Time And Relativity

[Max™]

Max .... if the flow of time itself is changed by the motion of the system, then your view is referring to linear motion, How does your view apply to rotational motion ?

It isn't the flow of time.

Here is a little known fact about Relativity: it is not about the speed of light, it is not about the perspective of observers, it is about the relationship between motion through space and motion through time.

Time doesn't flow, it is a direction, I pass through time. It doesn't pass me.

I move to the left, left doesn't pass me.

Rotational motion from one frame of reference is linear from an arbitrary observer trailing behind the plane of rotation. This is a simple type of relativity actually, and applies to the relationship between motion and gravity just as well.

A rapidly rotating object is akin to a rapidly accelerating object as a change of direction is an acceleration. This would increase it's interaction with the three spatial directions, which thus reduces it's interaction with the temporal one. It would move slower across time than an otherwise identical non-spinning object.

I could go into further explanations of the spread of an object through time, and how this is all related to matter being composed of folded volumes of spacetime, but I'm still seeking a better way to describe those concepts for people who aren't riding along inside of my head with me.

[Graybeard]

It isn't the flow of time.

Here is a little known fact about Relativity: it is not about the speed of light, it is not about the perspective of observers, it is about the relationship between motion through space and motion through time.

Not as little known as you may think ? I agree that its not about the speed of light, but I think it is about all observers measuring the same as well as the relationship between motion through space and motion through time..

Rotational motion from one frame of reference is linear from an arbitrary observer trailing behind the plane of rotation. This is a simple type of relativity actually, and applies to the relationship between motion and gravity just as well.

I find this difficult to picture .... If you were trailing a rapidly rotating object which spins about an axis, or whose orbit causes it to pass thru its point of origin with every revolution, then your own mass must be affected (thru proximity plus your own acceleration ) ... how do you make the same measurement as linear ?

Recently you pointed out that:

Bell showed that the Universe cannot be local AND causal.

I do not say Bell is invalid, again. I say the idea of a local, causal universe is invalid. It must be non-local, and causal, as current theories are attempting to describe.
or
It must be local, and a new description of causality must be found, as I am attempting to describe.

When I replied that Bell's theorem only showed that the universe cannot be local and said nothing about causality... (acausal ?) you neither agreed nor disagreed. As you never replied directly to this point I took it that you saw them as similar terms or a difference not worth disputing. Which, I admit is no great problem.

But now you are saying that an acausal solution plays a part in your theory, a big part as the hinge between GR and QM rests on it.

I made my prediction based on my model of matter as folded volumes of spacetime. This model came about when I began considering an acausal (rather than non-local) resolution to the hole between GR and QM.

Do you now see a difference between these terms ? How can it be 'It must be local, and a new description of causality must be found, as I am attempting to describe.'

and at the same time your model has an 'acausal (rather than non-local) resolution to the hole between GR and QM.

In my own ideas, the difference between acausal and non-causal shows either a weak link in QM or will turn out to be the lynch-pin everything hinges on ... So, to me, the distinction is critically important and not just a semantic difference ?

Ta for your ideas

cool bananas ... greg

[Max™]

Acausal meaning causality is not absolute.

Events in the past from your perspective are not immutable, again, I'm trying to find better ways to present these ideas for others. It seems natural to me to say acausal, or retrocausal, or extended temporal interaction.

It's much harder to make sure I'm communicating the intended concept appropriately.

[G_burnett]

Acausal meaning causality is not absolute.

Events in the past from your perspective are not immutable, again, I'm trying to find better ways to present these ideas for others. It seems natural to me to say acausal, or retrocausal, or extended temporal interaction.

It's much harder to make sure I'm communicating the intended concept appropriately.

I think you are doing pretty good Max, just don't go religious on me lol ..

[AntonioLao]

The ancient time reckoning was the daily movement of the sun which rises from the east and sets in the west. Relatively speaking, as one travels toward the rising sun one should possibly get younger. On the contrary, Western legends almost always have their heroes riding toward the sunset as the end of twice retold old tales.

[Graybeard]

It's much harder to make sure I'm communicating the intended concept appropriately.

My understanding from our various conversations so far is that you accept the Bohm interpretation, and attempting to add relativity to it in some form ?

Would you agree with this ?

greg ?

[Max™]

Not exactly.

Bohm postulated that his hidden variable was "a pilot wave".

I liked the direction he went in, but not his destination.

I postulate that the hidden variable is the summed state of the particle over the period of time it interacts with.

More massive particles have a minor spread along time, and accordingly a well defined location in space.

Light particles, electrons and photons, and such. They are embedded deeper into time than our flashbulb awareness is able to observe.

The act of observing one slice of such a particles broader "now" disturbs it.

The actions taken before and after the observation interact with it and each other, and the uncertainty principle emerges naturally. As well as entanglement, wave particle duality, and decoherence.

[G_burnett]

i follow this max, maybe lol

interesting,

do you think the broader now is a density question and possible solution base?

kind regards graham

[dleviwing]

It would appear that someone is attempting to place an ontological interpretation to time as if it were some hidden entity of the universe. Time is an intrinsic universal acausal term without substance or interaction with any physical entity. Its perception is dependent on the relative motions of both the observed and the observer. One should not attempt to merge subjective elements of measure (Relativity) with the objective measurements of quantum physics.

Quantum theory does not need to account for subjective Relativity; it does however, have a need to provide and explanation for an accelerated clock running slower.

[labelwench]

have a need to provide and explanation for an accelerated clock running slower.

Hmmmmm.......I have accepted that I am never in the wrong place at the wrong time, regardless of my own or another's perception of same.

"Now's as good a time as any!"

labelwench