Time Explained

[Farsight]

I can describe how it happens, but to do that I really need a whole new thread covering the fundamentals of electromagnetism. I can't predict it however, all I can give is postdiction to explain what we see in experiments. Have a look at Williamson's draft paper at http://www.cybsoc.org/cybcon2008prog.htm#jw for an attempt at mathematical rigor - it isn't easy. IMHO what's important first is the experimental evidence. Pair production happens, the electron really does exhibit angular momentum and spin 1/2 and magnetic dipole moment, and Stern-Gerlach fits with a real spin in two orientations. The "not classical" assertion in the wiki article really is a non-sequitur.

[hiyymer]

why c?

[Farsight]

That's just how fast light moves.

[hiyymer]

why c?

Time is simply an emergent property of motion, and light moves, but if there were a universe made entirely of photons there would still be no time. Maybe photons don't move.

[ChildInAZoo]

I can describe how it happens, but to do that I really need a whole new thread covering the fundamentals of electromagnetism. I can't predict it however, all I can give is postdiction to explain what we see in experiments. Have a look at Williamson's draft paper at http://www.cybsoc.org/cybcon2008prog.htm#jw for an attempt at mathematical rigor - it isn't easy. IMHO what's important first is the experimental evidence. ]

How can you look at the experiments as evidence when you can't describe what happens in the experiments?

[Farsight]

I can.

I'll start a thread on the fundamentals of electromagnetism.

[ChildInAZoo]

I can.

I'll start a thread on the fundamentals of electromagnetism.

Will this thread have the rigor required to actually explain these experiments? As you say, "If there's no evidence and no prediction, it remains speculation. One typically requires mathematical rigor to make firm prediction." That paper you linked to seemed to be a little light on both predictions and rigor, but given what you wrote in another thread here, I expect that you will be able to do better.

[Farsight]

Will this thread have the rigor required to actually explain these experiments?

It won't have the rigor you seek, but I hope it will provide explanation. There's an important issue here, and it's this: mathematical rigor does not in itself provide explanation. We see this amply demonstrated in for example QED, where Feynman made it clear that it works, but that the underlying reality was lacking.

As you say, "If there's no evidence and no prediction, it remains speculation. One typically requires mathematical rigor to make firm prediction." That paper you linked to seemed to be a little light on both predictions and rigor, but given what you wrote in another thread here, I expect that you will be able to do better.

I'll do my best. Meanwhile, please do study this Time Explained essay. It is only an essay, there is no rigor. One simply cannot explain time using rigor. Instead one has to focus on the evidence, and take care to distinguish reality from abstraction.

[Coito ergo sum]

Time is an illusion.
Lunch time, doubly so.
-D. Adams.

[ChildInAZoo]

It is only an essay, there is no rigor.

Almost every academic that works in a discipline that primarily uses essays would disagree. Are you suggesting that your proposal is merely some sort of post-modern approach to physics? Are you doing performance art?

One simply cannot explain time using rigor.

Deiter Zeh would seemingly disagree. As would Lawrence Sklar, Huw Price, and a host of others who were able to get academic works published in physics or philosophy peer reviewed journals and through academic book publishers. Even Albert Einstein relied on applying rigor to time in order to produce both the special and the general theories of relativity. This rigor was so impressive that it spawned a whole school of philosophy.

Instead one has to focus on the evidence, and take care to distinguish reality from abstraction.

The subject of discussion here is time, something that must require abstraction because it must cover all physical phenomena. If you have abandoned rigor, as you say, then why should we think that you have anything useful to say? Or is this some sort of post-modern performance art?

[Trolldor]

Are you suggesting that your proposal is merely some sort of post-modern approach to physics? Are you doing performance art?

Performance Physics... my god I think you're on to something!

[colubridae]

One simply cannot explain time using rigor.

Given what's happened in the past, May I respectfully suggest that this statement warrants the thread being moved to a non-serious forum.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

One simply cannot explain time using rigor.

Given what's happened in the past, May I respectfully suggest that this statement warrants the thread being moved to a non-serious forum.

We have another kind of forum?

[colubridae]

Ok.

[Farsight]

One simply cannot explain time using rigor.

Given what's happened in the past, May I respectfully suggest that this statement warrants the thread being moved to a non-serious forum.

Rather than addressing the argument and examining the evidence or offering counter-argument and counter-evidence, we see an attempt at censorship. This is what we expect of religion, not science.