Do You Look Younger Than Your Ancestors? It's Because Time Really Has Slowed Down
By Hank Campbell | October 2nd 2013 08:34 PM | 36 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments

I'm the founder of Science 2.0® and co-author of "Science Left Behind".

A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone...

View Hank's Profile
It bugs me a little when 'time' is randomly called a dimension in casual talk. Since just after Einstein's relativity, we've been treated to the mathematical idea that time is its own dimension - though Einstein never said that.

The pickle in the ice cream for 19th century physicists was light. Or, to use my other unnecessary metaphor from The Genesis of Supersymmetry, Electromagnetics was the evil Serpent in the mechanical Garden of Eden; Newton and Maxwell did not agree, light did not act as matter should act.  Einstein reconciled them by showing that space and time are relative, and that the speed of light and the laws of physics are the same for everyone, regardless of their motion, like George FitzGerald and Hendrik Lorentz said - because energy and mass are "converted" into each other, which keeps the speed of light constant.

Instead of Einstein or Lorentz, "spacetime" was instead the brainchild of mathematician Hermann Minkowski, who riffed on fellow math guru Henri Poincaré's mathematical wizardry using a Lorentz transformation in terms of Euclidean rotation. Minkowski said since the space is then a pseudo-Euclidean space, that rotation is a representation of a hyperbolic rotation - and then he restated Maxwell equations in four dimensions, which was pretty cool.

But in 1908 he really got going and did his magic by reformulating Einstein's new special relativity in four dimensions, declaring, "Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality." (1)

Time dilation experiment finds that she will be 90 billionths of a second older over a 79-year lifetime. Link: Daily Mail, because who else would have this picture? Credit: Corbis

Since then, there has been a lot of explaining but time and spacetime remains so baffling that it can be argued that time is not mathematically represented by an imaginary coordinate at all and is not even a fourth dimension of space but that space and time are two separate entities. (2)

When it comes to talking about time as a physical dimension, like with clocks, things are no easier. How old are you?  Well, it depends on which epoch you were born in. The spin of the Earth has slowed down through the millennia and therefore so has time.(3) The same 19th century that gave us those breakthroughs in electromagnetics and relativity gave us a relative definition of time that we now know just doesn't cut it: we think in terms of 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour and 24 hours in a day without considering that the day itself has changed.

Earth is turning on its axis 2/1000ths of a second slower than it did in the 19th century. Why does it matter? Well, it doesn't if you are going to a party but, as Ivan Amato, a freelance science writer who runs DC Science Cafe, put it in the Washington Post, modern GPS systems and those speed-of-light radio signals travel about one foot every every nanosecond - so if their synchronization is off by 2/1000ths of a second, your GPS couldn't tell you if you were in Boston or Chicago.

Now imagine heading to Mars. Microsecond changes in the speed of Earth’s rotation could have thrown the navigational precision of the Curiosity Rover off by a mile or more, which might have meant disaster.  The pull of the Moon is the biggest reason our day is a different length than the days Einstein had but that's not all, natural disasters matter too. A team at JPL computed that the Sumatran earthquake of Dec. 26, 2004 moved enough of the Earth’s mass to change the length of an Earth day by almost 7 microseconds.

No wonder Harold Camping was so spectacularly wrong when he tried to calculate the day the world would end - the world had completely different day lengths than when the Bible was written. Amato also interviewed Dr. Thomas O’Brian, chief of the Time and Frequency Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Ph.D. in experimental atomic physics from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, who noted that 200 million years in the future we'll have 25-hour days and 335-day years - time will have slowed down a lot compared to dinosaurs, who had 385 days that were 23 hours long in each year.  A 40-year-old man today will only be 36 then!

It's not the coolest thing about time and relativity, of course - 200 million years is not a practical concept - the fact that scientists can measure how taller people are aging different than short people is.

NOTES:

(1) That really didn't happen. Einstein dismissed the "superfluous learnedness" of Minkowski  (you know, like when you read arXiv papers from someone claiming they have mathematically created time travel) but he did take advantage of the tensor mathematics that made spacetime possible when he began deriving his theory of general relativity.

(2) Amrit Sorli and Davide Fiscaletti. “Special theory of relativity in a three-dimensional Euclidean space.” Physics Essays: March 2012, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 141-143. DOI: 10.4006/0836-1398-25.1.141

(3) It even befuddled the Nobel committee. When nominations for the 1912 Nobel prize rolled around, the debate was whether or not to award a prize for the Theory of Relativity jointly to Lorentz and Einstein or just Einstein, because Einstein put it together but Lorentz had done the early math.

They settled the problem by giving the award to Nils Gustaf Dalen for the "invention of automatic regulators for lighting coastal beacons and light buoys during darkness or other periods of reduced visibility", which shows you that the Nobel Physics committee was as clueless in 1912 as the Peace committee is...well, every year.

The special and general theories of relativity never got a Nobel prize for anyone.

Gravity Probe B - Stanford University

Physicists continue work to abolish time as fourth dimension of space Lisa Zyga, PhysOrg

"Spacetime has No Time Dimension" -- New Theory Claims that Time is Not the 4th Dimension - The Daily Galaxy

I don't think time (or spacetime) is baffling, Hank. Instead what baffles me is how people only get to hear about "the mystery of time" in various popscience books, and don't get to hear about the simple empirical stuff. As it happens we were talking about time on physicsworld recently. Check out the comments. I know Amrit Sorli, and share some of his views. See this paper where I helped him buff up the English.
I referenced his paper. That doesn't mean I am buying it, but I found it interesting.
I haven't read that paper, and I'm not buying it from physics essays. But the "time is change" thing is nothing new. You can track it back to A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein which refers to the 1940s, then to Presentism which dates from 1908, all the way back to Heraclitus in about 500BC. Just open up a clock, and you soon notice that you don't see time flowing through it. You see cogs, or a pendulum, or a quartz crystal, moving. When the clock goes slower it isn't because "time goes slower", it's because the motion is going slower. What you shouldn't be buying is time travel. Or the idea that spacetime is anything other than a mathematical abstraction. It's typically depicted by dropping one space dimension and showing the time dimension vertically. And guess what? There's no motion in it. You can draw a worldline in it to depict the motion of a body through space over time, but there is absolutely no motion in spacetime. It presents all times at once. It is absolutely static. Light doesn't curve because it "moves through curved spacetime". The Earth isn't surrounded by spacetime. It's surrounded by space.
Since you know him, I am sure he will send you a PDF for free.
Sure thing. Meanwhile, what's all this about the spin of the Earth has slowed down through the millennia and therefore so has time. It's the spin of the Earth that slows down. If I snapped my gedanken fingers and sent you to live on some other planet with 25-hour days you wouldn't say time has slowed down. Especially since your clock hasn't. Honestly Hank, read some of those essays about time. Once the empirical view clicks you'll be surprised at how straightforward it is.
Earth is turning on its axis 2/1000ths of a second slower than it did in the 19th century.
99.9% of the audience understands this just fine.
No problem with that Hank. Here's the problem:

"The spin of the Earth has slowed down through the millennia and therefore so has time "

"200 million years in the future we'll have 25-hour days and 335-day years - time will have slowed down a lot "

If the spin of the Earth slows down, the spin of the Earth slows down. Time doesn't. If the Earth stopped spinning, you wouldn't say time had stopped. And here's the important thing to understand from all this. When people talk about gravitational time dilation, they say time has slowed down. But time hasn't really slowed down. Light has slowed down, along with all electromagnetic and subatomic processes. See this interview with David Wineland of NIST: “if one clock in one lab is 30cm higher than the clock in the other lab, we can see the difference in the rates they run at”. He's talking about optical clocks. And in relativity, we use an idealised optical clock called the parallel-mirror light clock. Put one 30cm above the other, and what will you see? The mirrors ought to be tipped backwards just a little, and the light path should be just a little curved. But because there's no detectable tidal force, the tip and curve are the same for both mirror pairs, so we can forget that. Hence with considerable exaggeration to make it plain, here you go:

Now take a look on arXiv.
The main difference between space and time is that space has its physical origin in a 3D quantum vacuum of Planck metrics and time has only a mathematical existence, namelly time is a numerical order of material change which run in a 3D quantum vacuum which itself is timeless in sense that time is not its 4th dimension.
Space-time is the most misunderstood concept in physics of 20th century. Out of formalism X4=ict follows clearly time t is not X4. Time t is only a component of X4. Actually SR can be described in a 3D Euclidean space, see our paper:
SR in a 3D Euclidean space, Pysics Essays.

Fundamental time is a numerical order of material change that run in a 3D quantum vacuum. Emergent time is a duration of material change. In order to exists emergent time needs to be measured by the observer. Time is real but has only a mathematical existence.
Universal space has its origin in a 3D quantum vacuum of Planck metrics where time is only a numerical order of material change. What is really “relative” in the universe is not time but velocity of material change rate of clocks including. Because of GR effect clocks ran on the orbit station for 45 microseconds a day faster than on the surface of the Erath and because of SR effect clocks run for 7 microseconds slower per day. On this facts is based GPS. Both of these effects have origin in variable energy density of quantum vacuum which is depending ona given mass or velocity of inertial system regarding Earth surface (in this case orbit station), see more in this paper:
Relative velocity of material change in a 3D quantum vacuum http://www.aspbs.com/jap/contents_jap2012.htm#v1n1
there is a grammar mistake in this paper, erratum will be published in the next issue, formalism (2) is valid for the energy densiy of quantum vacuum in a center of a given massive object

Amrit Srecko Sorli
Hi Amrit. You're in good company with the variable energy density. See Opticks queries 20 and 21 where Newton said this:

"Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass, crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve lines? ...Is not this medium much rarer within the dense bodies of the Sun, stars, planets and comets, than in the empty celestial space between them? And in passing from them to great distances, doth it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the bodies; every body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the medium towards the rarer?"

But see page 185 of the Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity. Einstein said "the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy". That's saying the energy density increases as you approach the body. Maybe we could talk about this offline? By the way, have you seen The Other Meaning of Special Relativity by Robert Close? He uses the wave nature of matter to explain the SR postulate, and IMHO he absolutely nails it. Thanks for the pdfs by the way.

Hi John,

Gravity is the result of dynamics between a given particle or massive body and diminished energy density of quantum vacuum. See my book “The Physics Of NOW”. There is no such a particle as graviton. Prof. Loinger explain that already a some years ago: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0002267: There are reference frames for which both stars of binary radio-pulsar PSR1913+16 are at rest. As a consequence, PSR1913+16 does not emit gravity waves. (If the accelerated bodies should send out a gravitational radiation, they would represent a class of physically privileged systems. But this is forbidden by general relativity.)

Regarding our discussion on time here: if the Earth changes orbital speed it is not because time run slower. Earth moves in a 3D quantum vacuum and time is a numerical order of its motion. Nothing ever happened in time because time has only a math existence. Fundamental unit of time as a numerical order is Planck time, see articles of our research group published in Physics Essays: http://physicsessays.org/action/doSearch?searchText=sorli

With clocks we measure velocity and duration of events which run in a 3D quantum vacuum. So if the Earth is moving with less speed this does not influences the aging. But if we go on the Moon we will get older faster because energy density of quantum vacuum there is higher than on the Earth and all material change have higher speed than on the Earth.

http://www.learner.org/courses/physics/scientist/transcripts/wineland.html

the different rate of clocks is due to the different energy density of quantum vacuum. Velocity is increasing going away from the surface of the Earth because energy density of quantum vacuum is increasing, see paper:  http://www.aspbs.com/jap/contents_jap2012.htm#v1n1

Amrit Srecko Sorli
All interesting stuff Amrit. I'll check out the papers. Meanwhile I would urge you to take another look at the gravitational waves and the energy density. General relativity is one of the best tested theories we've got. Re gravitons, have you seen Matt Strassler's blog piece? See this: "A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle". The graviton is a virtual particle. Which means it's not an actual particle. But sadly many people think virtual particles are short-lived real particles that pop into existence like magic, before magically disappearing again. QED is also one of the best theories we've got. But like GR, it's attracted some baggage over the years. Have you seen these Einstein quotes by the way?

1911: "If we call the velocity of light at the origin of coordinates c₀, then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential Φ will be given by the relation c = c₀(1 + Φ/c²)”.
1912: "On the other hand I am of the view that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light can be maintained only insofar as one restricts oneself to spatio-temporal regions of constant gravitational potential".
1913: "I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis".
1915: "the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned".
1916: “In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position”.

That's Einstein talking about the variable speed of light. The word "velocity" isn't the vector quantity. It's the common-usage, as per high-velocity bullet. See the general relativity section of this article. Spot the contradiction!

Hi John,

Graviton was never observed being radiated from material object and newer observed being absorbed by material object (as photon).

So its existence is a pure speculation for now…..and already for 60 years.

In our model gravity works perfectly without graviton. And Loinger explain quite clear that GR original version does not allow gravitational waves. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0002267

Sure physicists can still search for them, but I strongly believe they ill not find them.

We know speed of light is not constant (Shapiro) and depends on the energy density of quantum vacuum. Just term “Shapiro time dilatation” is not precise, because there is no time delay, the fact is that light diminishes speed. This interpretation that light speed diminishes because time run slower (and light moves in time as 4th coordinate of space) is one of the biggest misunderstanding in physics of 20th century.

Amrit Srecko Sorli
Amrit: I read the Loinger paper, and I think there are some problems with it. Yes, GR doesn't allow for privileged frames, but the CMBR rest frame is somewhat privileged. One might "choose" a reference frame for which both stars are at rest, but actually, a reference frame is an abstraction. It is little more than a state of motion. The universe exists, we exist, those neutron stars exist, and they are moving around one another. You cannot make that go away simply by moving yourself. And look at this: "It seems that if the background space-time possesses symmetries". There is no background spacetime. That's an abstract thing too. What's out there is space, and motion through it. Then he goes all Machian with this: "He wishes to calculate the watts of gravitational radiation emitted by the rest of the universe, which revolves around him". No it doesn't! Distant stars aren't moving at some vast multiple of c. Nor does Jupiter emit gravitational radiation. Not in a stable orbit, because conservation of energy apples. If Jupiter was in a decaying orbit, conservation of energy means it has to speed up as it gets closer to the sun. If it doesn't, the energy has to be going somewhere. Overall I wouldn't insist that PSR1913+16 must be emitting gravitational waves. But I would say that Loinger's argument that gravitational waves can't exist is inadequate. So I'd steer clear of that if I was you. As for gravitons, none of the "messenger particles" actually exist as real particles. Hydrogen atoms don't twinkle. Magnets don't shine. Note this on the wiki gluon article: as opposed to virtual ones found in ordinary hadrons. Virtual particles are field quanta, not real particles. See comment 4 on this physicsworld article for my rough take on it. It's like you represent the field with a grid, and say each square is a virtual particle. A virtual photon is any square that's skewed. A virtual graviton is any square that's shortened. And guess what? The skewed squares are shortened too.

Hi John,

That clocks are getting more precise amuses me. But we have to know:  “Time is what we measure with clocks”. With clocks we measure numerical order of material changes and their duration. In this view numerical order is the “fundamental time” which has only a mathematical existence. Duration of a given material change is the “emergent time”which requires measurement of the observer and so has also a physical   existence.

Fundamental time is not a fundamental arena in which material changes run and is not a part of space-time which is merely a math model; it is only a mathematical parameter of universal changes. When measured by clocks fundamental time emerges as a duration of material changes. This understanding of time bridges timeless approaches in physics of Rovelli’s, Barbour’s, Elze’s, Girelli’s and Liberati’s and Sindoni’s, Caticha’s and  Prati’s views and is not in contradiction whit any of them; more than that it embraces Newtonian physics too.

Amrit Srecko Sorli
I'm not sure about Barbour, Amrit, and some of the other names are unfamiliar, but I agree with that. Talking of Newtonian physics, note how Newton's description above is essentially the same as Einstein's. Light curves like a car veers when it encounters mud at the side of the road.  See Ned Wright's web page and note this: "In a very real sense, the delay experienced by light passing a massive object is responsible for the deflection of the light".

IMHO the GR deflection is twice the Newtonian deflection because of the wave nature of matter. Think of an electron as a wave going round and round at c, then simplify it to a wave going round a square path. Only the horizontals bend.

Hi John,

according to my understanding bending light has longer path and so needs more time to pass distance from A to B. But it speed remains unchanged.

What has measured Shapiro is most interesting. When light moves in stronger gravity its speed diminishes a bit. I do not think because of some “reference frame” of observation or because of “time dilatation” or “curvature of space”.

NASA research confirms that universal space is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error: “Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCOBoomerangMaxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe”. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

Must be that curvature of space in GR is just a mathematical model for energy density of a 3D quantum vacuum from which universal space emerge. And diminishing of energy density caused by stellar objects causes light speed diminishes a bit.

Amrit Srecko Sorli
Curved spacetime, not curved space, but otherwise yes. Apart from that little issue of whether the energy density increases or decreases, but let's not dwell on that. The Shapiro delay is said to be nine-tenths "timelike" and one tenth "spacelike". That means it's mainly down to light going slower when it skims the sun. Light doesn't curve because spacetime is curved, Einstein didn't say that. He said it curves because the speed of light varies with position. Have a look at his 1920 Leyden Address where he said this: "recognition of the fact that 'empty space' in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gμν". If you dotted parallel-mirror light clocks throughout an equatorial slice through and around the Earth, then plotted the clock rates, your plot would depict the gravitational potential, like this. The curvature you can see is essentially Riemann curvature. It isn't a curvature of space, it's a curvature of the inhomogeneity of space. That's what curved spacetime is. The light clocks near the Earth don't run slower because your plot of light-clock rates is curved. They run slower because the space down there is different. Because the energy-density is different. Google on inhomogeneous vacuum and take a look at http://iopscience.iop.org/0256-307X/25/5/014. A gravitational field isn't curved space. You know what is?
What are you people talking about? Stop pretending you are Pauli and Einstein rolled into one with a fat dollop of edgy Mach-type philosophy on the side.

That Loinger guy seems cranky too. Looks to me like he's implying that gravity propagates at infinite speed, and that's probably just for starters. Then he cites Weyl:

“Zunächst stellen wir fest, daß der Begriff der Relativbewegung zweier Körper gegeneinander in der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie ebensowenig einen Sinn hat wie der Begriff der absoluten Bewegung eines einzigen. [...] Wie die beiden Körper sich auch bewegen mögen, immer kann ich durch Einführung eines geeigneten Koordinatensystems sie beide zusammen auf Ruhe transformieren.“

BUT NOT ALL THE TIME AND EVERYWHERE.

"Accordingly, let us choose a reference frame for which both stars of PSR1913+16 are at rest. Evidently, an observer Ω dwelling in such a system does not record any emission of gravity waves."

YEAH, he will just feel a slight elongation and compression of his (static) body. The fact that his rather specially chosen coordinate system tells him that this doesn't actually happen doesn't make the feeling go away.

We're talking about gravity. When you understand A World without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein then read what Einstein said, you understand general relativity. The stress-energy-momentum tensor describes the state of space, note the energy-pressure diagonal. The metric tensor describes your measurements in space. See above. Curved spacetime isn't curved space, it's a curvature in your plot of measurements in space.

I wasn't impressed by that Loinger paper myself. I think Amrit should give it a wide berth.

A brief History of miss-understanding  of space in Physics

In 19th century physicists thought that universal space is filled with some fluid called “ether”. Light was considered to be a vibration of ether. By the end of 19th century Michelson and Morley carried out an experiment to verifying light is really a vibration of ether. Experiment was based on the preposition that Earth moves through the ether. It gave negative result. So in the beginning of 20th century ether was thrown out of physics. Nobody was considering that maybe ether around the Earth moves with it and so negative result of Michelson experiment.

In 20th century idea prevailed that light can propagate through the “empty space” which has no physical properties. Universal space has become a secondary physical reality somehow dependent of matter.

In order to explain gravity Einstein has “geometrized gravity” and gravity force was interpreted as a result of space curvature. In order to explain “spooky action on distance” Einstein has invented the idea of “gravitational waves” which sure move through “empty space”.  These waves are searched for last 60 years with no result.

Gravity is not understood fully yet. I believe in order to be so, we need reinterpretation of space in physics; namely also “empty space” needs to have its physical origin. The best model of space which have physical characteristic so far is a space constituted out of grains of a Planck volume.  In this model we can elegantly describe inertial mass and gravitational mass as the result of diminished energy density of space caused by the material object itself.

Light has a constant speed regardless we move towards the source or away from it because light is a wave of space in which sorce of light exists and in which we move. Relative velocity of change have origin in a variability of energy density of universal space which somehow we call “quantum vacuum of Planck metrics” as this term is more used in physic.

In this new understanding of space in physics time has only a mathematical value, so all discussions of time travel are out of question. Hawking’s  “protection” in order not to be able to travel in past makes no sense.

In SR we have coordinate time and proper time what is quite a mess. Here in a 3D physical space of Planck metrics we have only “relative velocity” of change we measure with clocks and all functions beautifully in the frame in Galilean transformation for X, Y and Z and Selleri transformation for t; without “length contraction, time dilatation” and the idea of SR of a “privileged reference system”. GPS shows clearly there in no privileged reference frames: http://physicsessays.org/action/doSearch?searchText=sorli

The beauty of physics is its ability to reinvestigate existent ideas and models and on the base of new experimental data and theoretical insights abolish old concepts and build up the new one. Space-time where time is considered to be a 4th physical dimension of universal space is a most misunderstood and most misinterpreted concept of physics of 20th century.

Still we are holding on it as a drunker holds a fence. We are somehow not able to see that formalism X4 = ict itself confirm time is not and cannot be interpreted as a 4th dimension of space. Still new generations minds are filled with this misunderstanding. To become a good physicist one need to reexamine his ideas every morning before entering the lab.

Regarding our understanding of space we are burdened with miss-concepts that are preventing us to go ahead. Definitely considering space-time as a fundamental arena of the universe does not fit into the physics life of 21th century.

Space is real, space is physical and is a medium in which massive objects and particles exist. And time in this picture is only a mathematical parameter of numerical order of material change, i.e. motion in space.

Amrit Srecko Sorli
If you consider models in which proper time occurs, then it is one step further to consider a model in which all proper time clocks are synchronized. The result is a paginated model. The whole model steps from one static status quo to the next one. In this model progression ticks with a fixed step and this step corresponds to a maximum (super-high) frequency. As a consequence this model tolerates phenomena that occur at a super-high frequency. Such phenomena withdraw from observation. For example it is possible that in this model super-high frequency waves exist that transport information. These waves cannot be observed, but their averaged influence might be noticeable. These influences will then stay unexplained.
The disadvantage of proper time is that in a model with curved space, proper time cannot be measured, because that measurement involves the travel of the information from the location of the observed event to the location of the observer. The characteristics of this path will in general not be known. In contrast coordinate time can always be measured.

This deliberation shows that in reality phenomena exist that occur at super-high frequency and that cannot be observed, but whose effect influences our universe in an observable way. Without the paginated proper time model these phenomena cannot be comprehended.
If you think, think twice
Hi Hans,

On the base of experimental data there is only a "proper velocity" which we measure with clocks. Velocity does not change in time, it changes only in a 3D quantum vacuum. So called “relativistic velocity” has origin in a variable energy density of quantum vacuum, see my paper:
Relative Velocity of Material Change
into a 3D Quantum Vacuum - Journal of Advanced Physics
Vol. 1, pp. 110–112, 2012
Considering time a 4th dimension of space is the source of many troubles of today physics. Time has no physical existence;  it is only a mathematical parameter of material change in a 3D quantum vacuum, see my articles in Physics Essays.

yours amrit
Amrit Srecko Sorli
AmritAs I already indicated, proper time cannot be measured directly.
I came to the paginated model by pursuing a completely deduced model, which for that reason is based on a solid foundation. For that purpose quantum logic is used.
See http://vixra.org/abs/1309.0190 for a sketch of the design of the model.
If you think, think twice
I agree with much of that, Amrit. But don’t blame Einstein or relativity. Blame the people who "reinterpreted" it. Yes Einstein did away with the luminiferous aether in 1905, but introduced a gravitational aether in 1911, and kept it. Look on the arXiv. Note this in his 1929 history of field theory presentation: "The two types of field are causally linked in this theory, but still not fused to an identity. It can, however, scarcely be imagined that empty space has conditions or states of two essentially different kinds, and it is natural to suspect that this only appears to be so because the structure of the physical continuum is not completely described by the Riemannian metric". Einstein believed space was a something, not a nothing, and he didn't believe in spooky action at a distance. Nor did Newton. Newton said this in a letter to Dr Richard Bentley on 25 February 1692: "That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it”. Oh, and you know how Michelson and Morley didn't detect anything? Well, they used an interferometer. LIGO is an interferometer.
Hi john,
thank you for your expertise. I'm more intiutive.
In a few month our research group will publish article on:
Energy density of quantum vacuum is a origin of mass and gravity.
We will have a lot of fun.....

yours amrit
Amrit Srecko Sorli
Nice talking to you Amrit. I could talk about mass until the cows come home, but that would take us further off topic. What I think is really interesting about all this though, is that when you see time for what it is, other things become much simpler.
John, as Barbour says: Right understanding of time is a third evolution of physics.......
Amrit Srecko Sorli
Here is the latest joke about traveling into future........http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/13/time-travel-possible-physicist-machine-future-only_n_3921944.html
no one can travel in time as time has no physical existence. Time travel are out of question. One can travel in space only.......
Amrit Srecko Sorli
Time travel makes good copy, Amrit. Anyway, you know how Hank mentioned Minkowski? Take a look at  Minkowski’s Space and Time. Towards the back is this:

“In the description of the field caused by the electron itself, then it will appear that the division of the field into electric and magnetic forces is a relative one with respect to the time-axis assumed; the two forces considered together can most vividly be described by a certain analogy to the force-screw in mechanics; the analogy is, however, imperfect.”

See how he says the field? And did you see that mention of a screw? OK, see section 11.10 of John Jackson’s Classical Electrodynamics and see the bit where he says “one should properly speak of the electromagnetic field Fuv rather than E or B separately”. E is usually drawn with radial field lines, and B is usually drawn with concentric field lines. But they aren't fields. Like Minkowski said, they're forces. They are the result of field interactions, and they are linear and rotational forces. The field concerned is the electromagnetic field. Ever seen any depictions of the gravitomagnetic field? Like this? To depict the electromagnetic field, combine the radial and concentric lines. Like this:

Replace Minkowski's time axis with relative motion, and think cyclones and anticyclones. They move linearly together, and/or rotate around one another. Check out positronium.

In their paper, Sorli and Fiscaletti argue that, while the concepts of special relativity are sound, the introduction of 4D Minkowski spacetime has created a century-long misunderstanding of time as the  of space that lacks any experimental support. They argue that well-known  experiments, such as those demonstrating that clocks do in fact run slower in high-speed airplanes than at rest, support special relativity and time dilation but not necessarily Minkowski spacetime or length contraction.
According to the conventional view, clocks run slower at high speeds due to the nature of Minkowski spacetime itself as a result of both time dilation and length contraction.
But Sorli and Fiscaletti argue that the slow clocks can better be described by the relative velocity between the two reference frames, which the clocks measure, not which the clocks are a part of. In this view, space and time are two separate entities.
“With clocks we measure the numerical order of motion in ,” Sorli told Phys.org. “Time is 'separated' from space in a sense that time is not a fourth dimension of space. Instead, time as a numerical order of change exists in a 3D space. Our model on space and time is founded on measurement and corresponds better to physical reality.” Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space.html#jCp

Oh good, finally a scientific explanation of time existing independently of space that makes sense to me. I have never been able to comprehend the absurdity of time as a fourth dimension of space, it is obvious that it has to be completely independent of space.

Surely it shouldn't matter how we observe the universe whether it is with our eyes or through a telescope or any other measuring device, we will always only be able to perceive past events relative to their various detectable spectrums and then we will only ever be able to make deductions as to when  these detectable items from those events were emitted and exactly how long ago that was and what they even were?

If I clap my hands it is NOW everywhere in the universe, it has to be! And one heartbeat or second or whatever unit after I have clapped my hands it is one heartbeat or second or whatever unit later in time all over the universe regardless of what we are able to detect from that universe's past from anywhere in the universe using whatever apparatus natural or man made.

Surely its a simple fact that even a child can understand, that now is now everywhere in the universe regardless of who is observing it and with whatever apparatus :)

My latest forum article 'Australian Researchers Discover Potential Blue Green Algae Cause & Treatment of Motor Neuron Disease (MND)&(ALS)' Parkinsons's and Alzheimer's can be found at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
Dear Helen,
Einstien says: …there is something essential about the NOW which is just outside the realm of science. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.

The fact is that fundamental arena of the universe is a 3D quantum vacuum where time has only a mathematical existence as a numerical orderr of change. This is so called "fundamental time". Time as a duration of change needs measurement and we call it "emergent" time.
Universe is timeless as already predicted by Kurt Godel.
I wrote a book on the subject: The Physics of NOW,
without "time dilatation" lenght contraction", time travel" and similiar ideas. The whole point of "Relativity" is in variable energy density of quantum vacuum caused by the presence of a given material object or particle.

Amrit Srecko Sorli
I wrote a book on the subject: The Physics of NOW,
without "time dilatation" lenght contraction", time travel" and similiar ideas. The whole point of "Relativity" is in variable energy density of quantum vacuum caused by the presence of a given material object or particle.
I think I will buy a copy of your book 'The Physics of Now - Eternity is NOW' Authored by Amrit Sorli, unless you think it would be way above my head as a laywoman who enjoys physics but who has never studied it to degree level? The bibliography says :-
Amrit Sorli is an independent researcher. His main contribute to Physics is new interpretation of time: time we measure with clocks is real, but it has only a mathematical existence, namely time is a numerical order of change that run in a 3D quantum vacuum of Planck metrics which itself is timeless. Time is not its 4th dimension. Emergent time as a "duration" of change is a result of the measurement done by the observer. The duration of change does not exist without measurement. Universe does not run in time, on the contrary time is a numerical order of universal changes which run in a timeless quantum vacuum. Eternity is NOW.'
'The most important goal of contemporary Physics is certainly the unification of Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. This is also the hardest one substantially because the two theories are based on incompatible concepts of space and time apart from the different application scales. This happens since General Relativity is based on general covariance principle, while Quantum Mechanics on superposition principle that are theoretically incompatible.'
'The main difficulties arise because in the Theory of Relativity space and time are interpreted as physical coordinates of the fabric of reality, namely the space-time, inextricably related and relative to the observer's motion, while in Quantum Mechanics time is an absolute mathematical parameter external to the physical system described by a wave function that "lives" in a mathematical abstract space, the Hilbert's space, having no direct reference with the physical space we experience. In this excellent essay Amrit Sorli exposes an innovative approach to this problem as simple as interesting, according to which universal space is composed by elementary Planck volumes, constituting the fabric of physical reality, in which time plays the role of a mathematical quantity giving the numerical order of change and no longer represents the fourth space-time coordinate.'
All of that makes sense to me and fits in nicely with my rant about the concept of now in time above :)
BTW the link to your CV on your Science20 profile doesn't work it brings back the error message  'The requested URL /bibliografije/Y20131008192207-91689.html was not found on this server.'
My latest forum article 'Australian Researchers Discover Potential Blue Green Algae Cause & Treatment of Motor Neuron Disease (MND)&(ALS)' Parkinsons's and Alzheimer's can be found at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine

In no way a model can give a precise description of physical reality. At the utmost it presents a correct view on physical reality. But, such a view is always an abstraction.
Physical reality is very complicated. It seems to belie Occam’s razor. However, views on reality that apply sufficient abstraction can be rather simple and it is astonishing that such simple abstractions exist. Complexity is caused by the number and the diversity of the relations that exist between objects that play a role. A simple model has a small diversity of its relations.
Mathematical structures might fit onto observed physical reality because its relational structure is isomorphic to the relational structure of these observations.
The part of mathematics that treats relational structures is lattice theory . Logic systems are particular versions of lattice theory. Classical logic has a simple relational structure . However since 1936 we know that physical reality cheats classical logic. Since then we think that nature obeys quantum logic, which has a much more complicated relational structure. Mathematics offers structures that are lattice isomorphic to quantum logic. One of them is the set of subspaces of a separable Hilbert space.

The conclusion of this deliberation is that physical reality is not based on mathematics, but that it happens to feature relational structures that are similar to the relational structure that some mathematical constructs have. That is why mathematics fits so well in the formulation of physical laws. Physical laws formulate repetitive relational structure and behavior of observed aspects of nature.

Neither quantum logic, nor its lattice isomorphic companion, the set of subspaces of the separable Hilbert space, has natural means to implement dynamics. Thus, the first extension step is to construct a dynamic model. This can be done by taking an ordered sequence of these static sub-models as a base for the dynamic model. This would result in a paginated model.

Contemporary physics did not take that decision. Instead it tried to implement dynamics by making either quantum states (Schrodinger picture) or operators (Heisenberg picture) time dependent. Dirac as well as Jordan showed that both views are equivalent.
Lorentz and Einstein introduced the spacetime model, which is more complicated than the paginated model.

Quaternions entered the model via the work of Piron and Soler, who proved that the inner products of Hilbert spaces must be constructed with members that are taken from a division ring. Only three suitable division rings exist: real numbers, complex numbers and quaternions.

Quaternions fit the paginated model better than the spacetime model.

In a paginated model all progression clocks are synchronized. The model steps from one static status quo to the next one. The disadvantage of this model is that the clock that ticks at an event cannot be observed directly because that information must first travel from the observed location to the observer. This is no problem when the speed of information transfer and the curvature of the information path is exactly known, but in general that is not the case.
The spacetime model uses the clock that ticks at the location of the observer. The reading of that clock is always possible.

In the paginated model it is possible to consider the possibility that all of universe is recreated at every progression instant. A fixed progression step corresponds to a (super-high) maximum frequency. Phenomena that occur at this frequency cannot be observed. Only their averaged effect can be observed.

For example in the paginated model super-high frequency waves can exist that carry information from source to destination. These waves cannot be observed, but their averaged effect can be noticeable.

A spacetime model tends to hide these non-observable phenomena. Their effects stay non-comprehended.

If you think, think twice
Hi Hans,
i went through your papers at vixra which are really promising.
Yes i fully agree with you that physics should be build on the logic which originates from the physical universe.
In our model by  EPR phenomena information transfer is immediate and is carried by the mathematical universe which is non-material. We introduce tri valent logic: a given phenomena can be A (matter), B (energy) or C - mathematical universe which rules physical universe belongs to C.
Amrit Srecko Sorli
In my model the role of what we experience as our curved space is played by a field. This field can be represented by a function, which has a flat 3+1D parameter space. That parameter space can be thought as to be spanned by the real quaternions. These quaternions can be considered as a combination of a real scalar and a real 3D vector. The scalar plays the role of progression.

The field acts as a continuum that embeds a large number of discrete objects that represent the building blocks of the model. I have given the combination of this field and the set of building blocks a special name: "Palestra". It is the arena where everything takes place.
In the paginated model the Palestra is recreated at every progression step. That recreation is not done very precisely, otherwise no dynamics would take place. On the other hand sufficient coherence between subsequent steps must exist, otherwise the model would result in complete chaos. Keeping coherence is the task of an external correlation mechanism that controls the recreation process.

The result of the imprecise recreation is that the building blocks walk along a stochastic micro-path. The action of the correlation mechanism lasts a fixed number of progression steps. If after this cycle the building block has returned to the same location, then the building block is considered to be at rest. Otherwise the building block is considered to move.

Also the embedding field is affected. Each time that a building block is re-embedded the field is curved around that location and that curvature spreads out. This is caused by the fact that at every embedding a message is emitted that contains information about the presence and the properties of the building block. That message is transmitted in the form of a wave front that leaves its source with the highest possible speed. The wave front slightly folds and thus curves the embedding field.

The wave fronts are recreated at every progression step. This process is controlled by Huygens principle. This mechanism describes how information is transmitted. It also describes how the curvature of the field is generated.
The wave fronts combine into super-high frequency waves. Only the averaged effect of these waves become noticeable. These influences appear as the potentials of the building blocks.

The micro-path of the building block corresponds to a stochastic 3D distribution of locations where the building block can be. This distribution can be described by a continuous object density distribution. This object density distribution characterizes the building block. It corresponds with the squared modulus of the wave function of the building block.

If you think, think twice