The Physical Nature of TIME

THE PHYSICAL NATURE OF "TIME" - Part 1

A paper submitted by Tal D. Noble, Director of

"The Astrophysics Group --- West"

and this associated web site.

INTRODUCTION

I am reminded of the old Zen parable of the three Buddhist monks who were arguing about a waving flag. The first monk said that the flag was moving, not the wind. The second monk said that the wind is moving, not the flag. And then the third monk smiled and offered that, "It is neither the wind nor the flag that is moving --- it is your minds."

Throughout most of human history there have been legions of philosophers, poets, artists and religious leaders and even some serious scientists rising to the call for debate over the nature of "time" (& motion), very much in the manner of those three monks. Some have told us it is strictly a "mechanical" measurement. Others will suggest that it is an endless series of very real physical events. And there are those who will say that it is only biological phenomena --- it's only in our minds.

Today, serious science is still not in complete agreement on this issue. However, there are some fairly basic understandings that are usually agreed to. To begin with, "time" is often referred to as a measured duration. It is also often defined in terms of "change." In the classical sense, it is described as flowing like a river, independent and unaffected by our activities. That would be a more objective definition.

In the more subjective world of thinking beings, "time" is felt to be moving faster or slower for various individuals depending on a variety of things, such as the rate of the body's metabolism, and even the frequency and/or intensity of outside stimuli. Often this sort of thing has led to the assumption that "time" itself was strictly a creation of the mind.

Since serious science observes rather carefully and asks a lot of meaningful questions, less ethereal conclusions have been made in this last century. In 1915, Einstein expanded on his general theory of relativity and most definitely included "time" as a very important factor.

One of his postulates of this theory states that the fabric of space/time, in the vicinity of a large mass, is curved. This "curvature" can be observed affecting the motion of other bodies in the vicinity in a way that is manifested as what seems to be a force. We call that the force of gravity. Another tenet of Einstein's relativity theory notes the slowing of "time" at high speeds.

We now are somewhat used to the idea of "time" as the fourth dimension. We measure the length, width and depth of that which we wish to define in its place in space and we now recognize the importance of its fixed position at the time of measurement. "Time" has become a valuable consideration.

Now I would ask you to step back a bit from the mathematics and from much of the usual technical nomenclature. With recognition of the imprecise nature of human language, I would ask you to travel with me down this road of discovery with words and an attempt at some very special logic.

ANOTHER WAY OF DESCRIBING "TIME"

It is not difficult to see "time" as "events" that we, and our instruments record, and the universe shows as the changes that are made as a result of these "events." It has therefore been understandably suggested that "time" could be described as the orderly passage of events.

If we can accept this as a reasonable postulation, then we might ask ourselves what do we observe actually occurring when we see this orderly passage of events? All our powers of observation, all of our devices, everything that we have to apply to this shows us but one thing. It shows us "motion."

It's all we observe from deep space, to our own solar system, to the matter and energy around us, to the subatomic particles. It's all a matter of "motion" and nothing else do we find. It's all we are aware of.

And "motion" is everywhere from the vibrations of the subatomic particles to the retreating galaxies in deep space. By way of example, in the time it takes for a heartbeat, approximately one second, the Earth has moved about 18 1/2 miles in orbit around the sun and light has traveled the distance equal to 7 times around our planet. In addition, the planet Earth rotates on its axis at almost 1,000 miles an hour. The Earth revolves around the sun at approx. 66,000 miles per hour. This entire solar system is moving toward the star "Vega" at about 12 miles per second (about 43,200 miles per hour). Our Milky Way galaxy is traveling toward the Great Andromeda galaxy at around 50 miles per second.

Our total movement (for you and me and everyone else around here) represents a figure of around one million miles per hour. "Motion" seems to be everywhere and in everything. In fact, as far as our discoveries have revealed so far, it really seems that it is all there is. At least that's all we find of anything, anywhere. Matter or energy; it doesn't matter --- all that we find is "motion."

The next step is to closely examine this thing we call "motion." What are we actually seeing when we see what we choose to describe as "motion?" Might you say that you observe an object moving to a different position with regard to other objects in the vicinity? And what is that action? What is actually happening when that occurs?

Are we not seeing measurable change in the amount of space between that which we are observing and everything else? Does that not suggest that "motion" is most likely best described as being changes in the volume of space between all things? ("Things" being everything from objects and points of measurement to energy in all forms --- in other words, everything.)

With all of this in mind, with everything previously considered, one might not find it too difficult to come to the realization that "time" is the orderly passage of events that we recognize as "motion," which we can see as the change in the volume of space, which is all we find the universe to be. One might also submit that all of what we think of as energy and matter are only manifestations of such changes and what we used to think of as the universe, on our level, is really not that at all.

Everything that "is" seems more and more to actually be something well beyond our concept of what we think we see. We only find changes in the volume of space between what seems more and more to be anomalies we call matter and energy. And such anomalies (if that's what they are) are forever between endless changes in the volume of space and are, themselves, only internally expressed changes in the volume of space. It is indeed a very strange universe.

It is like a very strange dream and yet it just might be our first fitful moment of genuine awakening. It flies in the face of our more comforting construction of reality, yet it may be the opening gambit to a new and wondrous age.

And so what have we done here? We have started this describing of "time" and we have ended up with the one single thing the universe seems to be --- "time."

AFTERTHOUGHTS

Is this truly the way things are? Maybe so and maybe not. This is actually an examination that this writer did originally over a half a century ago. It was not then able to be shared with the scientific community nor the public because, as you may know, we were then a long way from where we are now. Such ideas were not at all acceptable -- not even a little bit.

Until recently, our understanding of the universe has been very limited. This has, in turn, limited the acceptability of many new ideas and new ways of seeing things. This paper would have been laughed off as a work of science fiction. Now, the times, they are changing.

Now we are looking back in time toward the edge of the universe (if there actually is such an edge) and we have also discovered the Alice-in-Wonderland rabbit hole we call quantum mechanics. Our discoveries are forcing us to examine and reexamine everything we believe, everything we have cherished for so long. Our minds are being forced open by the sheer weight of what we are finding.

Now is the time that papers of this nature can be shared and, so far, this writer has found that much of the new physics is not really all that much in conflict with this presentation. So, what should we consider this exercise to be? Think of it as a simple, non-mathematical presentation of observation and logic, intended to introduce this subject and this approach to a curious general public.

If you are a physicist, you no doubt understand this little exercise and can appreciate what we are doing here. And I am sure you are aware of the many flavors of differential equations that should be able to expand on such concepts as this, and of course mathematics might possibly also be used to suggest other directions as well.

If you are not involved with any of the more scientific disciplines, but you are curious and would like to explore and learn more about it all, then please do accept this as an offering for your consideration. There are a growing number of scientists who are now willing to do a reasonable job of communicating with you. Please consider this contribution to be made in that spirit.

And, to the professionals -- I offer this as a possible beginning in a very interesting direction. After over half a century, it may be about time.

"The Physical Nature of Time"

By Tal D. Noble, Director of

"The Astrophysics Group --- West"

The "American Communication Arts" organization

"The Physical Nature of Time" - Part 2

   In the first part we explored "time" by way of observation and logic. In doing so, certain conclusions seemed obvious to some and not to others. Even professional scientists differed in these areas. It has been an interesting exploration.

   Some professionals have suggested that it is something that should be considered as obvious. Some have even said they feel that it may not be that much new information. (They are evidently unaware that the concept was first developed, by this writer, over half a century ago and only recently, with what we have learned since, have some found it to be acceptable.)

   And there are professionals who seem to feel that it is not all that obvious at all. Some give the impression that they feel time to be quite different --- as perhaps a different mathematical construction or even a psychological phenomenon. And it puts off others because it was stated in the less precise word essay form rather than with equations.

In this second part, we hope to make it a little clearer, a little more precise. And, toward that goal, let the following be examined:

This "structural breakdown" gives you a simple, clear approach. If it proves to still be unclear to some, we would suggest a rereading of the first part of this paper on this subject once again.

The "TIME" Concept in the World of Physicists

   It should be surprising to no one that this particular way of looking at "time" has garnered its share of supporters, doubters, and even some individuals that just don’t seem to be in the same world in any way shape or form. It is what has often been found to be the more immediate result of new concepts, different approaches or any new ideas, even though they might be based on observation and logic.

   Things like this take time to settle in, to be proven false when they can be or properly established when all else fails. Not to worry. It’s an often reasonably normal process that our somewhat convoluted species uses to separate the wheat from the chaff.

   By way of example, I recall my brief encounter in the foreboding jungles of the "Physics Forums." This writer found every sort of reaction and a notable degree of uncertainty when its inhabitants were faced with this somewhat different way of looking at things.

   To help them through the logical processes one must follow, I submitted additional comments that you might find to be of interest. They are as follows:

   A few of you seem unfamiliar with the concept of an ‘orderly passage of events.’ Well, what is being discussed here is all the stimuli of your awareness. That is to say, the ‘events’ are whatever you become aware of as something that happens.

   That also means everything from the patterns of motion that produce everything, from human memory to geological evidence on a much longer scale. In many way, events can be simply described as everything that happens.

   And it is often spoken of as an ‘orderly’ passage of events because we find, so far, that all that happens most certainly does seem to follow the laws of nature that we have been learning about for quite a number of years now. It is all ‘orderly’ in that sense. All things seem to follow an orderly pattern of rules.

   So, this ‘orderly pattern of events’ represents the benchmarks for establishing the existence of and the chronological listing of all these things into what Hawkings has referred to as ‘time’s arrow.’ It’s what we have perceived from this complex, omnipotent pattern of ‘motion.’

   And, what do I mean by a ‘volume of space?’ There are a number of ways you can put that. If you are a mathematician, you might choose to speak of it as the measurable area between points from which measurements are taken. I speak of it as a ‘volume’ only because I don’t want anyone to think I’m talking about some sort of linear measurement.

   What we are talking about here, is our notation of the change in the amount of space between all things (in all directions — the total volume). And, of course ‘things’ represents anything and everything you can use as a benchmark for your measuring process. That means anything — a particle, an atom, a planet, a galaxy, and any form of energy that can be identified and located.

   And what do I mean when I define ‘time’ as ‘motion?’ What I am saying is that any manifestation of ‘time’ that one can experience is something that we have found to be patterns of ‘motion’ (the ‘events’ that I spoke of). And this, in turn, has been found to be the changes in the measurements of the amount of space between all points of measurement. Whether noted by our natural senses or by our most sophisticated instrumentation, it ends up being what we find.

   One of the ways to begin to observe and recognize the validity of this is to ask yourself the question — What, in all of the universe, are you aware of that is not ultimately definable as these changes in the distance between everything and everything else?

   We are talking about everything from the suggested undulations and vibrations of ‘super strings,’ all the way up to the accelerating expansion of the entire universe. And we are talking about how we see so many of these patterns of motion (changes in the amount of space) unfolding before our eyes and how we think of it in terms of the passage of ‘time.’

   And yes, I realize that all of this would seem to suggest that possibly the entire universe is nothing more than the changes in the volume of space between everything and everything else and that you and I and all else that we are aware of are but anomalies of a sort, upon the actual fabric of the universe, which is well beyond our seeing or understanding at this time.

   And so it went. And some seemed to understand and some did not. That is the way of such things. Not everyone can immediately reach out with understanding to such a different sort of place. These things take time.

   I trust this has been a significant presentation for you. I hope it has stimulated your "grey matter" to move in all sorts of new directions. This sort of study most certainly works such miracles of discovery for many thoughtful souls.

   Now let us imagine what this particular concept might someday mean to a civilization that has only been able to experience space travel through the application of the ancient "action-reaction’ principle. What new forms of locomotion might be possible, when seeing things from this rather different perspective?

   There are some rather adventurous thinkers in the science community who are already speculating about the possibility of developing a kind of 'warp' in the most immediate area surrounding a space craft --- and kind of warp that will allow greater amounts of 'space' to be 'exchanged' from the front of the craft to the rear of the craft.

   This writer would dare to suggest that such an exchange, should it prove to be possible, might create a change in position that brings us well beyond the limitations of 'slower than light-speed' travel.

   This type of thinking is encouraged by a growing understanding of 'space' as force, substance, fabric, or some similar form. This is the same sort of reasoning that thinks less and less of galaxies accelerating away from each other and more and more that the space in between is what is really doing all of this energetic expansion.

   Could this be the beginning of a thought process that could end up giving us the stars? We don't really know --- but it might be a possibility.

   And there is so much more that we might wonder about. So much more.

An original writing by Tal D. Noble

Professional debate is invited.

Members have direct phone contact and receive special opportunities, newsletters, etc.