Good Elf wrote:It is important to understand that these affine conformal maneuvers in both directions along the advancing timeline...
What timeline? It isn’t in the snapshot, it’s another abstract thing.
Good Elf wrote:...form a basis for a theory of time itself capable of panning in space and time to any relative coordinate and displaying the interesting part of the universe in relative magnified detail.
I wonder if there’s something circular going on with your reasoning here? Nevermind.
Good Elf wrote:Now the "snapshot" indicates where everything was at an instant in time relative to any observer we may care to choose... notice this simulation records relative motion not as a simple three dimensional blurring in the image but displays only the relative optical position of all objects and their energy relative to the observer (including relativistic distortions due to relative motion).
This feels wrong John. The snapshot says where everything
is, including observers. Think of yourself as a single electron. If you’re moving, your photon configuration is helical rather than circular, and you have a distorted view of everything else.
Good Elf wrote:"Movement in time" is not a sequence of "3D snapshots" played in sequence like a filmstrip but the sequence of quantum events executed in sequence within the "eventscape" by the "program" on the sinks and sources and allowing the systems to obtain a dynamic equilibrium.
Fair enough that the motion/change/events happen. If they didn’t there wouldn’t be an time. It would be a static universe.
Good Elf wrote:One issue is time cannot be presumed to be something uniform at the sub-atomic level as it certainly is not at the cosmic level - but this time we are using is actually a "rate". It is assumed that due to "internal motion" a sub-atomic particle's "internal observer" experiences as separately advancing internal time due to relativity.
That “internal observer” has a clock that clocks up motion. It always comes back to motion. Or change or events, whichever you prefer. Just motion/change/events, not advancing time.
Good Elf wrote:
A typical experimental effect of this internal motion in the real world is illustrated here...Car batteries powered by relativity
While always suspected it was ignored by science for decades. Accelerations at the quantum level of the electrons and their interactions with heavy nuclei affect internal time there and this relativistic time lag leads to macroscopic unbalanced forces that need to be accounted for with "new chemistry". What would we do without batteries? It is guaranteed there are other ignored holographic phenomena will affect the way the world works at the macroscopic scale. Our attempts at total deconstructionism have led us into serious errors we have yet to fully address (that would be for another time to discuss).
I read it, but it gave my browser a problem when I tried to copy a bit out highlighting the importance of light.
Good Elf wrote:A particular time defined as a "point" on a timeline is characterized by all the events that have happened since the "Big Bang"
Again this timeline is abstract. I don't think it helpds to define time using abstractions, they get in the way of seeing what's there. IMHO those events all come down to the motion of light, and 13.7 billion years is a measure of how much moving it’s done as compared to the motion of the earth around the sun.
Good Elf wrote:...and "apparently remains unaffected" (except by certain entanglement processes and their frustrated paths) by events subsequent to the point under this careful scrutiny. I have mentioned some curious issues above that affect this POV. This process we generally call causality.
Good Elf wrote:It is one reason why we mistakenly "see" antiparticles as something quite different from the originating particle. We are not recording the "internal time".
There isn’t any. Just motion.
Good Elf wrote:So practical time is "holographic" meaning it encompasses everything and cannot be completely "deconstructive"... meaning breaking time into smaller and smaller segments and applying them to smaller and smaller locations does not give us necessarily better data... this is what we usually call the quantum effect (Uncertainty Principle ∆E∆T ≥ h). The same distributive process can be seen applied elsewhere but corrected in transmission line theory where distant "radiative sources" affect the transfer of energy to "loads" dependent on the nature of the "line". I believe this to be the way entanglement works - through a co-resonance executed with infinite speed in connection. Generalizing this concept we see the universe and all of it's environs as well as all radiative and absorptive processes as being special cases of an "all-wave" transmission theory involving complex number theory and "open waveguides" having generalized boundary conditions leading seamlessly to modern electronics and even quantum optics such as Feynman's QED. Feynman said it all.
I’m happy with waves, and with “bursting balloons” which are not limited to the speed at which balloons float along.
Good Elf wrote:Time is also an "accountancy of the events" and their associated "resonances" (particle interactions and decays) as Feynman suggested that take us from one place in time to another.
There are no places in time John. Just in space. Waves move in space, that’s all.
Good Elf wrote:Calculus may be employed to derive rates in time and space from point data if required but this is not the way Physics has evolved, we have cast our theories into the mold of rates and it is not easy to notice that there is a frame in which to observe the events around us without this "rate" (the quantum state is without rate as is time when viewed as an eventscape).
Yes, there is no time per se when it comes to subatomic events. Electrons just change orbital, they don’t do it gradually.
Good Elf wrote:it is a frame of events that place into the past all events that have already occurred and might have been observed and into the future any events which are yet to occur (or complete) and this places the observer "time" squarely at a single point along the timeline (effectively between two most immediate events still in the future and in "past tense" the past anywhere in the universe). That defines time as a point along a line segment of progressing time and at a place that is observing it.
The line segment of progressing time isn’t anything real. Events occur in this universe, and we’re part of it.
Good Elf wrote:Unfortunately (or fortunately) this does not provide a direct connection with "clock time"... nature has not provided a universal beat of a clock. Clocks do not actually define this time because clocks apply only where they exist as measurement devices in their respective inertial frames.
They’re like event counters. In some locations events/change/motion occurs at a reduced rate, and we say the clock runs slow.
Good Elf wrote:There are other events happening in the universe other than those generated from the most accurate clocks we can make where time varies unseen. These events happen almost everywhere but the position and identification of this "eventscape" and their associated "particles" define the unique time as well as setting the backdrop of energy that will result in the next events to come (or complete) and the subsequent history of the universe.
Good Elf wrote:In this way there has been an idea that we can change this eventscape in the universe locally in such a way that it is reversed back to any point in time we choose as a kind of time travel
It’s not time travel, it’s just moving things back to the way they were.
Good Elf wrote:this is not true because the universe always moves on externally from the past
It just moves.
Good Elf wrote:thus reversing certain local events (while possible and experimentally verifiable in recent experiments) does not reverse the universal linking of these events with the whole universe... the full holographic perspective. No - that form of time travel is impossible because it is a purely local influence and misses the point about global phenomena.
Good Elf wrote:as in particle and anti-particle reactions... according to Feynman... the internal time of particles may be reversible while the external time of the universe 'ticks on". A universal time cannot be defined as a single reading on a clock, a finite number of clocks could not define the time either, the only reasonable way to define time is through the "setting" of events that led to the present and also to some events that even come from the future.
Eevents don’t come from the future John.
Good Elf wrote:Obvious examples are the Aharanov-Bohm Effect
There’s no mystery to that. It’s just electron optics, as per Ehrenberg and Siday.
Good Elf wrote:and also the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment in which the more distant aspects of the universe can affect the observations non-locally
It’s just that photons aren’t points.
Good Elf wrote:and through Feynman's QED even across time... even into the past.
Sorry, I can’t empathize with this at all.
Good Elf wrote:
One way of accounting for this is through Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory another way to view this same phenomenon is an emitter-absorber theory (emission from a source to a sink) in which "electromagnetic entanglement" occurs - a easily understood transmission line theory of resonance. Light's Most Exotic Trick Yet: So Fast it Goes ... Backwards?
In these "simple experiments" waveguide theory can be shown to support the experimental results that the wave can begin to exit the waveguide before the initiating wave has begun to enter it. Naturally the source and the sink are matched complex
source and sinks and no information actually travels faster than light through the waveguide. For this to happen a theory which involves waveguides is invoked that may be interpreted through the alternative concept of entanglement. The speed of entanglement is infinite and this makes the superluminal connection more easy to understand.
I dislike Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory, there is no time direction. I’m happy with what you’re saying about entanglement in that speed does not apply to the evanescent wave.
Good Elf wrote:
The emission of the photon for instance cannot occur unless there is a co-resonance with the sink "ahead of time". This aspect can be verified as a Bell Violation
(when we use entangled photons - but this phenomenon must also occur with mutually unentangled photons... but remains unobserved since there is nothing special about entangled photons as opposed to unentangled photons... still they are all photons overall) and it occurs in all photon emissions (real and virtual) and at all times regardless of the fact that it is recorded or not and "broker" electromagnetic "transactions" between these sources and sinks. Bell violations (entangled and unentangled) are fundamental and not secondary to the way our universe works.
Attempts at a total deconstructionism will ultimately fail to answer the basic nature of this process which is both instantaneous and global
(separating the source from the remote sinks and unbalancing the "load" results in an impedance mismatch and the photons become entirely "virtual" or evanescent and returned the "near-do-well" photons to the source from whence they came). This global nature of the process means that time is linked to the first processes that have ever occurred as light from the Big Bang arrives on the earth today ... that photon in the big bang came from a primeval source that "launched" that photon towards a sink that would not exist in the correct time, place and configuration till the instant it was received... Bell violations and "entanglement" from the beginning of the universe till now. This also runs both ways and these "unrequited" sinks are currently interacting with sources in the big bang retro-causally
(from a particular point of view) in similar ways that Bell Violations affect the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment
and allow events happening "now" to affect events that have happened in the past.. this is the Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory in action
and verified through the results of current experiments.Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment
Sorry no, Good Elf. This is going way too far!
I'll look at the rest of what you said later.