some comments on the nature of time
To all:
When talking about the nature of time, "traditional science” is in something of the position of speaking a posteriori, rather than a priori. When you define something, like a non-Abelian group, a continuous function, or an affine transformation, you have the fundamentals in front of you, and you proceed to derive follow-up characteristics from those. In terms of time, "traditional science" is doing much the same as in studying prime numbers, namely, working with something already in existence, and determining its nature. The proper approach, then, could be said to be somewhat along the lines of studying prime numbers. Among other things, primes are examined by determining what they do, then seeing what that suggests.
In terms of time, that could mean, first of all, looking at what it is that yields the impression of time. Time, it turns out, seems to involve a rather involved collection of phenomena.
One of the most important, it turns out, is memory. It is rather along the lines of: "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise?" If something has a memory of past occurrences, then it is testimony to the fact that time has occurred. If something has no memory of the past whatever, there can be a genuine question as to whether time can be said to exist. There are those who may be tempted to rush the objection: "Well, that means that, if you have a cloud full of electrons, which, supposedly, have no memory of what has happened, then it can't experience time. I'm imagining such a cloud. I'm imagining a universe full of nothing but electrons. But I can see them moving all over the place, colliding, repelling, or brushing past each other! There's time there!" But, to "imagine" that universe means that you, someone with a memory, are using that memory to envision the sequence of interactions! And that negates the premise of nothing with memory being involved! To be devoid of memory, to, essentially, see every instant as the only moment, is, evidently, to be absent of time!
Which does raise a question. Are there any particles that can be said to "have no memory"? For a mechanical entity, "memory" seems to consist of some kind of "memorialization", that is, a detail incorporated into its structure, that relates to an event.
If a proton, say, were to have "memory" of past events, it could take the form of alterations in the waveform that constitutes it. But that raises an important aspect with respect to photons. In Einstein's Relativity, a fundamental facet is that photons do not experience time. In fact, it is impossible for photons to feel time. If photons are as physically simple as posited, then it couldn't have any structure within it to maintain "memories". But, if you are aware of the definition of light, you would see an inherent difficulty. Light is represented to be a pair of intersecting electrostatic and magnetic fields, each giving rise to the other! The alternating electrostatic field gives rise to the perpendicular alternating magnetic field. But, the changing of the magnetic field - essentially caused by the alternating of the electrostatic field - gives rise to the electrostatic field! The alternating electrostatic field gives rise to the oscillating magnetic field, and, at the same instant, it is being given rise to by the magnetic field, that it is producing! So the electrostatic field gives rise to the magnetic field that gives rise to the electrostatic field! It almost looks as if light is in confusion about which comes first, since the alternating of one field gives rise to the effect that, in turn, gives rise to the original alternating field! Causality seems to have no meaning inside a beam of light! And it would be easy to suggest that that goes along with Einstein's suggestion that time doesn't exist inside light. But, if light is an alternating set of fields, then it must experience time! Something does not alternate unless it is going through time! But, traditional oscillation involves something going from one state to a similar, but later state. The fields in a beam of light seem to "oscillate" and turn into their original selves! Each oscillating field is its own parent, grandparent and great grandparent! In that way, then, each field can be said to be its own "memory", since it is the "memorial" of what gave rise to it! The closest analog "traditional science" may be able to give is that of a constantly recurring cycle of events, each field alternating, going through phases, and turning back into itself! If light goes through time, it may be time limited to the length of a single oscillation.
And, incidentally, the electrostatic and magnetic fields are not "connected" to any matter, they are disembodied, existing not by virtue of "emanating from" a "source", but, rather, because their oscillation gives rise to the associated field, whose oscillations are giving rise to the original field!
Before you go into any paeans to "traditional science", consider that the average "physicist" looks upon the mutual alternating of fields in a blase and unquestioning manner, just asserting that one field gives rise to the other, but not once addressing the fact that the alternating field that each gives rise to, gives rise to the alternating field itself, meaning that each field is giving rise to itself! The depth of the implications are very handily glossed over regularly, in talking about light. It's perhaps not surprising that the nature of time is far from fully plumbed, by "traditional science".
Another characteristic that seems implicit in what is considered the experiencing of time is seamless and, essentially, predictable sequences of events. A rock rolling downhill does not start at the top, then suddenly switch to being at the bottom, then suddenly find itself back near the top, again. A part of defining time is in terms of dependable processes, a number of which, such as the pendulum, can relate back directly to the measurement of time. If time exists, then something must be able to measure it! The absence of seamless, reliable manifestations can also signify an absence of time. In the quantum world of the subatomic particle, where, essentially, even space twists and contorts chaotically, perhaps there is no experiencing of time! If the particles referred to in Bell’s Theorem - mutually created particles in which, when the state of one is observed, the other, even if light years away, will instantaneously “know”, and take on the matching state - don’t feel time, then they may not be bound by the supposed absolute light speed relationship between distance and time, that Einstein postulates! To whatever extent subatomic particles may act in a time-related manner, it may represent some kind of inherent clock, something, basically, not affected by anything outside.
In many ways, the experiencing of time in the universe can be viewed in this manner: think of every instant of every possible form the universe can take being a separate card, and imagine all the cards tossed randomly on a table. In some way, it almost seems, our spirits have the ability to navigate unerringly from one card to the very next logical one in sequence, and all at the same time! Those who experience visions of the future, or the now apparently commoner and commoner phenomenon of entering a room they never knew existed, then, when they try to find it again, not being able to, may be represented as spirits who got “separated” and momentarily flew through other universe “cards”, before joining the rest, again!
What we call “time” though, does not seem to have much to do with that fundamental description, and, by its nature, it seems to rely on a number of different factors, working together. In many ways, time may be a construct! That change occurs seems true. That change, in general, seems precisely definable, in sequence, also seems the case. And the fact that we can memorialize events also seems evident. All of that together is given the handy moniker, “time”, but it may be that we should view time, not as an individual entity, but, rather, as the end result of those many different facets of the world, acting together, and examine the why’s and wherefore’s of those things existing!
Julian Penrod
I think I'll go and lie down for a bit.
