references and teleonomic laws (processes influenced by an evolved program).

Can you provide a specific reference in which you encountered this phrase, especially in the classical/GR context?

The statement, as phrased is, simply, wrong. What happens in general relativity is that time, as a component of a 4-vector, does not have any ``invariant'' meaning since it can be changed by a general coordinate transformation (in special relativity, too, time is not invariant, either-it can be changed by a Lorentz transformation).

Dear Rajat,

Do not despair! Although Barbour, in his elegant and thought provoking book “The End of Time The Next Revolution in Physics”, make strong arguments for a fundamental non-temporal description of the universe, and he seems to be supported by the Wheeler-DeWitt equation Hψ =0, I would think that this is perhaps a clever way to get rid of some of our most pressing, open problems in physics. For instance it forbids questions like “the problem of the uni-direction of time” or “the nature of biological evolution and the origin of life”.

Another treatise, where the concept of time is thoroughly discussed according to contemporay knowledge, is the excellent anthology “Physical Origins of Time Asymmetry”, Cambridge University Press, edited by Halliwell et al., (1994). I did ask one of the contributors (not Barbour, who claimed that the majority of the participants was inclined to do away with time) if this was true, and I got the answer that this was a silly question.

Well, as you know there are more silly answers than questions! Admittedly Einstein said that “time is an illusion, and a very persistent one”. However, since he also had a deep philosophical mind he paraphrased Kant by saying that “Space and Time express our way of thinking …..” (see further my answer to Lev Goldfarb “Is there a “general” (not mathematical) reason behind the conjugacy of a pair of variables in quantum mechanics?”) . Hence space-time is the natural origin in our human communications with and representations of our surroundings.”

Although I am a strong supporter of Einstein, I will here confess my conviction to Darwinism and in particular Prigogine’s poetic formulation “We are the children of time and evolution”. As I professed in my answer to Lev Goldfarb, my conviction is that most forms of semiotic communication, including chatting on ResearchGate, have its roots in “der Erkenntnisweise des Menschen”.

Thank you ERKKI,

Dear all,

So it seems that "transforming away" simply means that a (1) uni-directional, (2)global (3) absolute time-flow, as in Newtonian mechanics, is no longer the case. The "relativistic time" is what is meant., which can get mixed up with space co-ordinates when transformed and thus loose its Newtonian qualities. But they claim as if they do away with time altogether! There is already so much confusion regarding time and respectable scientists are not expected to play to the gallery by making such claims thereby adding to the already existing morass of confusion regarding time.

Thanks

Rajat

No, in relativistic situations you don't ``do away with time alltogether''. The reason is that the *signature* of spacetime is a relativistic invariant: spacetime always has *one* time-like dimension.

Julian Barbour wrote very elegant B.S. which I was able to destroy after a good bit of research and analysis of his work. He's the reason why I now dislike philosophers so much - much of his theory is based on philosophy instead of physics and in order to do my job properly I had to wade through so much crap from Plato, Zeno, Kant Leibniz, and almost every other Tom, Dick and Harry that Barbour tries to hide behind, that I was thoroughly convinced that science philosophy only exists so that non-scientists, who want to be can act like they actually have a point and a say so in science, can do so and endlessly prattle on about nothing.

In the philosophy forums here, I have experienced enough of that that it has almost become my serious professional opinion on the matter...

thank you very much for your responses.

But, no one seems to have bothered about the series of questions that I tagged to the main question in the form of explanation.

Let's take one:

What kind of a quantity is time then? Mental i.e. unphysical or Physical?

In the mean time, Happy New Year to all of you !

Rajat.

Time is a dimension. A physical dimension that is connected to any dimension of space in existence.

Dear Marshall,

Just think a little deeply. It is NOT as simple as that. What is "physical" about time, no matter how you define physicality (except, of course, the naive tautological definition that the physical is which belongs to physics!). In fact, the physicality of physical space (vacuum) is even very difficult to establish.

Thank you,

Rajat.

Dear Rajat and other contributors,

Rajat's question is deep and cannot be answered of course. May I just add a few minor things: As we all know there are usually about seven arrows of time defined, e.g. The CP arrow, the thermodynamical arrow, The psychological arrow, the radiation arrow, the measurement arrow, the cosmological arrow, the Gödelian arrow. I have critizised them and tried to bring them to gether in a recent paper, Arrows of Time and Fundamental Symmetries in Chemical Physics, Int. J. Quant. Chem. 2013, 113, 173-184. Since I am not allowed to upload on ResearchGate I will be happy to send them yo you privately if you wish.

Wishing you a happy and interesting 2014!

erkki

@Rajat:

You know I've learned that some people don't want answers. They want to keep asking questions because they have a bigger interest in talking than in solving. Many philosophers are that way. The truth is, if you think deeply enough about a problem you usually find that the answer is simple. As Todd Rundgren said, "complexity is usually a dense arrangement of simple parts".

You yourself asked, in your initial query, if time was not a fundamental physical quality, I said it is physical and then you don't like that answer and have the nerve to tell me to think "deeply". I do this for a living, pal. The nature of time is my number one area of fundamental research and it is Stephen Hawking's number one area of career mistakes that he's made, of which I have caught and proved wrong more than anyone else (which is the subject of a new book coming out later this month).

Your retreat from an obvious truth is quite telling.

Erriki:

It's interesting that you've dealt with the arrow of time issue and I agree, at least in principle, that the arrows of time are problematic and in my current work I'm divorcing them from time itself, altogether! It's in relation to Gold's theory and Stephen Hawking's variation of it, regarding the arrow of time flipping direction if the universe were to contract. Of course Hawking discovered that he was wrong in agreeing with Gold but my research is proving that if he had been considering the theory properly, he would have seen how wrong it was in the first place.

@Marshall: "You yourself asked, in your initial query, if time was not a fundamental physical quality, I said it is physical and then you don't like that answer and have the nerve to tell me to think "deeply"."

The answer that time is physical is at least incomplete, so he was right in asking you to think more deeply. As a physicist, you should answer: "Yes, it is physical, but..." For example, in quantum mechanics, time is not a physical quantity. At least, it is not an observable physical quantity. A hermitian operator must be associated with any observable. But there is no time operator, as is well known. Its existence is incompatible with Hamiltonians being bounded from below. In ordinary quantum mechanics, time is just a parameter necessary in the description of dynamics, it is not a dynamical object itself. This is entirely in line with the Kantian statement of time (and space) being a priori notions needed for us to comprehend sense experience. To write the Schrödinger equation, we need an a priori notion of time. So philosophers are not always wrong. What Kant was wrong about is that this a priori nature completely deprives time and space of any physical aspect.

Of course, there is a position operator in quantum mechanics. But position should be distinguished from space. The position of a particle is a measurable quantity. Space is not. And time is of course not measurable in quantum mechanics either, there being no operator associated with it.

When going over to quantum field theory (QFT), the relativistic symmetry between space and time that got lost in Schrödinger's quantum mechanics is reestablished. But not by time becoming an observable. Instead, space becomes a descriptive set of parameters, too, losing its presumed operator nature (coming form the confusion of space with position). The difference between the position of an object (for which there is an operator) and space becomes explicit. In quantum field theory, we have operators, describing objects (fields) in space and time, which themselves are not described by operators.

Now let us get to general relativity. This is a classical field theory, and it does treat space-time as a physical object with dynamics of its own. These dynamics may be experienced by local observers, so space-time (but neither space nor time separately) is definitely physical, and this manifests itself in the existence of gravity. But -- when trying to quantize this theory, we are in trouble, because standard methods of quantization need the background parameters space and time that are so useful in QFT. This is to some extent summarized under the name "problem of time". One reason, why quantization of general relativity is difficult (apart from the mathematical problems arising in the quantization of a nonlinear field theory) is that space and time are not "just physical", they also set the framework for our descriptive powers, they do have the Kantian a priori aspect. There are some attempts to circumvent this, by setting up theories entirely based on algebra (i.e., far from intuitive concepts) hoping that time and space will arise as emergent properties. If this program is successful, then we presumably will be able to unify general relativity and quantum field theory, and them we might be in a position to say that time and space are *entirely* physical. Still, they will be different from most other physical objects, so the question of whether they should be in an own category remains legitimate.

Hi Marshall,

No offence was meant. In fact your one-liner did not portray your depth properly.

So please don't feel otherwise as I have no intention of hurting anyone. You are a brother scientist and we are trying to understand the nature of Reality through science esp. Physics.

By the way, I must thankfully acknowledge and admit that Kassner has done a very good job of putting things in a more complete perspective and TIME indeed retains its mysterious nature till date. We should all spend more of our time, energy and money (FUNDS and GRANTS) in research on the problem of TIME itself.

When can we say, something is physical ?

Classically, it must be measurable by means of sense organs with the aid of instruments.

But we have only five sense organs and no manifest time sense. But we somehow manage to have an a priori notion of the passage of time (psychological arrow) from the observation of change in perceptions (internal and external).

Quantum mechanically, it must have an associated Hermitian operator.

There is none available.

In Relativity, the uni-directionality of time separates itself as a different class from the space coordinates. We have no way of reversing temporal movement (in a particular frame) but we can reverse movement in any space direction. Thus although in Relativity we claim that space and time are treated in an equal manner, it somehow bypasses the fundamental difference between them.

I think there is a real problem here.

Regards

Rajat.

K. Hassner:

Without wading through the entirety of your post, the last time I checked we live on the macroscopic level, not quantum. So to not address the quantum level in regards to time but focus on what actually effects us macroscopically is a way to cut through the philosophical by product. Taking your answer leaves Rajat with his question unanswered and it seems that Rajat might even like it that way, I don't know. However, I disagree with the methods by which time is being dealt with by some physicists, which leads them to believe that time can be gotten rid of. For me, it is obvious that in many ways, they're missing the point - especially those like Julian Barbour.

I wish Rajat luck in his still not finding what he's looking for...

Rajat:

No offense taken. My point is simple - time is the most complicated subject that involves the physical world. Everyone, especially physicists and philosophers screw this subject up. Take Thomas Gold, who thought that there was a thermodynamic connection with time, to the point that he proposed that if the universe were to contract, that the arrow of time would flip, which is ludicrous. That still didn't stop Stephen Hawking from arguing the same thing and then finally retracting his position for a completely different reason than the obvious - the universe can contract without time reversing but if time reverses it's the end of everything. Nothing new would happen. The only events would be an exact replaying of everything that had happened before, which is the equivalent to the end of the known universe, prior to time reversal. All life would cease to exist, in fact everything would cease to exist except the new parallel, reverse time universe made-up entirely of what had already happened. Every piece that I've ever read on this subject ignores this simple fact and instead describes mixed state scenarios where people can make money on the stock market because they remember what the prices were before (one of Hawking idiotic quips on the subject), completely clueless to the fact that if everything is going backwards, so is their money and their bodily functions and everything else. No, Hawking has tea cups flying up off the floor but if everything else isn't backwards then that little feat would be a violation of the laws of gravity. Another describes the scenario where people would see water falls reversing direction but how would that be even possible when all light that would be off the water would now be moving toward the water and in fact light would be coming from their retinas?

I could go on and on, with examples like this, but I'm busy trying to get a paper in for publication in the proceedings of the 100 Year Starship Symposium, so I'll just leave with this - many things are different on a quantum level and so it is with time. But until physicists and philosophers get time right on a macroscopic level, they haven't a chance of doing it on the quantum...

@Barnes: "Without wading through the entirety of your post, the last time I checked we live on the macroscopic level, not quantum."

Strange attitude. So would you deny the existence of ferromagnetism, which is a quantum phenomenon and present macroscopically? Our world is a quantum world, not a classical one, and many quantum effects have macroscopic consequences. Your computer would not work without quantum mechanics, because there would be no semiconductors...

It is a profound finding that time is *not* a quantum object and hence different from all other physical objects. And that statement is independent of philosophy.

@Barnes: "The only events would be an exact replaying of everything that had happened before, which is the equivalent to the end of the known universe, prior to time reversal."

This is simply not true. It would be true in a deterministic world. But due to quantum mechanics our world is not deterministic, so a reversal of the time direction would only initially replay what happened before. It is easy to estimate that this would last only for a ridiculously short time interval -- due to the fact that our world is macroscopic. As a consequence, the "past" would become different from what it used to be in a matter of submicroseconds...

Wading into the fray...

A definition of time, from a scientific perspective, is an important question and undertaking. So, too, might be a definition of space (different from location) - per Kassner.

There is also the possibility of being so far into the scientific weeds that the forest could be missed.

There is a very definite problem with 'time' being a physical quality or quantity. As asked earlier - 'what is physical about time'? A particular issue is: if it is not a physical quantity - how can it be represented by a 4-dimensional spacial/physical model per GR?

A perspective on 'what is time': As a quantity: Time is the measure of change. It doesn't matter what change or in what direction the change occurs. Any measurement of time is a measurement of some change in physical objects.

The measurement of change is easily modeled via a linear variable - however this variable is directly related to the change being measured. There is no 'a priori' reason that the variable measuring change in one situation is the same variable used in another situation (consider the seven 'arrows' identified by Erkki above). That they are all the same is a presumption of science today and underlies the 'universal time' concept Newton believed in. Certainly we have a 'sense of time' which strongly suggests a universal time and universal simultaneity - however GR strongly suggests this is not actually the case. So maybe we need to question whether all these 'arrows of time' - all these measurements of change are or should be modeled by the same single variable.

Note that if all measurements of time cannot equate to a single linear variable, then they also cannot equate to a single physical dimension - as per our current interpretation of GR (yeah - this might be a bit controversial).

Consider another situation: Is there simultaneity in the events occurring on all levels of scale? When a billiard ball collides with another one - are all actions of this event, on the macroscopic, microscopic, atomic, particle, solar, galactic, super-cluster levels simultaneous? I think we assume they are - but how can we tell? Can our current models actually answer this question?

If all actions stem from the smallest level - won't there have to be a time-lag between what occurs on the smallest level and the effects on other levels caused by those on the smallest? To turn this question around - if everything related to an event (eg. the billiard balls) on all levels of scale occur simultaneously, how can there be cause at one level and effect at any other, as there will be no measurable change (time) across levels of scale?

One last point - if there is any possibility of cause and effect across levels of scale, then there must be some change across scale, some measure of time across scale, and therefore the possibility of movement across scale (which would suggest scale is another physical dimension and our current model of 'space' is inadequate.)

@Kassner:

Well, you simply don't know what you're talking about. I based my opinion on the literature and how the proponents described events, which is not what you're saying at all. However, even in your scenario all life would cease to exist since what you're saying is that "the past would be different from what it used to be", hence we're now then dealing with a different past which is still not anything moving forward as it had. At the moment of reversal, regardless of which version of the past you want to cite, there is still nothing new happening, not even a single breath. Period.

Hi Marshall,

If you leave out physicists and also philosophers, who is left to discuss time ? Do not you belong to one of these?

You have said many interesting things regrading what will happen in case a big crunch occurs and time reverses its flow, and you are mostly correct also. But you are missing out on the essential non-physical character of time.

Which of Erkki's list of seven arrows is the fundamental one, on the basis of which the rest stand?

This should bother us more than Hawking's speculations on future dangers of a possible time-reversal in the eventuality of a big-crunch which is almost not going to happen because of the accelerted expansion of the observable universe.

Regards,

Rajat

Maybe it is time to add something to the discussion. I always enjoy a good argument irrespective of whether I agree with it or not. The present discussion has been very illuminating and creative. Behind the exactness of physicalist reasoning lies of course

a very subtle philosophical point, i.e. whether the unity of the language of science (physicalism) holds in the strict sense, i.e. if all scientific laws can be derived from the laws of physics, and will reduce the different branches of science to physical theory.

As follows from Kassner’s answer the concept of time becomes a highly complex undertaking due to physical fragmentation. Concepts like Einstein’s four-momentum or Kant’s a priori perception of space and time may be a natural base for the description of physics in the classical domain, not to mention extensions to the cosmological ranks, while the microscopic level demands entrenched positions. Obviously we might need to somehow include scales as Donald suggests, but this has to be handled manually as standard quantum mechanics does not automatically dictate which level we need to consider. For instance quantum mechanics turns out to be macroscopic in e.g. problems of superconductivity and Bose condensation, while relativity enters the description of the properties of e.g. heavy atoms.

The assessment above necessitates that we dare to confront deep-seated contradictory issues, which confront us when we try to correlate various key concepts comparing fundamental formulations at both the macro- and microscopic levels. For instance the relation between the cause and the effect (a fundamental prerequisite in the communication between macroscopic life forms) appears to disappear in the microscopic realm; temporal irreversibility in the former becomes legitimate time reversible laws in the latter (leaving the CP arrow for a moment). Another problem relates to thermodynamics (cf. the discussion initiated by Rajat on “work”). In fact, we lack a microscopic derivation, since it cannot be derived from the position of statistical mechanics (despite the truly great work of Boltzmann, cf. also contemporary discussions on the thermodynamic arrow of time). Besides the problem is not only to unify quantum mechanics with general relativity, but also in order to understand the psychological arrow of time; we need to incorporate the functionalistic aspects of biology.

I do not intend to mention these challenges as hopeless conundrums and to show that the situation is impossible. On the contrary there is great hope to consider these problems in the future, but we need to be aware of them by proper location and identification. This is underscored despite the logical conundrums, which seem to follow from Gödel’s incompleteness theorem(s). The key, as I see it, is to come to grips with, and not to avoid, the problem of self-referentiability and furthermore to understand gravity from this point of view. If this is carried out properly, – the assertion is a bit more serious than the present proposition sounds, but is far from outlandish. The crucial idea is not to fall in the Gödelian trap. To give an example: in string theory the vibrating string is not merely dictating the properties of its host particle – it is being the particle and this requires a “Gödelian” protection which string theory so far does not seem to have.

It is perhaps surprising that gravitational interactions can be “vaccinated” against “Gödel”, which motivates a general arrow of time to be called Gödelian. In a deeper context this means that the “time capsules” as advocated by Barbour (cf. also The A–B–C time series analysis of McTaggart) becomes untenable since the Gödelian nature of time is protected from decohering into past, now and future (thereby avoiding any contradictions). Hence, even if we clearly can perceive yesterday, today and tomorrow as a macroscopically meaningful concept of utmost importance for us to evolve, it does not stand a fundamental inquiry into a holistic reality governed by Gödelian self-references and teleonomic laws (processes influenced by an evolved program).

Hi Donald,

Yours is a very good point indeed. The different arrows may not all be pointing at the same variable as the marker of change.

They may be mappable from and to one another.

Is there a fundamental arrow then on which the rest depend?

Regards,

Rajat.

Rajat:

I certainly do not know the full answer to your question.

However, I think it is helpful to consider what is being measured and the frame of reference for the measurement in different situations. If the frames of reference are mappable between the change measurements, then it should be possible to map the time measurements (ie. the change of objects in the frame of reference).

Two events measured in a 3-D spacial reference frame, with the same directions represented by the reference frame, should be 'simply' mappable. The caveat here is that the two reference frames need to exist on (close to) the same scale.

I do not think all frames of reference have 'simple' mappings for change measurements - and I also do not believe our current 3-D physical space model is the 'final' frame of reference required for locating objects. What frame of reference should we use to measure the distance between the sun and a molecule on the surface of the table in front of you? How might we measure a change across scale - such as the increased movement of molecules causing a thermometer to rise or a solar flare to ignite?

Since it is my position that the continuum of scale is not being included in current frames of reference for location (our spacial models), our 3-D model of space cannot (adequately) measure change across scale and hence this frame of reference doesn't exist in our current theories. So change across scale would involve a frame of reference not 'simply' mappable to our 3-D model of space.

In a similar vein, it is quite possible that some of the other 'arrows of time' use different frames of reference - by which I mean they can measure change in different directions - where not all reference standards exist between them, so that a direct mapping is not possible.

In these cases, the measured 'time' is not the same, since the frames of reference differ.

Note that all this is about how we model reality - not our perception of time.

Dear Donald,

cf. your last line:-

Is not our perception of time a part of the reality to be modeled?

Regards

Rajat

Rajat

It certainly is - however we should not confuse the model of reality with that reality.

I believe we have confused our 3-D model of space and 4-D space-time model with reality.

@Rajat:

I'm simply pointing out the fact that both physicists and especially philosophers get the issue of time wrong. Which arrow of time is fundamental? None of them. Not in as far as discussing time is concerned because all of them describe processes happening within time and are not time itself. It's like saying "which is the aquarium? The fish or the water?"

In addition, your comment about the universe not contracting is irrelevant because the acceleration itself, according to the theory, could be reversed. That's no big deal.The problem is the inability of, in this case, Hawking to have seen the obvious and how semantics and many other issues, screw-up the ability of physicists to see the obvious in such matters.

Dear Marshall,

In my view, the psychological arrow must be the most fundamental, since time is perceived in the psyche in the first place, through the perception of change. Can there be change, and hence its concomitant, TIME, without the psyche ? This is a very old question. The objectivity of universal existence and of the entirety of processes that make up the universe is again a conception of the mind/psyche based on sensory perception and rational analysis. Could anyone have known or said anything about the rest of the arrows without first having the psyche/mind and the inbuilt time sense in it ?

Regards,

Rajat

Marshall:

Since your principal interest concerns understanding and building Time Machines, I would like to know what metric you are employing (referring to the solutions of the Einstein equations of General Relativity)?

Creating CTC’s (closed timelike curve), cf. the Gödel solution, certainly implies more than the usual interpretation, i.e. that time does not exist in the conventional sense, rather that time does not exist in any sense whatsoever.

Erkki

Rajat:

And why would the psychological arrow be the most fundamental? What direction did time go before the appearance of Man? Yes, you're right that this is a very old question and the entirety of all these old speculations have been wrong because they were either biased by religion or by the lack of knowledge of anything that wasn't egocentric in respect to Man.

Let me say this, I didn't spend 14 years studying the philosophy of time, I spent it studying the physics because I wanted to solve the questions. If you think for one minute that you can resolve issues of time by making Man the center of the question, then you'll be just like the rest of the philosophers, asking questions that could have been solved decades ago...

Dear Erkki:

I was asked that same question by Eric Davis at the 100 Year Starship Symposium in Houston last year. The answer is simple - I'm not using General Relativity because it is not the ultimate structure for dealing with any of these exotic theories (I'm including warp drive metrics in that as well). The reason being is that while GR implies that you can do certain things in this area, the requirements are too prohibitive. Instead, Einstein's unfinished Unified Field Theory is the answer as you can get all of the distortions in space-time that GR has solutions for but without the constraints.

The problem was that Einstein never finished the theory and so physicists forgot about it. I base my work not on the theory mathematically but on the engineering work that I did which began to give me results whose only solution was the UFT. A Few other engineers have seen similar correlations. Confirmation of that was when I switched from developing my warp drive prototype to starting my Verdrehung Fan(TM) project, because it utilized already established theories about torsion effects from the UFT which were produced using the same type of gravitic electromagnetic field that had produced the linear accelerations that were witnessed during the warp drive tests. This field is produced by a specially synthesized signal I call STDTS(TM). When I say "warp drive" I'm referring to a propulsion method, as NASA does, and not a speed. Nonetheless, the implied warp speed could be obtained by employing the same technology in outer space and pulsed, going faster with each new pulse.

So, the bottom line is there was never an attempt to figure out a mathematical solution to a set of equations, it was always about engineering experimentation - 'what happens if I plug this into that'.

On to the next part of your question - CTCs are a geometry that is misinterpreted and they are not the answer for time travel. Godel's solutions from GR included a rotating universe which obviously doesn't exist. There are other issues as well, but as I don't have a lot of time at the moment I would suggest you read my paper on the issue and how Stephen Hawking was wrong about it, at this link here - http://network.nature.com/groups/time/forum/topics/10468/. Let me just say quickly that I did an analysis of the entire Godel situation in regards to time and time travel, from the book written by his greatest fan, Palle Yargorou who wrote the book, A World Without Time (I'm sure I screwed up his name, but it's close) and Godel was wrong. In my recent special report for select members of Congress, I solved the Godel question - "How can a past, that hasn't passed yet, be the past?" which also is related to a question that has not been asked of the Everett/Wheeler crowd (of which I am an active and contributing member) which is 'How can you go to a parallel past when you were never there before, either?' (drawing an equivalence between linear pasts and parallel world pasts). I answered that as well.

I'm sure that will give you plenty to consider...

@Barnes:

"Well, you simply don't know what you're talking about."

I guess, I could say the same thing about you, but this is not the right style for a scientific discussion...

"I based my opinion on the literature and how the proponents described events, which is not what you're saying at all."

I am a physicist, and a physicist learns to think himself and draw his conclusions about what is right and what is wrong in the literature. If you want to assess what would happen on a time reversal, you should simply apply the physical laws. After all, they are known (at least many of them). Physical laws usually take the form of differential equations. To solve them, you need an initial condition. To solve them backwards in time, you need the same, but your initial condition is a final condition in reality. But then you can integrate backwards in time, and that's it. No literature needed.

If you do this with the equations of classical physics, which are time reversal invariant and deterministic, your time reversal will lead to a state that existed before. If you do this with the equations of quantum mechanics, which describe probability amplitudes only, you will not necessarily obtain the physical state that existed before. You will do so only with a certain probability. Put differently, quantum mechanics can also be interpreted as not predicting (or "postdicting") a definite past. The present is not a deterministic consequence of a single past, but could have arisen from different pasts. The past is blurred, not definite. You will not find that in the literature, but it is applied logic.

"However, even in your scenario all life would cease to exist since what you're saying is that "the past would be different from what it used to be", hence we're now then dealing with a different past which is still not anything moving forward as it had."

It is moving backward, according to a dynamical law that we know.

"At the moment of reversal, regardless of which version of the past you want to cite, there is still nothing new happening, not even a single breath."

Nothing is happening at a moment, i.e., in a zero time interval. But a submicrosecond earlier, you will have a dynamical state that is different with calculable probability from the one that existed at the same time before time reversal. Do the math.

Kassner:

Your problem is that typical of many physicists - you rely too much on "the math". What you ignore is that on that scale, it is easy to punch in the wrong equations based on the wrong assumptions - junk in, junk out. It's the same problem that has plagued Throne, Hawking and others. This exchange proves my point exactly - (Me) "However, even in your scenario all life would cease to exist since what you're saying is that "the past would be different from what it used to be", hence we're now then dealing with a different past which is still not anything moving forward as it had."

(You) It is moving backward, according to a dynamical law that we know.

Yeah, and did you ever think about whether that law was the proper one to apply? Obviously not, since the scenario doesn't match what would really happen.

My reference to "the literature" was to that which has been written on this subject and what they were describing would be the result. You are clearly out of your depth here as it seems you aren't aware of what the literature says. If you were, you would know that your simple differential equations would not apply in as far as the problem that has been described in the literature. That means your entire approach is wrong because you're not applying the conditions described by the literature which are more complex than simple reversal. You also haven't addressed what that reversal would actually be, I and think it's pretty obvious that you can't.

In short, the arguments you make are well known to me. They also don't address the physical reality that would result nor the contrast against what was described by Gold, Hawking and others which you seem so unaware of. That being the case, I'll just wait and let you see how I deal with the entire argument in the book I'm finishing, as it's enough to deal with it there without have to go over it incessantly with you. If we were in person and I had a chalk board I could settle the entire thing in five minutes, but since that's not the case, and my time is limited, I'll just let you wallow in your ignorance. Makes no difference to me, since my solution will be getting plenty of public notice, soon enough...

P.S. And BTW Mr. Kassner, I just realized that what you are arguing was already determined to be wrong by Raymond LaFlamme after four tries, plus his computer and finally agreed on by Hawking who announced the same in Spain some 30 odd years ago. Again, your ignorance of the literature is evident and I was so involved with the new aspects of this issue, that I discovered, that I missed the alternate significance of your erroneous statements.

Herr Kassner, ich empfehle, dass, bevor Sie versuchen, mir zu sagen, was ist "einfach nicht wahr", dass Sie Ihre Hausaufgaben machen.

Oh Great and Powerful Oz-Marshall

Could you please bestow a little heart on us, in your apparent esteem, less than human discussers of ideas?

Just how does time work crossing from the scale of the very small to our macro level? If you are looking to build a machine that acts on objects at our level and built on equations of the very small, then this would seem an important question. I am not aware that we have a common understanding of how the micro and macro worlds interact (especially on a mathematical model level). In which case one should not assume that actions developed only on the small scale will simply 'scale' to ours.

@Donald Palmer:

I never said the time was crossing from the micro to macro scale. I never mentioned a "micro world". I never once mentioned a time machine that would "act on objects" (what does that even mean?) nor using "equations of the very small", nor am I "looking to build a machine" that does that.

What I have done, and where I am going with further development, has been described very clearly in all the available information, whether from my posts here or in interviews or from my press office. Errlk's questions I appreciated very much (I should have said so, BTW - my mistake) and any relevant questions, I always entertain. I would answer you as well - if you were even asking anything that was part and parcel of what I've been talking about. But since you clearly have failed to comprehend what I've described so far, I haven't the time to waste trying to figure out how to clarify things any more.

But, at least, according to your own opening remarks, you have found and happily recognize your own place in such matters...

Dear Marshall,

Yes there is plenty to consider. First of all, Einstein’s unfinished field theory does not consistently bring together quantum mechanics, electrodynamics and gravity (if so we would have heard much more of it!), so “plug this into that”, being most of the time the best we can do, does not always translate “knowing how” into “knowing why”.

Perhaps physicists do not care about “knowing why”, but no doubt the latter is why we have this discussion and in this respect the most precise and accurate language for communication is “mathematics” although the latter may not always be transparent for everybody.

In your entertaining “Experimental and Theoretical Analysis Of Chronology Protection Conjecture Failing On The Discovery Channel” you conclude your criticism of Hawking’s wormhole concept in 7 steps using:

1. the Copenhagen interpretation

2. the Everett-Wheeler hypothesis

3. macroscopic video test rules

4. the guitar test

5. the wormhole design

6. the pathway for a loop

7. the CTRC construction

8. the undermination of the Chronology Protection Conjecture

9. the wormhole technological device control

10. the principle of Consistency

11. the pathway resulting in two measurement outcomes.

Points 1 and 2 and possibly 11 comes from the foundation of quantum mechanics (”knowing why”) and are applied in connection with non-quantum cosmological models that are not very well understood as of today. Points 3, 4 and 9 deals with technology, i.e. the practise of a technique by experts, while 5 and 6 exhibit profound self-referential problems, see comments on Gödel see below. Points 7,8 and 10 refers to principles that more or less are derived from “common sense” a dangerous and schizophrenic line of attack in theoretical physics unless supported by separate complementary backing.

You mention in the ://network….10468 that the way to fix a paradox is not by attacking it, but by attacking the arrangement that produces it. I think you left out a better approach, i.e. to embrace and understand its surprising conclusion (knowing why) and then learn from it. This obviously does not need leaving out criticism.

An example: Gödel’s theorems in propositional logic can almost trivially be “translated” into mathematical form as a higher order singularity. In other words we can deal with self-references in the more precise language of “mathematics”. There is no physics here so far, however, by a simple relativistic model, using straightforward conjugate variables (operators) it is possible to map gravity to such a higher order singularity (on the second Riemann sheet), which directly leads to Einstein’s laws of relativity, including the Schwarzschild metric etc. Embracing Gödel’s theorem(s) provides a logical argument for legal criticisms of many cosmological ideas as well as the theories of branes etc., see also my earlier contributions on ResearcGate.

The mathematical description, referred to here, is not contradictory and should leave no one discombobulating. Unfortunately Gödel was not treated well by the philosophical community – in fact he was not even considered a philosopher “only a logician”. The tale is well presented in Palle Yourgrau’s remarkable book that you also mentioned.

I have explained this in many of my research papers most recently in “Arrows of Time and Fundamental Symmetries in Chemical Physics”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 2013, 113, 173–184. I am not allowed to upload it on ResearchGate, but I will be happy to send it to those who want a personal copy.

Dear Errik:

I'm glad you found my paper entertaining. I am only going to respond quickly because of time constraints but I will return to this topic at a later date. First, you're correct about the UTF. It was only supposed to deal with electromagnetism and gravity. Its failure to include quantum mechanics is a major reason why physicists didn't like it back in the 30s. You are also correct that "plug this into that" doesn't translate into "why". I am well aware of that, but my role is not to pursue the 'why' all of the time, just the 'how' in order that the 'what' always works. Then its my job to develop the 'what' into a commercial project. I already have a really good idea of the 'why' in this case but that comes under trade secrecy, which is where the nature of my job differs greatly from most of yours. I do not work for a college or university and I do not fund my work with government grants. I am strictly private sector, but in that function I am also free from the issues that govern those working in institutions. So, I am able to capitalize on what I do to then to continue to fund what I do. I can't do that by giving away trade secrets anymore than Coca Cola gives away its secret formula.

Now, about the language of mathematics. I agree with you to a point. Where I balk is the apparent inability of physicists to see where they had better check their math with reality because it is too easy to go off into la-la land where the math only means anything to mathematicians. If the math doesn't directly relate to the real, objective world, then it's only good to mathematicians. As a conceptual theorist I look at whether a concept can translate into reality. All the errors that I see in physics theories (especially ones that have already been identified) had their roots in math - not a misinterpretation of reality. Often, philosophy is substituted for reality when philosophy is only a subjective model for reality. This is the error that Godel made in his application of MacTaggert's A and B series to the nature of time.

I do want to address this comment:

"You mention in the ://network….10468 that the way to fix a paradox is not by attacking it, but by attacking the arrangement that produces it. I think you left out a better approach, i.e. to embrace and understand its surprising conclusion (knowing why) and then learn from it. This obviously does not need leaving out criticism. "

I attack the arrangement because it is wrong and without any basis in reality. It's conclusion is irrelevant, just as 2+2=5 produces an irrelevant result. It's only interesting for the exact same reason it exists at all - as a plot device for sci-fi stories. It achieves the same effect as Zeno's paradoxes, which were equally wrong and misunderstood. Time travel paradoxes are so easy to disprove - once you look at the geometry that allegedly produces them, that I've developed a way to prove it to anyone that has a pen of pencil, a piece of paper and a camera phone. I did this for a science club for kids in Cleveland, Ohio as an off the cuff demo back in 2012. Last December, in Washington, DC, I did it as part of a formal presentation at a meeting of the 100 Year Starship Meet-Up group. It worked both times.

Entertaining the existence of paradoxes is dangerous because if that is allowed to be thought as an accurate description of the results of time travel, any attempts to make time travel real could be viewed as threats to National Security, just as it has been portrayed in any number of sci-fi films where it is outlawed (Time Cop, Looper, Time Switchers). That's why I wrote an extensive, 80 page special report for select members of the U.S. Congress dealing with the topic and took on a wide range of published works on time travel paradoxes and systematically destroyed them, point by point, proving that it is scientifically, conceptually and philosophically impossible to produce a time travel paradox. I did so using the same formula that I introduced in the paper you read, along with a new law I conceived - the First Action of Cause, which enforces the observation of the very first action of a cause that is supposed to result in a paradox. When you do, the scenarios fall apart because those first actions are always open ended, like the opposing ends of a Slinky toy, but the implication is that they are closed, like self-starting perpetual motion machines. The implication is a hidden assumption, which is wrong.

All of these things are mere conversation pieces for most physicists because they not only don't work on time travel, they've never seriously studied it. But when a person is actually involved in the productive research of it, it becomes an entirely different matter. So, what works and doesn't becomes as important as the same thing applied to nuclear energy for a nuclear physicist, or the proper wring for an electrician.

I've run out of time for now, but I do appreciate your conversations and will return for further discussion.

Marshall, I would really like you to roughly expose us your view of the UFT. How did you succeed to include quantum mechanics to electromagnetism and gravity f and F ? You sure can tell us a bit more about that without revealing a trade secrecy ! I am searching for the link between a rotating electromagnetic field that causes a quantum-gravity effect, but I must first know the basic dynamics of the universe's fabric to follow your reasoning ! Your device to exploit those new laws must be private I understand, but this kind of knowledge must be public !

Yannick:

1. Einstein's UFT was about unifying electromagnetism and gravity. If I remember correctly, it wasn't about quantum gravity effects.

2. I did not try to include quantum mechanics into it,

3. The parts that I can talk about, I do. What I don't discuss is how to create the field.

4. A Rotating electromagnetic field creating a quantum gravity effect would be interesting but isn't what I'm doing.

5. The public doesn't have a right to this kind of knowledge. I never used public funds - no grants, no government contracts. So I don't owe the public anything. There's a legend that Einstein did solve the UTF but then realized that it was so powerful that Man wasn't ready for it yet, and he subsequently destroyed his notes for it. I can understand that, from what I know about how I figured out what I'm doing. The thing is that I'm probably just using a portion of what Einstein's theory was. Again, I didn't figure it out from the math - it was from experiment.